I'd take the Williams program, no real choice by their design. $310/hour. Due to my under 150 hours expectation, I'd prepay the 300 hours to avoid the Williams minimums (and I have that written into the contract).

I'd skip the airframe, avionics programs, no real equity in those to lose, options to source parts and service independently. I'd prefer common Garmin avionics like G600, GTN 750, etc, so that shouldn't be too hard to service. I'd even take steam. I like glass, but I also like steam. Steam has certain features that glass doesn't, namely redundancy and less temperamental.

I'd figure maintenance at around $300/hour for 125 hours/year. I'd seek some sort of low utilization program to extend some of the inspection intervals as we grossly over maintain our planes. I'd be involved in strategic maintenance issues such as sourcing parts and selecting vendors.

Fuel depends on where I can get it. I figure $500/hour. The large tanks on the SII allow some tankering as optimization, but there is only so much you can do reasonably.

I figure $100/hour misc.

Comes to $1200/hour.

My MU2 is around $550 an hour presently, but note that this is without engine or prop reserves, and the SII includes engine and has no prop. Due to the extra speed, the SII isn't hour for hour, though, probably around 30% more effective per hour, making the MU2 equivalent number $720/hour. There's no doubt the SII costs more to fly per mile.


That's mostly determined by the US economy more than the plane itself. If fuel prices soar, economy tanks, then the 441 would have been a way better choice as old jets, even ones with FJ44s, will get dumped and could lose a lot of value, and 441s will climb as a low fuel using alternative.

The SII+FJ44 has a lot more hull value, so the downsides are much higher. You could lose maybe $1M in hull value in 3 years under worst case conditions.

On the other hand, fuel prices could stay down (and the indications are that way), the economy grows, and the plane basically holds value.

It isn't like I am adverse to this risk. I bought my MU2 at the darkest of times for the type, SFAR looming, potential grounding talk in Congress, fuel prices climbing, economy tanking. Now years later, it has held value pretty well and the type has a pretty good reputation and I spend less on fuel now that I did in 2008, partly due to lower prices, partly due to better contract fuel strategies.


Fuel burn goes up to $650/hour, Engine program is removed, but I'm probably going naked, so engine reserve is not accounted for. Rest remains mostly unchanged, so hourly DOC is about $1050/hour. Ultimately, when an engine event occurs, got to pay for that. Don't know what the economics of that are with regards to used engines or typical HSI and OH costs on a JT15D-4B. That needs to be researched.

My capital outlay is WAY less due to far lower hull value, and my downside exposure is WAY less. The plane could be a total loss and still not cost me as much as an SII+FJ44 in a downturn economy.


It isn't really the operating cost, it is the capital risk that is different. Williams is part of that risk because some of the "capital" is the promise from Williams, not the actual state of the airplane itself. That is what this thread is about, analyzing that part of the aircraft value equation.

Mike C.

One issue is how frequently they're run and for how long each cycle. A professional crew may also be running them a bit differently.[/quote]

It's been quite some time since I've flown a GA jet so things might have changed, but one additional difference on the CFM powered birds are reduced power takeoffs. Reduced down to 75 to 80% on the most stressful period of the engine's life.

There's no such thing as reliable numbers, you get reports from people who have had them done... or quotes to get them done... but the only way to know is send the engine in and grab your ankles.
================================================
That's what a lot of people think, and to some extent, you don't know what it will cost until the shop gets the engine in and opens it up. But, and I emphasize big but, one can have an independent expert supervise the work even at Dallas Airmotive. We know folks that have done that and saved a bunch. Many shops just want to replace everything while they're in there. They call and give you THEIR price. An independent fella can temper that with reality if some parts meet spec and don't have to be replaced. For that much money, I want my own advocate looking over their shoulder.

I guess with Williams, you are correct. But don't forget, they are using super secret military cruise missile technology (some marketing folks say). So, you'd need a TS clearance to have someone check their work.

M.C.,

You are in a box here given that the SII that meets your mission criteria and utilizes a Williams engine. The contract provides little pricing certainty for 60% of its life (assuming you buy the 300 hours). Here is my take on your 3 options:

Option 3 (On Program)
With a reasonable degree of certainty, based on past performance and the number of other engines on the program, I believe (my opinion) that Williams will escalate the rate in line with previous years and you will see a 3%/yr increase on average. You can lock in the rate for 2 years with a 300 hour purchase. As stated earlier, they are shearing the sheep and not intent on killing them.

