Today, I’m flying a Meridian, and it has been a life changing purchase. My family loves the plane, but the cabin noise levels are a bit too high for headset-less use. Additionally range is a bit short, and we will eventually outgrow its payload capabilities.

Does anyone here know how the noise levels of a Citation Mustang compare to a Conquest II? Moreover, are there any turboprops suitable for headset-less use? King Air?

I’ve owned a 441 and now own a Mustang, and the Mustang is noticeably quieter.

Pax did not wear headsets in the 441, but it was not quiet like the 421 we had before it.

A King Air 350i I fly is completely a non-headset plane. Bone stock setup with props and interior. Pretty nice inside.

I find myself more sensitive than others. Many folks tell me a certain cabin is no-headset but I frequently disagree

The casual (at best) scientist I am frequently measures cabin noise with DecibelX on an iPhone

As a point of reference, 350i doing 177 KIAS at 29000' produced around 88 dBZ and 78 dBA in the cockpit. Quieter in the back. I still find myself wearing a headset.



There's a void of empirical data available for cabin sound attenuation mods. We did an interior refurb in a long body MU2 this year and the quotes for sound deadening were 10-50k with no evidence on what the result would be. Only that it would be "better." Same goes for props

Thanks, JP, very helpful! A followup for you, how much runway do you need in icing conditions? My home field is 4200ft (roughly sea level) and I’m trying to work within those confines. The Mustang seems to have the short field piece, but I’m struggling to find real data with icing conditions or contaminated runway.

Relatedly, the Phenom 100 has a ridiculous ice speed additive that makes that plane a non-starter for my field length.

I’ve only had the Mustang for about 3 months, so haven’t experienced a real winter with the aircraft yet. Next time I’m at the plane, will grab the performance charts.

I pretty comfortably flew a 441 and an MU2 into < 4,000ft fields, regardless of conditions.

I currently have a self-imposed minimum with the Mustang of 4,000ft good conditions, 5,000ft contaminated…and then I double check the math with the charts.

Last week, I had a great landing and came to stop in 2,000 feet. The return trip later that day had a more average approach and needed 3,000 feet. I measured because I was contemplating a flight into a 3,800 foot runway that I’ve flown into in my turboprops. The variance in my landing distances, coupled with rain, led me to choose a different airport with a 6,000 foot runway and a longer drive. I landed in light rain just above freezing, my approach was good but not great, and I used up less than 4,000 feet without max braking.

My experience with my instructor has been that rain has had minimal impact on braking, while standing water does have an impact. Grooved runway helps. I have not landed or taken off in icing conditions.

The Mustang has amazing short field capabilities in the hands of a great pilot, which I am not yet. My instructor consistently stops in 2,000 feet. I’m a bit more all over the map.

I look back on beta as my “get out of jail free” card. Now a perfect landing is far more dependent on how well I’m established 10nm out. And my home field has lots of student pilots so I frequently am not afforded a nice, stabilized approach as I squeeze in between four 172s.

I suspect in the hands of a professional, 4,200 feet is doable in all but the worst conditions. At this stage of my flying, I wouldn’t want to HAVE to land in 4,200 feet. Maybe with 100 more landings under my belt I’ll feel differently.

All that being said, it is far and away the best plane I’ve owned, and it’s not close. Despite some limitations relative to the 441, I would never go back. The workload is so much easier and the lack of vibrations and better pressurization means I land more refreshed. It’s the most fun I’ve had flying since my V35B.

Piaggio is low 70s. It’s quieter than any jet I have been in. I flew biz class to EU last year and front end of Piaggio measured less db.

I found that 441 to be really loud but my experience was at that level, similar to mu2, people would take or leave headsets. They seemed to adapt quickly.

The Piaggio is interesting from an engineering perspective, but I've heard some pretty off-putting anecdotes on maintenance and parts availability. How has your experience been?

My experience has been good so far. I have met folks with a different one. Engineering of the plane is amazing, if they get a new owner soon that pays even a little bit of attention I think it will rise rapidly in popularity.

Chiming in with a couple of thoughts. My experience has also been pretty good. The service network and expertise of shops, plus the support from Piaggio NA, has been outstanding. The only parts I have had difficulty obtaining have been servos which need to be OH'd at 12 years. I was able to fly on a letter of continuance from Piaggio until they were available. When I replaced my gear and steering actuator I purchased another set and sent them for OH so that I would not be AOG for the time period of the OH which was a very good decision.

Speaking anecdotally, I had more issues with parts availability with my TBM 850.

I know others haven't been as fortunate but it seems like a very thorough prebuy, including a comprehensive and up to date maintenance log, would go a long way toward getting off to a good start mechanically. At least you have a good idea of what you're dealing with and the shop (if its someone like ICJ) should be able to give you a pretty good idea on availability of anything you need. When I was looking there was a pretty good relationship (at least for planes really for sale) between price/cost and maintenance status.

I wouldn't hesitate to purchase another Avanti. Of course I don't need to...