I realize the data doesn’t exist, but it would be fascinating to know how many active 61.58s there are for each type.

Robert

Same with MU2 and Commanders.

That is one reason I got a Citation, being able to hire pilots to fly it if I need to.

Mike C.

Hey Mike! Hope you are well and ready for a Merry Christmas!

The downside of blocking someone is that you might accidentally agree with them!

So if I'm following this logic correctly, a KA200 would be better than a c90 because of the enhance range?

I think my next step is to go talk to the people at Indy Regional (KMQJ) and Metropolitan (KUMP) and check out the pilot / maint situation at each. I'm guessing there will be more support for a twin or jet at KMQJ with 6000' of runway vs. the 4000' at KUMP?


One of the mistakes you can make is buying the most plane that just DOESN'T do the primary mission. You need to be sure you cover that well or the exercise will be frustrating.

On that point, way too many people look at the range figures for the type and assume the plane will do that range.

Nope.

The range figures are under ideal conditions, with no wind, with full fuel, with unabated climbs and descents, at long range cruise power settings, at max altitudes, with ideal alternates, and so forth.

Everything will take away range. Headwind. Flying at normal cruise speeds. Routing. Limited climb and descent profiles. Reduced fuel load for cabin weight. Weather requiring more reserves.

A good general rule is buy a plane with 50% more range than your primary mission. Then you primary mission will be doable close to 100% of the time.

In this case, the poster has a primary mission of Indy to KSRQ or KVNC. About 800 nm with routing. You need at least a 1200 nm plane to do that reliably, and maybe more if you take a lot of cabin payload.

The NBAA IFR range of the Mustang is 963 nm. It will end up not doing that trip non stop some number of times. A CJ1 NBAA IFR range is 1127 nm, it would be a better fit and do that flight probably 95% or better. A CJ2 is 1648 nm, so it easily does this trip non stop, but the price is quite high for those.

One of the reasons NBAA made the NBAA IFR profile was to force some sanity in the range specs for airplanes. The brochure numbers were overpromising.

I've never heard an owner say his plane had too much range. I've heard the opposite a lot.

Mike C.

Brian,

I own a B200 and love it. I carry more than your passenger load and carry it farther than you need to. I would definitely choose it over a C90 - maintenance and fuel costs will be similar. You will never come up short on range. King Air pilots and maintenance are easily found - more than any of the jets.

But for your budget, I’d recommend a jet. You won’t notice the speed difference on the short flights, but you will save time on the longer ones. You’ll get higher above the weather with a lower cabin. Your fuel burn will be significantly higher, but it’s inside your budget. Jets are safer than twin turboprops.

4000’ of runway is plenty for a B200 and most of the jets that are under consideration.

I’m happy to answer any questions you have about personal B200 ownership. For the jets, there are a lot of owners of different types on here. I’d listen to the people with experience and not the guys who have read the spec sheet on Wikipedia.

Jim

Brian,

I own a B200 and love it. I carry more than your passenger load and carry it farther than you need to. I would definitely choose it over a C90 - maintenance and fuel costs will be similar. King Air pilots are easily found.

But for your budget, I’d recommend a jet. You won’t notice the speed difference on the short flights, but you will save time on the longer ones. You’ll get higher above the weather with a lower cabin. Your fuel burn will be significantly higher, but it’s inside your budget. Jets are safer than twin turboprops.

4000’ of runway is plenty for a B200 and most of the jets that are under consideration.

I’m happy to answer any questions you have about personal B200 ownership. For the jets, there are a lot of owners of different types on here. I’d listen to the people with experience and not the guys who have read the spec sheet on Wikipedia.

Jim

And speed. C90s are slow and when you are in a headwind, that's painful.


KTYQ and KUMP are good choices.

I would also include KMQJ. There's a shop there that maintains legacy Citations and probably CJs as well.

KEYE and KIND will also have resources. KHFY on the south side possibly too.

Finding 2 or 3 contract pilots would be enough. They just have to be within decent driving distance, say 60 to 90 minutes away, so they don't have to be really local to you.

You can download the airmen database and sort on zip code and ratings to get a list. This only works for jets because they have type ratings, doesn't work for find turboprop pilots.

