CJ3 certainly a great choice. But it's bigger commitment financially in the long run. Engines, training, insurance.

Spoke to a broker who has sold over 15 Avanti's over the years and he said he's never had a customer come looking for a jet or a another turboprop and then get excited about Avanti's. He says the customers who come for Avanti's are already informed and interested in that type alone - they don't come for anything else. So, unsurprisingly, they are a niche product and you'll not have access to the same wide market come selling as a PC12. Now if that means they depreciate more than others, I don't know, but it's likely. But high depreciation is also a benefit - means you get a lot of bang for your buck.

Another thing he mentioned was that ex-Avantair planes carry a lower price tag and it's one of the first things an informed customer asks about. Sometimes by as much as $500-700K less. But he didn't discourage from buying an ex-Avantair ship (as they've all passed the return-to-service AD the FAA mandated). In fact, he said they could be great value, just as long as the owner realizes that they will fetch less come resale.

We'll stick the P180 in the same spreadsheet.

Adam - Is the P180 really that big of a difference from the CJ3 in terms of training and insurance costs? Would you not be required to go to school every year for the P180? On insurance, aside from the lower hull, why are the two aircraft so different in terms of cost? Is it simply a jet vs prop thing?

I love the P180 but I can't imagine it's a better value proposition vs a CJ3 unless you are solely looking at acquisition costs.

Let's run the numbers..........I got a guy that will get us close on the ins. numbers........the rest should be known data..........

20 Avanti II's listed on controller. A couple with low time. Many of them in Europe.

Trust me here Jason, NONE of them can be bought for less than what they are listed for.............let's not even work the phones..........

Trust me here Jason, NONE of them can be bought for less than what they are listed for.............let's not even work the phones..........

Adam,

Jason and I are chasing the same thing........... speed, altitude and STC for push to talk in the lav..............

only issue is, if we purchase a plane, prices will skyrocket!!!!!! Think 40% over retail!

I wish the P180 was common. It's the perfect airplane for me. I'm amazed it has the stigma it has. Seems Textron could buy it and revive the prop twin.

I'm not willing to own something I can't get rid of.

Did you know that 51% of the worlds P180 fleet is US based? Over 100 of them here, so it's not like it's some super-exotic Koh-i-Noor. More of them around than Cirrus Jets

As for value - the PC12 is the anomaly in the market. That, Cub's and the C185's are the only planes that don't depreciate! Whatever you buy next, Citation or Phenom or whatever, it will depreciate.... I'm afraid to break it to you. So you might as well be riding in the one where the depreciation has already taken place..

There aren't enough planes in existence for more than one to be an "anomaly". 100 US Based P180's is nothing. There are 91 PC12's flying right now in the USA.

Staying with PC12 is a perfectly reasonable option. Mine is getting long in the tooth. If the new ones were an upgrade I'd buy one but it's still the same airplane.

More than anything I'm amazed the P180 isn't dominating the market. I think the P180 had the opportunity to be what the Pilatus is now. I chalk it up to bad management.

It's hard to beat turboprop fuel economy when you have jet speeds. The jet guys keep saying how effiecient they are up there, but when you crunch the numbers it's obvious that TP's still have a big advantage.

This was a comparison I did for a fictional 5000nm trip:

Turbo Commander 1000 (1700nm range, 300kts, 402pph, 3 stops ):
Time: 16.66hrs
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 19.66hrs
FUEL BURN: 999.6gal

Citation Mustang (1269nm range, 336kts, 540pph, 4 stops):
Time: 14.88hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
TOTAL TIME: 18.88hrs
FUEL BURN: 1199.28gal

Pilatus PC12NG (1800nm range, 278kts, 360pph, 3 stops):
Time: 17.98hr
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 21hrs
FUEL BURN: 971gal

Piaggio Avanti (1398nm range, 364kt, 580pph, 4 stops):
Time: 13.73hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
TOTAL TIME: 17.73hrs
FUEL BURN: 1188gal.

CJ4 (1800nm, 420kts, 1000pph, 3 stops):
Time: 11.9hrs
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 14.9hrs
FUEL BURN: 1776gal

CJ3 (1345nm, 408kts, 1096pph, 4 stops):
Time: 12.25hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
Total time: 16.25hrs
Fuel burn: 2003gal.

Now, fuel is all I've accounted for here, so that's just part of the cost. Engine reserves are however a lot lower than on Williams engines (which most seem to have). By a factor of 1.5-1.8, pretty much. The Avanti has a few high cost gotchas - one is the gear overhaul every 12th year/6000hr (not mandatory part 91) and the carbon brakes are rally costly (they're introducing a steel brake option soon via STC). It's also got a few timed items, but so does jets. It needs C and D checks once in awhile. Not earth shattering, but certainly more than an annual or yearly phase inspections.

If efficiency is your criteria (total fuel burn/kts):
1. Avanti (3.26gal/kts)
2. Commander (3.32gal/kts)
3. PC12NG (3.49gal/kts)
4. Mustang (3.56gal/kts)
5. CJ4 (4.22gal/kts)

Avanti has them all beat in efficiency (fuel burn/kts) - even the PC12.

Don't forget to buy lots of ear protection to pass out to the airport neighbors.

And yes - this is coming from a guy with an MU2!

(MU2 is a screaming b*tch on the ground, Piaggio a screaming b*tch in the air...)