BeechTalk - BT - A Comparison of the Cost of Flying Various Airplanes

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 08:40

Username Protected wrote:

.....and it's safer :peace:

This must be part of the initial...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 09:19

Username Protected wrote:

Tony, I am worried, though, that you might be raising the bar for the level of civility in BT discussions of the relative merits of various aircrafts.
These seem to generally devolve into personal attacks, long tone deaf lectures on how great the MU-2 is or twin versus single arguments...

Patrick,

Tony is thoughtful and thorough; that is why he has a Cirrus with a chute. No financial analysis was needed to justify that position....

Tim (let's see if we can now start twenty pages on the merits of a chute and the financial aspects of it)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 09:20

Username Protected wrote:

If you seek to know what something really costs you can't ignore depreciation any more than you can ignore the cost of capital.

Ha. I do both.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 09:21

Username Protected wrote:

If you trim capability, then compare the PC12 against a KA250...

Try again.

Tim

Spear, where you been?

KA250 vs PC12 is a not even a contest.

KA250 with full fuel won't even carry a pilot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 09:23

Username Protected wrote:

(The PC-12 is a rare exception, so far, it's a great plane with great utility and no competition in its niche. It is manufactured by a company which has innovated slowly and managed production well to maintain scarcity, and when they have come out with a new product they have priced it higher, [not at the same price, to the detriment of legacy owners.]) You might even catch a good stretch of years where prices are flat or actually appreciate, it helps to be buying during a financial crisis or buying something well depreciated already (that 700B had lost over 50% of its initial purchase price since new, before slowing the rate of decline). Or, you might catch a hell of a bad stretch of three years time, where everything is down a ton. The biggest way to protect yourself from this risk is to buy stuff pretty well depreciated already.

I am reminded of a rather entertaining and enlightening posting in the TBM owners forum by a rather disappointed owner who had bought a new plane and sold it years later. He provided all of his operating costs, including depreciation (realized, not some accounting figure), and his total ownership costs were a significant multiple of the widely distributed TBM or AVEX published numbers. The guy lost his shirt. Should he have believed the marketing numbers? Of course not.

I'm not quoting marketing numbers on the PC12. A 2001 PC12 would sell right now for what it originally sold for in 2001. It's just a matter of looking at the marketplace (Controller).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 09:26

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus. G1 arnav vs. G5 perspective is a substantial difference. PC12 sn 001 vs PC12 serial now ... very similar functionality.

Cirrus has out innovated everyone no doubt. But all you have to do is look at Flightaware any given time of the day to see Cirrus and PC12 the most common aircraft flying. Pilatus is at the top of the pile in terms of innovation.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 09:28

Username Protected wrote:

Do you really need full fuel to go 800 miles? Go back the OP requirements...

Tim

800 miles? That's a short hop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 09:30

Username Protected wrote:

You can fix the load problem on the king air 250 with paper.

You write the check and get the magic paper that makes you legal to carry more.

Or you can just buy a king air 300 or 350.

But why would you? No cargo door. Smaller cabin. 2X the gas to go the same speed.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 11:15

Username Protected wrote:

Pilatus is at the top of the pile in terms of innovation.

You mean, like the Cessna Caravan?

If we are using frequency on Flightaware as a metric for "innovation", then that naturally follows.

In other words, popularity and innovation are not actually correlated (and may be anti correlated in fact).

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 11:40

Mike, I believe that Pilatus is an innovative company as far as airplanes go. The 24 will be another great seller. The PC12 NG is an innovative airplane (all things considered) with their thought process both from a flying and maintenance perspective.

The caravan was first launched in 1982. That's close to 35 years ago.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 13:44

Username Protected wrote:

You can fix the load problem on the king air 250 with paper.

You write the check and get the magic paper that makes you legal to carry more.

Or you can just buy a king air 300 or 350.

But why would you? No cargo door. Smaller cabin. 2X the gas to go the same speed.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 14:09

Username Protected wrote:

Because it has two engines!

That's fine if you want to hang your hat on it but that's an EMOTIONAL response not backed up by numbers.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 14:20

I dont think the PC12 has innovated much at all, and that is the beauty of it. It was almost perfect from the very beginning. They have added a bigger engine and a glass panel, thats about it. Its hard to improve on virtual perfection. Very much like the C172, it hasnt changed much over the years.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 14:31

For those who thing Pilatus hasn't innovated..... How much do you think Beech has innovated the KA over the years?

My point is I don't think perceived "lack of innovation" really applies much in aviation. Things change so slow in aviation that it's easy to perceive it as "lack of innovation".

Cirrus has innovated more than anyone but still delivering basically the same airframe since day 1.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Dec 2015, 14:56

Is it just me or doesn't this look pretty innovative??