banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 11:47 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 989 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 66  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 09:10 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6718
Post Likes: +7258
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
As many of my threads I start are, this one was born out of thread drift on another thread.

The statement was made on the Meridian thread that a Legacy Citation could be operated for less than a Meridian… well, that was the exact wrong aircraft to pick on for op cost!

The Piper PA-46 turbine has long been known as the most economical turbine aircraft you can operate. They are stupid simple and inexpensive to work on, its just a piston airplane with a Pratt on it.

Then the narrative became that I am anti-Legacy Citation, anybody that knows me knows that that is laughable! The first jet that Jet Acquisitions ever acquired was a Citation V! I’d have to look, but we’ve probably done more V/Ultras than any other model of jet. It’s at least tied with Mustangs.

Here’s what I can do, I can demonstrate that a Legacy Citation is as economical to own and operate as any turboprop, save the JetProp/ Meridian and maybe the Piaggio or Eclipse. What’s more is that I can do this without stacking the deck, I’m talking similar acquisition cost and identical maintenance standards. None of this comparing a $600k jet with a $2.6M turboprop or claiming a Phase 5 on a Citation V only cost $30k… real numbers. Apples and apples. The only qualifications that I will add are that we are excluding life limited engine components and extraordinary unexpected expenses due to AD’s, corrosion, etc. The unknowns are always unknown and too hard to quantify.

Ok, my King Air, TBM and Pilatus guys… come at me. Prove me wrong!

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 10:07 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 5233
Post Likes: +4133
Company: Looking
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Baron/Bonanza
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

_________________
I don't have a problem with anger, I have a problem with idiots.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 10:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 82
Post Likes: +72
Aircraft: King Air C90
Chip, me thinks I should grab some popcorn for this thread ;)

Anyone can massage the numbers to get to what they want to see. Unless you establish some hard guidelines : same hull and liability limits for both airplanes, same capital costs for both airplanes, same training for both (sim training only here), you must take both airplanes to, say, Textron for EVERYTHING, etc, etc, you are always going to have skewed numbers to compare.

Here’s an example of putting my thumb on the scale without hard boundaries…. I want to fly a trip and I want to know how much that trip cost. In reality it only costs me the amount of $100 bills I have to pull out of my wallet to pay the gas there and back. No engine programs to pay for by the hour, no parts programs, nothing broke, no rental pilots (I can keep going…). So my trip to Dallas and back only cost me $2,500! As the meme says “change my mind” ;)

But in my opinion, you have to include ALL the costs of ownership when you do comparisons like this, and unfortunately for the jet argument, that must include all the things you want to leave out - LLC’s, engines, etc. The true cost for the trip above should include everything from cost of capital all the way down to nitrogen service for the tires. Unless you’re flying on hopes and dreams, at some point, you will have to do SOMETHING to the airplane, and that something will cost money.

At the end of the day, maint risks, capital costs, fixed costs, and the always debatable variable costs are always present and you really should have a plan for those. To assume you’ll never need to account for these things is just stacking the deck to fit the argument.

Can you get to a point where a Citation II costs less to run that a King Air 200? Absolutely and without too much work to get there. The King Air will be 2.5 times the capital costs, which then increases the tax burden and the insurance premiums well over what the II will cost you. And, if I don’t account for any engine expenses, big ticket items, etc, do in airplane training and only count the cost of the examiner (not the fuel and flight time)…I can fly a WHOLE bunch more hours in the II just on the $2 million dollar purchase difference, which then proves the point that a II is cheaper to run than a King Air. But I would challenge anyone to show their work to show a legacy jet is cheaper than a t prop when we start at the same place for both and treat them the exact same in the comparison.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 10:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 82
Post Likes: +72
Aircraft: King Air C90
Username Protected wrote:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:



Looks like Todd thinks popcorn is a good idea too. Ha ha


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 10:27 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 04/02/16
Posts: 453
Post Likes: +343
Aircraft: D55, C172
Was looking to upgrade to Mits. 90/gal hr. Dial the 501 back and you got the same burn. Now maintenance and acquisition? Different question. But for that more capabilities, and that much more of a step up? After a 501 comes the 560........then........

_________________
Embrace The Suck


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 11:40 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6718
Post Likes: +7258
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
Chip, me thinks I should grab some popcorn for this thread ;)

Anyone can massage the numbers to get to what they want to see. Unless you establish some hard guidelines : same hull and liability limits for both airplanes, same capital costs for both airplanes, same training for both (sim training only here), you must take both airplanes to, say, Textron for EVERYTHING, etc, etc, you are always going to have skewed numbers to compare.

Here’s an example of putting my thumb on the scale without hard boundaries…. I want to fly a trip and I want to know how much that trip cost. In reality it only costs me the amount of $100 bills I have to pull out of my wallet to pay the gas there and back. No engine programs to pay for by the hour, no parts programs, nothing broke, no rental pilots (I can keep going…). So my trip to Dallas and back only cost me $2,500! As the meme says “change my mind” ;)

But in my opinion, you have to include ALL the costs of ownership when you do comparisons like this, and unfortunately for the jet argument, that must include all the things you want to leave out - LLC’s, engines, etc. The true cost for the trip above should include everything from cost of capital all the way down to nitrogen service for the tires. Unless you’re flying on hopes and dreams, at some point, you will have to do SOMETHING to the airplane, and that something will cost money.

At the end of the day, maint risks, capital costs, fixed costs, and the always debatable variable costs are always present and you really should have a plan for those. To assume you’ll never need to account for these things is just stacking the deck to fit the argument.

