24 Apr 2024, 06:09 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 01:50 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike, I cannot believe you would not be 90% happy buying the nicest Marquise on the market I'm not buying a plane that is slower and shorter range than I have now. Quote: We are only supposed to buy aircraft that meet 80% of our missions Whoever said that is a boring person of mundane aspiration. Once you start with that premise, I logically end up flying on the airlines. If I can't reach my goal of non stop westbound, then I'll back off to non stop eastbound and one stop westbound. It doesn't take very many west coast trips to be 20% of my miles. 2 round trips per year would do it on a 100 hour MU2 year. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 01:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I really don’t even know how to process MC not being an MU2 guy. Honestly, I would have bought a 441 from the start, but it was 3 to 4 times the price at the time I bought the MU2 (2008). Now it is under double, maybe getting closer to 1.5 times, so the value proposition is improving. The 441 sure looks good when you compare operating costs against a Citation. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 08:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13101 Post Likes: +6970
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I really don’t even know how to process MC not being an MU2 guy. Honestly, I would have bought a 441 from the start, but it was 3 to 4 times the price at the time I bought the MU2 (2008). Now it is under double, maybe getting closer to 1.5 times, so the value proposition is improving. The 441 sure looks good when you compare operating costs against a Citation. Mike C.
Have there been any recent MU2 sales that support that multiple? I’ve been wondering how the recent fatals might affect the fleet pricing.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 12:41 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/28/09 Posts: 14152 Post Likes: +9098 Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Be interesting to hear what was involved in the Centex fuel tank mods, maybe they’ll chime in! Speaking of, won't a KingAir 200 with the Centex tanks do this mission?
_________________ http://calipilot.com atp/cfii
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 13:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Have there been any recent MU2 sales that support that multiple? I’ve been wondering how the recent fatals might affect the fleet pricing. Listings on controller.com: Marquise listed for $850K Marquise listed for $835K Marquise listed for $695K -10 P model listed for $650K -10 N model listed for $840K K model (-6) with ADS-B, G600 listed for $385K (engines runout) Solitaire listed for $700K Solitaire listed for $675K Solitaire listed for $525K Those seem like pretty robust prices, even near $400K for a runout -6 K model. Granted they are asking prices, but still, pretty good. If you compare a 441 to the Marquise, which seems reasonably comparable, the 441 multiple has changed quite a lot. Back in 2008 when I bought my MU2, a good Marquise was $400-500K, 441 was $1.5M. Now Marquise is $700-800K, 441 is $900-1200K. The SFAR and safety record helped the MU2, the SID hurt the 441. I also think a lot of 441 drivers are moving upwards to Citations. What is missing in the above list is a -10 3 blade (K or M) airplane. Those do not stay around long and often get sold off market. My list of "call me first if you sell" is about 10 people long as a -10 M model is a particular configuration with lots of benefits. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 13:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike, you're an engineer. The cheapest way out of this problem is to just design and STC an aux fuel tank for the MU-2. Prob cost you $100K to do - a lot cheaper than a 441. And then you could sell it to all the other owners. Won't work. Not enough useful load to carry the fuel. No where to put the fuel near the CG. To make my plane do the trip non stop would take 1500 lbs more fuel. Ain't no way I can find a place to do that and I'd be 300 lbs over gross with no cabin load. The 441 wins due to FL350 enabling low fuel flow, slightly faster, and 730 lbs more fuel. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 13:34 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Speaking of, won't a KingAir 200 with the Centex tanks do this mission? I have not run the numbers, but I doubt it based on being PT6, lacking FL350, being slower, lacking useful load when Lacking FL350 cruise Lacking useful load when tanks used Lacking speed Having extra fuel burn from PT6. I'm sure the 441 still wins due to much higher efficiency. The range profile says, at max power cruise, range of 2150 nm doing 306 KTAS at FL350 in still air, with a MGTOW takeoff (about 700-900 lbs cabin load). Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 17:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/14 Posts: 2152 Post Likes: +1644 Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike, you're an engineer. The cheapest way out of this problem is to just design and STC an aux fuel tank for the MU-2. Prob cost you $100K to do - a lot cheaper than a 441. And then you could sell it to all the other owners. That’s what I was thinking; Mits with drop tanks.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 19:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No one ever talks much about he the Garrett powered B100's. What's the issue with these planes? They are coveted by a particular sect of airplane owners. King Air cabin with TPE331 economics. But they are a bit of a mixed religion, kind of like serving kosher to a baptist. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 19:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/14 Posts: 2152 Post Likes: +1644 Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
|
|
Baptists aren’t concerned about Garrett’s, Kosher or King Airs, just the next pot luck dinner. Gluttony isn’t a sin is it?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m? Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 20:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 2899 Post Likes: +3608 Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Eclipse is a very quiet jet, a true headset free jet, but even the Mustang, especially for frequent flyers is an everyone should wear headsets kind of plane. Sure wouldn't expose my kids to that level of noise on a regular basis. I disagree with your observation about the Mustang. My passengers never wear headsets and have never asked for them. I've had the sound pressure measured in cruise flight, and it's only 75dB for all six seats. Hardly a level that warrants headsets.
Did you note where when and what type of Db testing you did, 75??. Using dBa's I saw a low of 79 and a high of 86 during flight, 91 on takeoff in the Mustang with 83 in cruise. Using 468, which may reflect more obnoxious tones, cruise was 84, which is a time limited noise exposure. I found it quite uncomfortable, certainly much louder than my aircraft with noise cancelers and for someone that uses my ears in my job, I would not expose myself to that. Nor would I expose young kids. Their ears are more fragile, and they have no idea of knowing what hearing loss at 70 years of age means to quality of life. For comparison using the same device, my P46T is certainly louder, running a low of 77 in low power conditions, 87 in high speed cruise and up to 91 on takeoff, too loud for headset free use. Mustang is a nice plane though. 2-3 dBa's louder then the M2 (edited not with the windscreen air on), and on par with some seats on some commercial airliners.
Attachment: 2017-12-14_16-55-04.jpg
Attachment: 1 (6).jpg
Attachment: 1 (7).jpg
Attachment: 1 (8).jpg
Attachment: 1 (9).jpg
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Chuck Ivester Piper M600 Ogden UT
Last edited on 14 Dec 2017, 20:04, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|