It is ideal if you can base at your maintenance shop. That helps a lot, particularly if you need a pilot to move the plane for you. There is a Textron service center at KIND which may come in handy.

The potential exists you can find someone looking for a partner. Then you can get into an arrangement where the leg work has already been done for airplane, pilot supply, shop, airport base, hangar, insurance, etc. You might ask around about that, too.

Mike C.

Plenty of longer runway alternates nearby for the very few times this will be an issue. There is 7000 ft at KTYQ, and 11,200 ft at KIND.

4000 ft wet wouldn't bother me too much in the V with thrust reversers. The adders for wet are very small, under 100 ft and sometimes zero. The Mustang and CJs without TRs are another matter.

Mike C.

My recommendation would be to watch flightaware, and see what kind of legs are being flown in the particular aircraft models you are interested in. I spent quite a bit of time doing just this on several of my past aircraft. I also talked to several owners whom are actually flying the particular aircraft I was interested in, and got first hand knowledge. My best advice, is to not get talked out of a particular model, by someone who has no experience in it. I was almost talked out of the Mustang, due to its range. After talking to actual owners, and getting real life numbers, I am very happy I didn’t listen to the naysayers. A good example of this, I am entering my 5th year, and on my second Mustang. I have made my 1000nm milk run well over a hundred times, and have only had to stop for fuel ONCE. Over a 99% success rate, and it seems I am still being told the Mustang can’t make that trip, and that actually it is a 800nm or less aircraft. 800nm is what I was getting out of my Meridians.

That's a great idea, never thought about doing that.

Which two airports?

Mike C.

Only reason to not own a jet is you simply can not afford it. If you can then there is no reason to be in a plane with props.

The speed, climb rate, the ver weather, safety, and comfort are worth every penny.

My flight yesterday was so nice and quiet. Made Van Nuys to Provo in 1:26 and so easy to fly and manage. Was 584nm trip. Could I have had other planes that make that trip yes, but I like the extra range when needed. Also nice to not have to plan for fuel to the gallon and stress about it.

I have topped off my tanks with 4500lbs of fuel many times. Sometimes to make a long trips and others to not have to buy expensive fuel at destinations.

You can drive yourself crazy with all the options in aviation. But there is nothing like
Flying a Jet, period.

I have a buddy that just upgraded from his TBM to a Mustang and can not believe how much better it is.

Mike

This is probably a simple question, but it doesn't seem to have been answered in anything that I have directly read. When you say a jet is safer than a twin, is that because the engines are more reliable or because a single engine failure is easier to deal with in a jet?

It seems like I've seen a few articles about twin engine planes going into a spin when they lose one engine, so is that what you mean?



Brian,

I own a B200 and love it. I carry more than your passenger load and carry it farther than you need to. I would definitely choose it over a C90 - maintenance and fuel costs will be similar. You will never come up short on range. King Air pilots and maintenance are easily found - more than any of the jets.

But for your budget, I’d recommend a jet. You won’t notice the speed difference on the short flights, but you will save time on the longer ones. You’ll get higher above the weather with a lower cabin. Your fuel burn will be significantly higher, but it’s inside your budget. Jets are safer than twin turboprops.

4000’ of runway is plenty for a B200 and most of the jets that are under consideration.

I’m happy to answer any questions you have about personal B200 ownership. For the jets, there are a lot of owners of different types on here. I’d listen to the people with experience and not the guys who have read the spec sheet on Wikipedia.

Jim

An engine loss in a twin prop can be deadly and at minimum higher work load.

In a jet it’s a non event. You just keep flying and still has great climb performance even if you don’t notice the engine is not making thrust. In a twin prop it takes fast action to stay alive and then you are not in a great performance position.

In my opinion the only added risk in a jet is how fast it climbs and some guys can get in trouble in dark or IMC climbs if they are not proficient on instruments.

Night departures for me in black holes takes more brain power than normal departures. The acceleration and G’s are more to deal with. But you can always slow down, which I do on challenging departures.

I was always stressed in a twin prop on departure. Not at all worried in the jet.

Totally different world. And passenger comfort is amazing. Quiet and smooth.

Mike