It is my prediction that this will work out exactly as it has in the past and the only consideration is if the cost of being on-program meets with your value proposition. Williams will take good care of your engines, they will be reliable, and the value of the airframe/engines will be maintained. If this is not the case then there will be a whole lot of value destroyed in the marketplace and the impact will be more than just an individual.

TAP works for a lot of people; however, I do not think it will work for you. The actual program (as it works and is likely to continue to work) does not maximize the outcome for an individual owner operator and serves more as neutral, consistent, steady, and reasonable approach to jet ownership. The best you can hope to achieve is the same outcome as any owner.

Option 2 (Off program, airplane is disposable)

The option with the most upside and down side. I’m guessing you would do the HSI at 2000 hours for $420k (need to do it on schedule or Williams is going to stick it to you – they want you on that program). This had better be your last plane because from here on out you are running it till an engine goes poof. I’m guessing you will make it to 5500 hours, but I would be as concerned about not making it as you are about the TAP cost going up. For this to even be an option you must be willing to eat the cost of the engine or part out the plane. I have no idea what could be recouped from the remaining parts, but if I was going this way I would have a reasonable idea of what my worst case loss would be.

I do not think this will work for you, it relies on luck. The planning does not have a reasonable back stop. This has nothing to do with your ability to incur this kind of cost, I suspect you can. This has more to do with achieving the best overall result given all possibilities.

Option 1 (Avoid)

And here we are (and I suspect there is a reason this is option 1). This is not your deal. While I believe it exists (or will exist as markets move), you have not yet identified the jet equivalent of your MU-2.

My understanding is JSSI is the only company that has that clearance to check their work.

If you have JSSI instead of TAP, JSSI sends someone to watch over the work at Williams and help with cost control.

Is that correct, my understanding you still get the updated rate at review in year one when you have to top the balance back up to 300 hours on that new rate.

Andrew.

This is what the Williams sales guy wrote about the 300 hour tactic:


From this, I conclude that you initially load 300 hours into the program. Then prior to Dec 31, you load the program back up to 300 hours using the current year rate, and are set for the next year's use. Then on Dec 31 of that year, top up with that year's rate back to 300 hours.

I don't understand where the savings in inflation come from that the sales guy alludes to. It seems that all years hours get paid by that year's rate. Did I miss something?

Mike C.

I believe this is no longer true based on something the Williams sales guy said.

In any case, I'd confirm this before relying on it.

Mike C.

Looks like I am 0 for 3. So no jet for me in your analysis.


If I buy a $2M Super SII, this is really the only viable option. I basically hand over my checkbook to Williams and hope they are reasonable. If they start being unreasonable, then sell the plane and buy a JT15 jet, or buy a 441.


I only get 2000 hours from HSI to OH. Then the plane is basically scrap. That is way more expensive than being on program.


Not really researched well enough. Have to learn the JT15D costs. Those engines do have life extensions, but they have 1750 HSI and 3500 OH, so shorter intervals.

Mike C.

Mike, Is a two pilot airplane a deal killer for you?

Yes.

The problem is not the second pilot per se. I'd love to have a copilot. The problem is the cost and logistics of the second pilot. Hotels, cars, schedules, training, salary, etc. There is also the reduction in useful load over being single pilot.

Now if I could get a copilot for free on every flight, then yes, two pilot plane okay.

Presently, I am considering only single pilot airplanes, or ones with a single pilot exemption. To my knowledge, the only SPE planes are small cabin part 25 Citations (500, 550, 560).

Mike C.

I understand. My feelings on the subject are similar. That being said, a very capable legacy longer range jet requiring 2 pilots such as Lear 35/36, Citation III's can be bargain purchased allowing for potential excess $$$ left for paying a full time co-captain to exist. This assumes the use of the aircraft is primarily business. But I completely agree about the inconvenience of having a second crew member.

I flew with a co-pilot and it was nice when first flying the plane. When there were a lot of passengers and baggage, the extra pair of hands was nice and I could be working on getting going when he took care of that and if a passenger needed help in the air he could do that. But, if you don't fly enough to have a full timer, scheduling can ruin your trip. I was flying the plane to go where I wanted to when I wanted to and many times couldn't get a co-pilot scheduled for when I needed them. Also, if you're just going to a pool of co-pilots, you can be with someone new from the CRM standpoint in what might be a challenging situation.

I'd find some local from Evanston who would be plenty happy to have $30K/yr copilot job and won't ever leave. Find some guy with a HS education who works construction and whose wife is a nurse.

That may be a longer term solution. For someone new to the plane, the insurer will probably want someone with better qualifications than that . They would have to be at least SIC qualified with recurrent.