https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vBcceV ... ex=15&t=0s
FL210, 9.2 gph, LOP, 187 knots true, 210k knots GS.

That’s why I have 7 leases

Given those choices, the clear winner is a Beech 18, burning about 200 gallons of 100LL and taking a little over 4 hours to make the flight. You may have a space issue in the Beech 18 carrying all your pilot buddies who would rather attend the Church of R985, and loading all those bags of cash you saved buying a $100k Twin Beech instead of some generic white jet that set you back $1m +......

Sorry I missed this question. I have leases near our offices. Alway return to the office where I started. Mostly I fly out of Scottsdale ( 4) and Marquette (1) .

Making this trip today Eclipse 1:52 $439

And Vmo is 285 in the Eclipse Vs 250 in the stang which makes the NY controllers happy well less unhappy.

For this mission both jets work great. I remember your first jet analysis where you threw in cost of time. In this case the 310 should just be a for fun plane.

The II also has a couple of hundred miles more range which in the current mission doesn't matter but often does.

As Jason points out the 2+ (2 too) are very efficient and a better tool if you need to fly 1200 to 1400 mile trips - which would be marginal in the II and impossible in the Mustang.

The TBM will do either trip (with a bit of help from the wind) for a lot lower fuel burn but also much slower. Which runs up the clock costs both on the airframe and productivity.

https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/ACCostSummary.aspx

310 vs Mustang DOC: $400 vs $1330 per hour. Times the hours is $1540 vs $2819. So less than double the DOC to be in a pressurized turbojet vs in the WX in a piston. If only capital were free!

-dan

Good thing you did this exercise Mark!

-jason

Good post Mark. I've had luck with the Shell Card for getting a discount on 100LL fuel. The savings are not as good as contract fuel but sometimes it can knock .20-30/c at the self serve or full service for Shell fuel providers otherwise the $50/yr fee for Airboss/Airnav has been worth it.

We have the PC12 on a 135 so we can't use CAA...Shell or Avfuel tend to be the winners at most of the airports we go to for Jet-A. Next runner up would be UVAir but their billing department drives me crazy even though I have credit card on file for auto payment...they can't seem to figure that out.

Real world Mustang DOC is $1,000/hr. C&D adds a bunch of extra stuff.

You're killing me......still flying my Aerostar!

It's the 1.7 hours saved that add all the value.

That's quite a speed difference. The difference between fly there and home in a workday, vs. spend the night. (3.5hrs is the better part of a workday even for a tech exec).

Something else to consider - the quality of the experience. I'm as cheap as the next guy (probably a bit cheaper than a lot)... And I get the appeal of saving fuel, programs, etc. I remember when I was doing the analysis between the Mustang and a French turboprop. The numbers slightly favored the brioche, until you factor in:

- Space
- Modern systems experience (FADEC, G1000NXI, etc).
- It's quiet.
- Riding up high where it's smooth
- No headsets in the back. Doesn't even have jacks because it's quiet.
- Smooth. No prop vibration.
- Quiet up front.
- 3,000+ initial climb through the hot, humid air to get up to some smooth air
- Did I mention it's quiet?
- Confidence of knowing that if I lose an engine right at rotation that it's a "meh" moment and the airplane will continue without issue. (Not so easy in a piston twin).

None of these things can be quantified on a spreadsheet, but I can tell you they play into the overall experience. Now, I've flown a 310, 340, 414, TBM 850, Mustang, Phenom 100, and some of the larger Citations. I love them all. And the efficiency of a 414 really caught my attention for a while. This isn't a knock on any airplane or group of airplanes. It's simply a call to recognize that there are a LOT of intangibles that play into the flying experience. Some people will value the financial aspect more, some will value the comfort and capability more. Just something to consider...

Whether flying the Mustang or the SR22, it is incredible to pull into the FBO and the rental car is sitting there waiting, on my schedule, packing whatever I want, going wherever I want whenever I want.

#grateful

You mention the 414, which being much slower than a mustang or TBM, reminds me of the story about the businessman on vacation talking to the fisherman. The businessman explains how the fisherman could be more successful, and someday sell his company and not have to work again, if only he worked harder and smarter. The fisherman asks why, and the businessman says then the fisherman would only fish when he wanted and take the rest of the day off. The fisherman points out that’s what he does now.

I think flying in the lower flight levels is more challenging and more fun, and a good balance of go somewhere capability combined with being slow and challenging enough to keep flying interesting. Maybe someday I’ll be the guy in the big jet flying at 200 knots at 16,000 feet just because. If not, maybe a 421 will do...

I think most of us fly because we like it, and the convenience, time, etc. is really only a small part of it. So why spend more money to get there sooner. There’s a balance and flying west into a 90knot headwind I think there’s much to be said for a turboprop.

So says the guy who can’t afford a jet...

Reasonable alternative when you put it that way