Why are these planes so expensive? What advantage do they have over a Turbo Commander, MU-2 that they bring over a $1M? I don't get it....

425 and 441 are very different planes. Speaking to 441

1) No SFAR (vs. MU2)
2) No spar issues (vs Commander)
3) Factory support, sort of
4) RVSM/speed
5) Range is incredible

James,

Like most things, it depends. I rarely see a Conquest I over $1M. The Conquest II really does have a strong niche - very fast for a TP, lots of UL, great short RW utility, the OEM manufacturer still in business making planes, relative rarity, a strong support system etc etc. It will do most things a small jet will do, at lower cost per mile and will do a number of things (see RW ability) that many small jets will not. I suspect the fact that it is a Cessna does not hurt.

RAS

Insurance will require annual type training for any turboprop.


SID is perhaps worse. I think you have to strip boots every 10 years to "inspect" under the SID. There are a number of other onerous requirements. The whole legal SID thing was a great grab of power by Cessna and puts owners at risk.


If 441 owners *give* any more factory "support", it will kill them.


Those are true. Not quite as fast as the MU2, but 475 gallons and FL350 really add to the range.

Mike C.

Well the 441s do bring more. You can argue whether the market reasons are rational but that doesn't make them untrue. Do you attribute the price differential to range/altitude alone?

I'm not an expert, but I thought a 441 is 15 knots faster than a Marquise.

I guess you would have to look at a reasonable altitude for the MU2 in order to compare...something like FL270 or FL280.

Seem to remember Marquise guys saying they see 290 whereas our 441 BT contributor just posted a long legged flight in the upper twenties showing 305.

Is the SID mandatory for Part 91 because it's a twin turboprop? But yes, the boots have to come off, a friend just dealt with it. $30K worth of shinny boots...

I suspect there may be a bit of ramp appeal in the values as well. I know some that don't like the look of the commander and MU-2 - although I personally don't share that objection.

I believe the SID inspection requirement has now been dropped.

Conquest II - Way more range than the Marquise, but smaller cabin... so it's faster. Long wing gets you up to FL350 (MU-2 runs out of wing above FL250 at average weights).

If you want the range and the cabin, then you're talking Merlin.

Turbo Commanders... never very seriously looked into those. Just as many versions if not more than the MU-2, requires a PhD just to understand the various ADs ?

-Pascal

I've seen 304 KTAS in level flight in the Marquise, book says you can do 312 KTAS when it's really cold. I flight plan for whatever Fltplan.com computes.

-Pascal

Is SID mandatory for Part 91... Well, yes and no.

No, theoretically, because an owner can record whatever inspection program the thing is on and then stay with that inspection program for as long as they own the airplane, even in the face of the manufacturer changing that program.

Yes, pragmatically, because at the time of sale the new owner essentially is forced to comply with the new inspection program. So no buyer is going to purchase an airplane that isn't caught up. As a practical matter, if you ever want to be able to sell the airplane, you're more or less forced to comply with the SIDs.

And yes, they are somewhat onerous. They make Conquest maintenance a fair amount more expensive.

Not true to my knowledge.

Just put the airplane in a company (even an LLC), have the company elect the then-current revision of the maintenance program [prior to an upcoming announced change] and sell the company to the new owner. Airplane is still owned by the company, which is fairly typical already for an aircraft in this range.

Ownership of the company is the only thing that changes.

You probably need competent advice to ensure everything is properly documented. If you're buying an aircraft in this range, you probably will be bringing competent advice to the transaction anyway...

Remember, as a general rule, you cannot have a company that owns the airplane and does nothing else, which it sounds like you may be describing above. There are workarounds, but if you don't employ a workaround, avoidance is your best bet.

http://www.nbaa.org/admin/options/fligh ... t-company/