17 Apr 2024, 22:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 09 Oct 2018, 17:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/09/11 Posts: 1732 Post Likes: +2051 Company: Naples Jet Center Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Commander is hands down the most fun to fly... of any turboprop. ...
I would say the opposite is true. The Commander is easy to fly but I wouldn't call it fun. Kind of boring, actually. The Merlin/Metro is the most fun because you really need to have your head in the game.
Anyway...just opinions. That's a very good point! Plus, you can cancel that gym membership and style have forearms like Popeye! [/quote] Ha - I appreciate this. It’s akin to my justification of the joy of piston twin flying: 24 spark plugs to manage. There’s always something to do and it’s important to pay attention!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 09 Oct 2018, 19:38 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/09 Posts: 332 Post Likes: +272 Company: Premier Bone and Joint Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
|
|
I was looking at the very same thing 2 years ago when I transitioned to a -10 MU-2 short body from my Aerostar. I have a good friend with a Merlin so I got lots of information from him and got in his plane. I was not able to directly evaluate the Commanders, but I considered them and have been in them since. I agree with much of what has already been written, but one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is range. I think the Commanders will beat an MU-2 in range by a small amount, but the Merlin will beat both of them easily (like 2,240 miles). If you have to move a lot of people a long ways and want a high pressure cabin, the Merlin will do a great job at 265kts. It also has the “best” ramp presence and sits so high with a large cabin that it really seems like a different class of aircraft than my little Mits. Both the Commander and Merlin would have been difficult to hangar for me, the Merlin was also way to large in the cabin for what I needed (also approaching orphan status for support). When I read about the Commanders, it appeared that they flew great (another Ted Smith design, just like the Aerostar) but were pretty expensive when you bought a good one and were much more expensive than the Mitsubishi to maintain. The Mits has been great for what I need. I wish it had more range (365 gallons in mine), but it can usually get to the east coast without stopping from Wyoming (but not back) and cruises about 295-300 in summer and 308-320 in winter. All three planes will have far better reliability than a piston twin and will handle weather with ease compared to the Aerostar. For the Mits, the interval service visits will be a bit less costly than a typical Aerostar 700, but if you fly it a lot, you will need to do inspections every 100 hours instead of every year. A piston twin owner could potentially fly 200 or 300 hours in a year between annuals, so for a frequently flown plane, even the Mitsubishi will end up costing a bit more for maintenance than the Aerostar. But flying 100 hours from inspection to inspection with virtually NO squawks (notwithstanding a cracked windshield), just fueling it and flying it is something I had never experienced with ANY plane prior to the Mitsubishi. For that, I’m very grateful.
_________________ Thomas
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 09 Oct 2018, 22:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6352 Post Likes: +5538 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
690's have good range with 370-380gal tanks. But the Jetprop longwings have up to 484gal and terrific range. They can nudge 2000nm (until empty).
For me personally, I'd take a Jetprop over a 690B any day of the week (if you can fit in in the hangar). They're just made for flying high and far and have a great wing, great useful load. I'd rather have a steam Jetprop than a glass 690B myself, but that's just me. I also think 690's kinda top out around $800K, since that's where you enter the lower end Jetprop market. I think it'll be hard to get more than a million for a 690B, no matter what shape it's in.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 10 Oct 2018, 09:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08 Posts: 6059 Post Likes: +703 Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
Agree, how much fuel and range would an E90 have? Username Protected wrote:
_________________ Former Baron 58 owner. Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 10 Oct 2018, 09:26 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/05/09 Posts: 4958 Post Likes: +4796
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
|
|
Username Protected wrote: >Best turboprop at this price is a 340kt citation 501 with 300k leftover for gas Ok I'll bite...
Ok assuming a MU-2 at 60 to 80 gph and a 501 at ??? GPH, how many hours difference will the 300K buy me.
Also what will the 501 cost to maintain compared to the MU-2?