Can you get to a point where a Citation II costs less to run that a King Air 200? Absolutely and without too much work to get there. The King Air will be 2.5 times the capital costs, which then increases the tax burden and the insurance premiums well over what the II will cost you. And, if I don’t account for any engine expenses, big ticket items, etc, do in airplane training and only count the cost of the examiner (not the fuel and flight time)…I can fly a WHOLE bunch more hours in the II just on the $2 million dollar purchase difference, which then proves the point that a II is cheaper to run than a King Air. But I would challenge anyone to show their work to show a legacy jet is cheaper than a t prop when we start at the same place for both and treat them the exact same in the comparison.


I think I can take a $2M 1990 Citation V, compare it to a $2.3M 1990 King Air B200 and make a strong case for the V, I am right in the middle of negotiating two deals, so give me some time... ironically one of them is a Citation V.

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 11:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 82
Post Likes: +72
Aircraft: King Air C90
Username Protected wrote:
Chip, me thinks I should grab some popcorn for this thread ;)

Anyone can massage the numbers to get to what they want to see. Unless you establish some hard guidelines : same hull and liability limits for both airplanes, same capital costs for both airplanes, same training for both (sim training only here), you must take both airplanes to, say, Textron for EVERYTHING, etc, etc, you are always going to have skewed numbers to compare.

Here’s an example of putting my thumb on the scale without hard boundaries…. I want to fly a trip and I want to know how much that trip cost. In reality it only costs me the amount of $100 bills I have to pull out of my wallet to pay the gas there and back. No engine programs to pay for by the hour, no parts programs, nothing broke, no rental pilots (I can keep going…). So my trip to Dallas and back only cost me $2,500! As the meme says “change my mind” ;)

But in my opinion, you have to include ALL the costs of ownership when you do comparisons like this, and unfortunately for the jet argument, that must include all the things you want to leave out - LLC’s, engines, etc. The true cost for the trip above should include everything from cost of capital all the way down to nitrogen service for the tires. Unless you’re flying on hopes and dreams, at some point, you will have to do SOMETHING to the airplane, and that something will cost money.

At the end of the day, maint risks, capital costs, fixed costs, and the always debatable variable costs are always present and you really should have a plan for those. To assume you’ll never need to account for these things is just stacking the deck to fit the argument.

Can you get to a point where a Citation II costs less to run that a King Air 200? Absolutely and without too much work to get there. The King Air will be 2.5 times the capital costs, which then increases the tax burden and the insurance premiums well over what the II will cost you. And, if I don’t account for any engine expenses, big ticket items, etc, do in airplane training and only count the cost of the examiner (not the fuel and flight time)…I can fly a WHOLE bunch more hours in the II just on the $2 million dollar purchase difference, which then proves the point that a II is cheaper to run than a King Air. But I would challenge anyone to show their work to show a legacy jet is cheaper than a t prop when we start at the same place for both and treat them the exact same in the comparison.


I think I can take a $2M 1990 Citation V, compare it to a $2.3M 1990 King Air B200 and make a strong case for the V, I am right in the middle of negotiating two deals, so give me some time... ironically one of them is a Citation V.



I’d love to see it Chip. We’re doing the same with a 90 and a Citation as well at the moment. I am always eager to compare how we do our accounting to others. I’m not the smartest guy I’m the room…but I can dang sure be learned ;)

Don’t forget the V already has a $300k advantage though…

Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 12:26 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Show me how a citation is cheaper to own than an Mu2 or twin commander. Or a $1.7M 441 to make things easier.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 12:43 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/27/11
Posts: 148
Post Likes: +62
Location: Virginia
Aircraft: Cessna 421C / P210N
Username Protected wrote:
Show me how a citation is cheaper to own than an Mu2 or twin commander. Or a $1.7M 441 to make things easier.


Haha I would love to see that as well. That 441 might be tough to beat. . although the MU2 is pretty low cost to operate and the cost is going to be cheaper.. .


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 12:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/06/13
Posts: 403
Post Likes: +246
Location: KFTW-Fort Worth Meacham
Aircraft: C208B, AL18-115
I also would like to see the analysis. Several years ago I tried to compare our Caravan to a much less expensive (and older) E90. The Caravan is very inefficient, but simple and reliable. King Airs suffer from calendar items that hurt the low utilization operator. As you would expect, two engines, pressurization, and calendar items are more expensive than the Caravan. Not apples to apples because of dissimilar missions, speeds, and capabilities.
I did do the comparison per nm, not per hour.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 13:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 82
Post Likes: +72
Aircraft: King Air C90
Username Protected wrote:
I did do the comparison per nm, not per hour.



This is critical in my opinion to getting to a true comparison. We have got to get away from “cost per hour” budgeting and look at “cost per nm”. It’s the only way to get a fair and accurate picture of what is really going on.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 13:18 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5522
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
You'll have to exclude any TPE331 powered aircraft from these little exercises because they'll blow all the others away in cost savings. It's not even close. :stir:

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 13:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/13/17
Posts: 50
Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: TBM960
Wow Chip. I did not know you were such a sadomasochist....
We have a TBM so I have some actual, factual information on the operating costs, but I am sure there are people in this forum that believe they know more about my operating costs than I do so I look forward to hearing from them in this thread....

One thing I do know, when the final entry is made in this thread, unfortunately, there will be no consensus answer to your question.

But maybe that was not the goal....


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 13:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/17/11
Posts: 1761
Post Likes: +1084
Location: KFRG
Aircraft: 421C
Greatest thread eva......... :popcorn:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Legacy Citation vs Turboprop
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2023, 13:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6058
Post Likes: +4637
Username Protected wrote:
You'll have to exclude any TPE331 powered aircraft from these little exercises because they'll blow all the others away in cost savings. It's not even close. :stir:


It sounds like they are focusing on aircraft produced after Reagan was president


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 989 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 66  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

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