Was looking hard at King Airs for our business. Some folks that we know have suggested looking seriously at the very light jets; Phenom 100, M2.

When looking at the operating costs per hour they are all within close range for C90, KA250, Phenom 100 and M2. Capital costs can vary, but can be pretty close depending on new/used, condition, etc.

Typical legs are 200-700nm. We operate in New England, Mid Atlantic and Upper Midwest frequently. So ice and snow are facts of life. To my untrained eye looks like advantage King Air on short fields, contaminated fields and payload. Advantage VLJs on speed and perhaps a slight advantage on annual operating costs since trips will be shorter and fewer hours to cover same legs. Any thoughts from folks who have, or are, operating turbo props and VLJs are appreciated.

Yes, I realize that TBM and Pilatus make exceptional aircraft, but have a personal bias toward two (2) power plants and a PC-24 is not, nor will it ever be, in the budget.

For that mission....specifically short / contaminated runways.....hard to beat a KA

Forget the 100 with a contaminated runway. Expect at least 5000' required runway, if there is snow and ice in consideration likely closer to 6500'.

If the cost per hour is similar, the cost per mile will vastly favor the jet over the King Air. How short is the "short runway" requirement?

If you're gonna do the KA at least do that Blackhawk job.

KA for that kind of biz use get a 350.

Seems like a great plane, but also a lot of iron to carry around. Would rarely fill the seats
and the additional capital costs vs the other options is substantial.

In the northeast your always going to be held at certain lower altitudes so the fuel burns are going to be way off what the charts say.

And long arrival's at low altitudes are normal. The jets lose all most of there speed advantage and fuel burns soar.

Am in the Northeast, but not in the Boston-Washington corridor. Most of our business needs keep me well west of the really congested Northeast airspace. Not doing DC to Philly, Teterboro, CT, etc.

I feel like if there isn't something specifically DQing the M2 that it is the obvious choice of the options listed.

I would think the cost of capital would be prohibitive looking at M2/P100 vs. even a nice Blackhawk C90, but if that isn't an issue and you are landing on paved runways of any appreciable length (3,000 ft+), the M2 will do it and give you the range, speed, altitude flexibility, and dispatch rate to get the job done. I really like the M2 if you can't tell.

Cessna is pretty open to giving demo rides in the M2, just lose your checkbook beforehand.

I'm partial to twins and I'd love to fly someone else's KA, but to privately own in the turboprop world something with a significant 7 figure price tag... the market has spoken and it speaks, well the Swiss don't have their own language so it speaks German/Italian/French

I agree. I'd go for a slightly used M2 if it weren't for the lousy runway requirements.

3,000

Assuming you have hangar space for it, it is really really hard to beat a B200 for this mission. Also, if you don't like it, you can always sell it - There's a robust B200 market.

Robert

Bill - stop looking at operating costs per hour - you don't buy an airplane to sit in it for hours on end. The M2 will give you 400 knots at FL410 burning the same fuel as a BH C90 flying 15K feet lower and going 130 knots slower... Focus on the operating cost per mile, and you will quickly see a King Air is not what it seems.

Assuming you are talking new or relatively new, the cost of capital should be close between the choices - of the aircraft listed I would go with the M2 hands down. It also has good runway performance and will do everything you seem to want to do - and will allow you to get over most weather.

You'll need to make a decision based on your specific mission. The runway length may be limiting depending on temperature, surface condition and altitude. We have an orthopedic surgery practice in a rural state. Our trips are short (often 200nm or less) with several legs a day, usually 3 or 4 people. We looked at light jets (at the time, Eclipse and Citation 501SP). The Eclipse was unable to takeoff with enough fuel to make even a short leg in the summer (fields at 6.5-7.5K elevation). The Citation made it but costs were higher than the C90's and the increased speed was not a major benefit due to short legs and inability to use the altitudes where jets make more sense, so we stayed with the King Airs. The KA is a market leader for a reason, it is quite reliable, doesn't need much runway, and is well liked by passengers due to the relatively spacious cabin. However, it is slow and very expensive to maintain compared to other alternatives. I completely agree with you on the value/safety of two powerplants. We have 3 -21 C90A's and one -135 (Blackhawk) C90A. The -135 gets you better performance at altitude and greater cruise (around 235 for the -21 and 265 for the -135) but the overhaul/engine reserve is much more expensive in the Blackhawk. 2.5 years ago, an MU-2B-25 (-10 engines) was added to the mix. I'm the only one who flies that plane but it's in the clinic schedule with the King Airs. Compared to the -21 planes it is 70-80 knots faster, much faster climbing, but quite a bit louder inside (pax use headsets in Mits, not in KA). Cabin is similar. Maintenance costs have been around 50-60% of the King Airs with far fewer unscheduled mechanical issues on the Mitsubishi. But...they are not for everyone (as the market has determined). Definitely more complex with more time on the ramp for start, prep and taxi as well as shutdown compared to the P&W powered planes with more requirements when it's cold (plugging in etc). Both do very well in ice flight, landing on contaminated deep snow runways, and strong crosswinds. The Mitsubishi has about 24" prop clearance so that helps if your runways are in poor condition. Insurance will be far easier with the King Air. We have around $25M smooth on the KA's and only $2M smooth on the Mits (but part of that is because the KA are considered single pilot corporate while the Mits is business/owner flown). But several yeas ago when we queried our underwriter about selling all 4 KA's and replacing them with Marquise's, they would not maintain the same coverage, even if corporate flown.
An acquaintance of mine recently sold his Solitaire and bought a Phenom 100. He is very happy with the jet when it comes to ease of use, quiet operation, topping weather etc. While faster, it has not been much faster than the 310kt turboprop on his typical trips, and he has had to alter the destinations several times on family trips because the jet could not operate out of the airports they had become accustomed to using in the turboprop. Weight and balance and field temperature/elevation is supposedly quite a bit more limiting on the Phenom than the Mits.
Talk to your insurance agent, your pilots and the company staff who will be in the plane and look at your typical destinations. Run the performance numbers for hot summer days and see how it looks. One of them will rise to the top; if most of your missions are closer to the 700nm range you mentioned, it may well be the jet (if it can handle the runways), the KA will make your staff and mechanic happy. The Mits will make your accountant happy but your mechanic will be bored.