Googling a bit I come up with: Assume 75 GPH vs 150 GPH and $3.75gal = 1066 hrs for 300K. Can you really get an airworthy 501 for 300K? You can get a decent 501 for $300K. The fuel spread is probably closer to 40 gallons. I assume the -10 burns 80 doing 300kts at 280. The Citation burns 120 doing 340 at FL380. It burns 150 GPH at 280 non RVSM. Per mile thats a .88 multiplier on the fuel. At $4 a gallon, that's closer to 2000 hours of fuel. Unquestionably, the Citation is easier to fly and has a less chance of biting you if something goes wrong. I really like MU-2s and that's probably the only turboprop I'd be interested in; I'm casually looking at them too. However, there's really no comparison to a quiet twin engine fanjet and a loud turboprop. What I don't like about the MU-2 is the $600-700K price tag for a semi-nice Solitaire. I worry that it is a lot of money to tie up in a quirky, old airplane. With the cheap Citation, they are somewhat like used Honda Accords; you can put it on Craiglist anytime after driving it for 30K miles and get almost all of your money out. I have no idea what the MU-2 costs to maintain but the 4 blade prop AD is not going to help make the MU-2 any less expensive to maintain than the jet. Both airplanes seem pretty simple to maintain. The jet is on a calendar inspection program and the MU-2 is hourly. Both are going to run inspection to inspection without much breaking.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 10 Oct 2018, 10:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/23/08 Posts: 6941 Post Likes: +3600 Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx. Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: >Best turboprop at this price is a 340kt citation 501 with 300k leftover for gas Ok I'll bite...
Ok assuming a MU-2 at 60 to 80 gph and a 501 at ??? GPH, how many hours difference will the 300K buy me.
Also what will the 501 cost to maintain compared to the MU-2?
Googling a bit I come up with: Assume 75 GPH vs 150 GPH and $3.75gal = 1066 hrs for 300K. Can you really get an airworthy 501 for 300K? You can get a decent 501 for $300K. The fuel spread is probably closer to 40 gallons. I assume the -10 burns 80 doing 300kts at 280. The Citation burns 120 doing 340 at FL380. It burns 150 GPH at 280 non RVSM. Per mile thats a .88 multiplier on the fuel. At $4 a gallon, that's closer to 2000 hours of fuel. Unquestionably, the Citation is easier to fly and has a less chance of biting you if something goes wrong. I really like MU-2s and that's probably the only turboprop I'd be interested in; I'm casually looking at them too. However, there's really no comparison to a quiet twin engine fanjet and a loud turboprop. What I don't like about the MU-2 is the $600-700K price tag for a semi-nice Solitaire. I worry that it is a lot of money to tie up in a quirky, old airplane. With the cheap Citation, they are somewhat like used Honda Accords; you can put it on Craiglist anytime after driving it for 30K miles and get almost all of your money out. I have no idea what the MU-2 costs to maintain but the 4 blade prop AD is not going to help make the MU-2 any less expensive to maintain than the jet. Both airplanes seem pretty simple to maintain. The jet is on a calendar inspection program and the MU-2 is hourly. Both are going to run inspection to inspection without much breaking. At 280 out -6 M model is more like 68gph total. The M4D works perfectly for us. A properly running Air Cycle Machine is an ice box even in summer. A handy feature.
Just did our 100hr / 200 hr 1 year etc for about $10k which is typical.
A 501 would be slick tho...
_________________ Tom Johnson-Az/Wy AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com C: 602-628-2701
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 10 Oct 2018, 10:12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1760 Post Likes: +2217
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You can get a decent 501 for $300K. The fuel spread is probably closer to 40 gallons. I assume the -10 burns 80 doing 300kts at 280. The -10 is burning closer to 70 GPH @ 280. The FltPlan.com profile for the Solitaire, which is very accurate, shows it burning 480PPH or 70.58 GPH @ 280, cruising 294 ktas. Now at 240, you can get it to 300 ktas and you'll be burning between 79 and 80 gph. 280 @ 294k is a much better option.
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Best T-prop <600K MU2, Commander, Merlin....??? Posted: 10 Oct 2018, 10:22 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/05/09 Posts: 4958 Post Likes: +4796
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You can get a decent 501 for $300K. The fuel spread is probably closer to 40 gallons. I assume the -10 burns 80 doing 300kts at 280. The -10 is burning closer to 70 GPH @ 280. The FltPlan.com profile for the Solitaire, which is very accurate, shows it burning 480PPH or 70.58 GPH @ 280.
The Citation is 770PPH at FL380 so that's about 45gallons not accounting for the speed spread. So, a 40 GPH spread on a per mile basis is about $150/hour higher DOCs (not 2-3 times as someone stated). That's 2,000 hours (perhaps a lifetime?) of jet flying just to cover the spread between a decent 501 and a decent Solitaire cap cost.
Maintenance difference between the 2 is a rounding error.
The point of all this is as much as I love the MU-2 (I will have one eventually), I won't be buying one with the belief that I will be saving oodles of money over a 501. I'd be buying it because I needed the off road performance and extra range it offers with the tradeoff of a smaller cabin, more noise and the inherent risk of twin props.
I think the F model at 260kts and 55 GPH and $200K entry fee is a much better value on this spectrum. We're taking 2-3 times the Cap cost to get into a Solitaire to burn 50% more gas to go 40kts faster.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|