banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 14:37 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 539 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 17:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/27/10
Posts: 10861
Post Likes: +6883
Location: Cambridge, MA (KLWM)
Aircraft: 1997 A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
... the new tax "reform" bill under consideration in conference committee and likely on the President's desk by Xmas removes SS1031 exchanges
Like kind exchange isn't a factor for me.
It may be a factor for you in that the seller of the next plane may be affected by it [if they're upgrading to bigger or newer] or to the extent that the entire market might be perturbed by the change.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 18:36 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/21/08
Posts: 5429
Post Likes: +6114
Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
That sounds extremely, insanely high, to be honest. But possible. Where are these numbers from?

Shop that did an OH on a 400LS. About 3 years ago. Included R&R, and all the "while you are in there" stuff. Basically an invoice more than the hull value.

Note that the big block PT6 (PT6A-6x series) also is very expensive to overhaul. A Cheyenne III with PT6A-61 came in at $525K/each for overhaul. This was 4 years ago.

When you get into the more than 1200 thermodynamic HP class, they costs go way up. If I am going to spend that kind of money, it better not have a prop.

Mike C.

A friend of mine just hung a new -67 on his PC12. Roughly $350k including a new 5 blade MT prop.
_________________
I'm just here for the free snacks


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 18:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
That's not bad at all. Didn't know it was so cheap. That prop alone is $70K

Correction.... the Hartzell 5 Blade is $70K. I don't know about the MT.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 18:44 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
A friend of mine just hung a new -67 on his PC12. Roughly $350k including a new 5 blade MT prop.

Out right or exchange?

Getting a new PT6A-67 for $350K is amazing deal. PWC quoted me a price of $1.2M for a new outright PT6A-67A in 2010.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 18:49 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1562
Post Likes: +1781
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
Username Protected wrote:
There is not enough difference between a Conquest and your MU-2.

There is a difference if you want to fly 1600 nm non stop, or carry more than 6 people. The 441 does both very well.

If my mission was 1200 nm, 6 people, at the same time, then there's no better plane than my MU2 for the money.

Quote:
You have the airplane buying bug or what is better known as Jet Fever!

The fever exists all the time, the problem is the ability to pay for the treatment. I can pay more for my treatment than I could in the past, plus I need more treatment for my business.

Mike C.


Mike,

Are you at all concerned about the sturdiness of a Conquest in comparison to what you are used to? Is there no way to get a Marquise with extended Fuel for what you want to do?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 18:53 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/21/08
Posts: 5429
Post Likes: +6114
Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
A friend of mine just hung a new -67 on his PC12. Roughly $350k including a new 5 blade MT prop.

Out right or exchange?

Getting a new PT6A-67 for $350K is amazing deal. PWC quoted me a price of $1.2M for a new outright PT6A-67A in 2010.

Mike C.

I assume it was an exchange. He bought the plane in England with a run out engine and bought the new one after getting it back to the states.
_________________
I'm just here for the free snacks


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 19:28 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Are you at all concerned about the sturdiness of a Conquest in comparison to what you are used to?

To some degree, yes. The reputation is that the Conquest is a bit lightly built, so I wonder how robust it is in real life. It did have the tail issue early on, but I believe that has been adequately resolved.

On the flip side, a 441 is 500 lbs lighter than my MU2 and it a bigger airplane, so that helps with all things related to weight (climb, OEI performance, speed, runway use, useful load, range).

I think the 441 is built well enough that I won't be exercising its limits.

Quote:
Is there no way to get a Marquise with extended Fuel for what you want to do?

No way to do that. The Marquise cabin puts the 441 to shame, but there's just not enough fuel to compete on range, and the 441 goes quite a bit faster than a Marquise.

The lightness of the 441 is evident when you compare it to a Marquise. Both planes hold about the same people, 10-11 or so.

441 empty weight is 6350 lbs typically, Marquise is 7800 lbs. Somehow Mitsubishi found a way to put 1500 lbs of extra aluminum in the Marquise. Roughly the same engines, props, batteries, radios, tires, ACM, etc. It is all in extra aluminum. On the plus side, the Marquise is uber robust. On the negative side, it is too heavy which results in short range or limited payload.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 19:34 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1562
Post Likes: +1781
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
Username Protected wrote:
Are you at all concerned about the sturdiness of a Conquest in comparison to what you are used to?

To some degree, yes. The reputation is that the Conquest is a bit lightly built, so I wonder how robust it is in real life. It did have the tail issue early on, but I believe that has been adequately resolved.

On the flip side, a 441 is 500 lbs lighter than my MU2 and it a bigger airplane, so that helps with all things related to weight (climb, OEI performance, speed, runway use, useful load, range).

I think the 441 is built well enough that I won't be exercising its limits.

Quote:
Is there no way to get a Marquise with extended Fuel for what you want to do?

No way to do that. The Marquise cabin puts the 441 to shame, but there's just not enough fuel to compete on range, and the 441 goes quite a bit faster than a Marquise.

The lightness of the 441 is evident when you compare it to a Marquise. Both planes hold about the same people, 10-11 or so.

441 empty weight is 6350 lbs typically, Marquise is 7800 lbs. Somehow Mitsubishi found a way to put 1500 lbs of extra aluminum in the Marquise. Roughly the same engines, props, batteries, radios, tires, ACM, etc. It is all in extra aluminum. On the plus side, the Marquise is uber robust. On the negative side, it is too heavy which results in short range or limited payload.

Mike C.


I realize its not cost effective or even possible but it would interesting to know how high the Marquise could operate and what that would do to range and speed assuming you could get RVSM. My guess is that the small wing would not allow the AOA to remain low enough at higher altitudes to move through the air in an efficient manner. Induced drag increase too much of a penalty. I am no engineer so interested to hear your thoughts. Seems much of the range form the 441 comes from FL350 (and more fuel).

Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 19:42 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5520
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:

You buy an airplane for business use (complicated to prove, set up and not expose yourself to tort liability - see a specialist attorney/tax advisor). You pay $5mm.

If used (again, subject to strict IRS rules) 100% for business purposes, you can deduct the entire purchase price on a straight line basis over 5 years (i.e., in this example $1mm per year).

Assuming you have at least $1mm in income each year that you can deduct against, you pay no income tax on the $1mm in income (technically it's removed from your "taxable income" - see your 1040 form for that line). Let's say your income tax average rate is 30%. You would be saving $300k in taxes each year under this scenario. There are some additional nuances regarding carry-forwards and deductibility phase-outs, and possibly alternative minimum tax etc. but that's essentially it.

If you sell that asset (the $5mm plane), you must "recapture" the depreciation to the extent of resale price. So, if you sell the original $5mm aircraft for $4mm, you would owe $1.2mm (essentially, it's a bit more complicated than this) to the IRS in that tax year.

The SS1031 exchange provisions let you (again, subject to some transactional rules) buy a "like-kind" asset and not recapture the depreciation to the extent that the new asset is equal or greater in value to the old one.

So, assume you sell your (original) $5mm aircraft and buy a new $8mm aircraft. You pay no recapture and you now get to depreciate the $3mm difference again over the next 5 years.

Under the changed rules (as I currently understand them), these like-kind exchange rules are removed for aircraft (and all other capital assets except real estate). So, sell you $5mm aircraft and pay the IRS back for the depreciation (to extent sale is equal to purchase price). You could then begin depreciation on the $8mm aircraft over 5 years.

It works about to about the same except for timing and time value of money (which can be substantial and/or prohibitive depending on circumstances).

The ultimate game (was) to keep stepping up, then die, leaving a very expensive aircraft to your heirs, who got a "step up" in basis, wiping out the depreciation penalty.

One can argue that these provisions are actually bad policy since planes do not depreciate to -0- in fact in five years. It was/is a special interest tax provision to favor manufacturers of expensive capital equipment (not just planes but also construction equipment, manufacturing machines, etc.).


Thank you, Norm!

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 19:58 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I realize its not cost effective or even possible but it would interesting to know how high the Marquise could operate and what that would do to range and speed assuming you could get RVSM.

The Marquise was originally certified to FL310. The time to climb chart shows it can't make it there at MGTOW. The wing is simply too small.

With the proposed new RVSM rules using ADS-B, we may see what it can do. I doubt the Marquise will go there often, the RVSM access for the short body airplanes would be useful (Solitaire was also certified to FL310).

Quote:
Seems much of the range form the 441 comes from FL350 (and more fuel).

The 441 improves range over a Marquise by being lighter, climbing faster, having more wing area, cruising faster, cruising higher, and carrying more fuel.

It all adds up to nearly double the range.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Last edited on 14 Dec 2017, 19:47, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 20:03 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/14/09
Posts: 6071
Post Likes: +3313
Company: tomdrew.lawyer
Location: Des Moines, IA (KDSM)
Aircraft: 1973 Baron E55
Mike, I cannot believe you would not be 90% happy buying the nicest Marquise on the market instead of a jet. Totally pimped out, less than $1MM and you already know you can fly it without concern for operating costs. Get a total entertainment package for your passengers. We are only supposed to buy aircraft that meet 80% of our missions so you would be way ahead of the crowd. If you are loaded up show a movie, fly 800nm then get gas and food, do it again and you are there. Everybody has a smile on their face.

No way you need 1600nm and more than six passengers over on 80% of your trips. :peace:

_________________
C340A/8KCAB/T182T
F33C/E55/B58
PA 28/32
Currency 12 M: IPC/BFR, CFII Renewal


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 23:26 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1562
Post Likes: +1781
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
Username Protected wrote:
Mike, I cannot believe you would not be 90% happy buying the nicest Marquise on the market instead of a jet. Totally pimped out, less than $1MM and you already know you can fly it without concern for operating costs. Get a total entertainment package for your passengers. We are only supposed to buy aircraft that meet 80% of our missions so you would be way ahead of the crowd. If you are loaded up show a movie, fly 800nm then get gas and food, do it again and you are there. Everybody has a smile on their face.

No way you need 1600nm and more than six passengers over on 80% of your trips. :peace:


I had this same thought. I realize it’s always easier to solve everyone else’s problems but this solution makes so much sense. I really don’t even know how to process MC not being an MU2 guy.


Last edited on 13 Dec 2017, 23:44, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 23:41 
Online



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7253
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Mike C. without an MU2... and the one day Penman and JC will move out of the PC12... BT will never be the same.

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 23:57 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1726
Post Likes: +2048
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:

I realize its not cost effective or even possible but it would interesting to know how high the Marquise could operate and what that would do to range and speed assuming you could get RVSM. My guess is that the small wing would not allow the AOA to remain low enough at higher altitudes to move through the air in an efficient manner. Induced drag increase too much of a penalty. I am no engineer so interested to hear your thoughts. Seems much of the range form the 441 comes from FL350 (and more fuel).


It would probably struggle like the 690A/B Commanders. There's huge difference between them and the later long wing Jetprops. Those extra 7ft the Jetprops have really make a difference.


Adam, I know you have you flown a -10 Commander. I have had one to FL390 in the experimental category. There’s no struggling involved at 310!

Top

 Post subject: Re: Best t-prop or jet for $1.3m?
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2017, 00:33 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5520
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:
Adam, I know you have you flown a -10 Commander. I have had one to FL390 in the experimental category. There’s no struggling involved at 310!


You had a A/B to FL390?? Didn't even think they could get up there!

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 539 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.