I thought I’d “mine” the collective knowledge base a bit here regarding potential replacement aircraft for our business. We are a relatively large orthopedic surgical group in a very rural state and we’ve used one or more aircraft to serve multiple satellite facilities throughout the state since the late 70’s. The first C90A King Air was purchased new in 1985 and we’ve bought 3 more since for a fleet of 4 with 3 full time pilots. I moved up through the “aviation food chain” as it were with a T210, then an Aerostar, then a Superstar, and 5 years ago bought a -10 K MU-2 and I’m the only one in my group that doesn’t use the King Airs because I just use my MU-2 for commuting to work. About 10 years ago we looked at trading all 4 King Airs for Mitsubishi Marquises but our insurance company would not allow high levels of coverage which we really needed when transporting many people with relatively high salaries. Insurance has only gotten worse since.
So…the cost of maintaining the C90A’s has become fairly burdensome with true hourly rates now around $1250/hr. The -21 planes (3) cruise at about 230kts TAS, the -135 plane (1) is more like 265kts TAS. It is getting difficult to find a company that can reliably fix the planes in our area (one plane recently sat for 7 weeks on a double phase inspection because a part could not be sourced). Our home base is at KLAR (in Wyoming but only about a 3 hr drive north of Denver).
Our Chief Pilot recently recommended that we consider the newly certified Epic E1000 to decrease operational costs but buying them new at $3.25M is a huge outlay of resources even with depreciation benefits and warranty. Furthermore after a meeting last night, none of the partners said they would feel comfortable riding in a single engine plane so the Epic/TBM/Pilatus/M600 etc. are all “off the table.”
We are interested in potentially trading the 4 King Airs for a different plane (and purchasing three or four of them). The mission is rather unusual: typically 3 pax and a pilot (but often up to 5 pax and rarely 6) on very short legs (100-200 miles) usually planned as an out in the morning and back in the evening, or a three leg, 2 city day. All flights are conducted over mountainous, rural areas with essentially no airports along the way. Night ops and operations in snow and ice covered runways are the norm, but most runways are paved, and over 5000 feet in length (yet the DA is occasionally over 10K at some of them in the summer). Runways in winter are plowed at most towns, but we do occasionally land in 6 - 8” of fresh powder snow when they can’t keep up. Roads are closed for large parts of the winter so the planes make the trips and surgical care of our patients and in-person follow-up care possible.
The partners agreed to consider any other twin engine turboprop, or, if they could be operated economically and short hops made sense, a twin jet.
Considering access to maintenance, short legs, high altitude ops, and cost of operation, are there any planes that come to mind for our mission?
Thanks.

MU2.

Sorry, it is the right plane. Low maintenance, twin, turboprop, no jet runway problems, fast, good for passenger entry/exit, robust.

You can consider a few other TPE331 choices: twin Commanders and 441 Conquest. While they aren't as rugged, they will get the job done. Maybe even a Merlin, a brute of an airplane but you would be using it with low fuel loads.

You need pressurization, twin, turbine despite the short legs due to the terrain and weather.

Mike C.

Yeah MU2 is the right ship. The next best thing will be any TPE twin engine ship like mike said. Twin Cessna, Commander or MU2. One of the best things about a MU2 is they more often then not operate between inspections with no downtime. Epically well built ship.

Talk to Tom Johnson on the insurance front. He can normally find a solution.

I feel for DR Bienz the above post from refúgiales are probably mostly younger and check, but reflect a problem with the system. It’s also a problem that a competent SE pilot like myself finds himself in. I just sold my Tat A36. I want a better Ac. —Mu2 or C90 or Pilatus pops up. The easy answer is a Meridian. That doesn’t solve the Dr.’s problem. He had net with individuals who presumably have to board a twin that only burns Jet-A. Mu-2 again except for the looming reason you’re trying choose it— insurance!

Rant off.

Dr. I think I’d have a conversation about reliability with the partners, commit to a hiring program and buy 4 TBM 700s (meridian, etc). No this is not a twin v single answer, it’s an insurance answer.

would out sourcing work? Netjets or flexjets or whatever charter company you can find? Rent instead of buy?

https://www.capeair.com/Tecnam/

Doesn't sound like you really need a turbine, you need something that's robust and reliable

Or how about a Twin Otter?

Or just newer KA's ... plenty of 200's floating around.

How about a mix of fleet members in the barn?
Seems like a combination of a SETP (PC-12) and MU-2 might work with leveling out insurance costs.

I wonder if having the discussion using some data would help shape it. After all, doctors are supposed to use data to drive practice. SETPs are equally safe.

I actually thought Kodiak, or Caravan, until you said twin. It doesn’t seem that you need speed since the distances are short. They can be configured to be luxurious in the VIP mode, and will carry anything, through anything.

If money less important, Pilatus and crew of 2. The fact that it’s a popular corporate platform has to mean something to your partners; as it does to the insurance company.

Barring those, KA200.

Maybe I missed it, but what is an “acceptable “ acquisition cost?

Operating cost ?

How often are all 4 gone at the same time ? Would staggered departures with less airplanes work?

Had to be turbine?

This may drive some discussion and other options.

Brad

I'm a bit confused with the reasons for changing/upgrading the fleet; do you wish to get newer airframes, or reduced hourly costs, or both, or..... ?? Flying in the same neighborhood, I'm somewhat familiar with your operation. I don't see any really good solution, if twin-engine is an absolute (and understandable) requirement. You might look at Commanders, with the longer TBO on the Garretts, it could pencil out to slightly less operating costs. But. I'd think any of the comparable replacements (Conquest, etc.) will be relatively similar to the King Airs. And, all those choices are aging, orphaned airframes at this point, maintenance issues would presumably be the same. And I doubt any of the smaller (twin) jets could be operated for less cost, and not very efficient for your mission profile.
That's one of the bummers about Beech discontinuing the C90 line, now, there's a huge gap in the overall twin lineup if shopping for new: you have to take a huge leap from Seneca and G58 Baron, all the way to a King Air 250 (260, whatever, I can't keep up anymore).
But, here's a somewhat out-of-the-box thought: maybe the turbine-converted Duke would fit the profile. Twin-turbines, but only annual inspections rather than phases. Not really my favorite idea, though. As nice a machine as the Duke is, and turbines make it a great bird, they're all aging, orphaned airframes, harder to find parts, etc. And, the conversion cost is near the million mark, you bring your own Duke. Personally, I'd never do that, but, at the same time, I'm envious of anyone who gets to fly one!
Good luck with the plans, there's no straight-forward solution, IMHO. (And, it's hard to imagine the skies of Wyoming without the ortho- fleet of King Airs!)

With that fleet size I’d say first off you need some in house mx capability. I have never had to wait for any part on the Merlin, hard to imagine that a C90 part can’t be sourced as fast as any part of any plane.

But if you need snowy runway capability, then I think the Merlin is the wrong choice with its smaller high pressure tires.

Why not 4 P180 Avanti II's? They have low pressure MLG, great de-icing and are in Europe extensively used for medevac ops in all weathers. They also have almost unmatched safety record. But, you'd have to make sure maintenance is doable close to you, which might be a problem.

Turbo Commander and MU-2 seem like the best options otherwise. Certainly cheaper to operate with the TPE's.

Hard to imagine any old turboprop being much better for your mission than current fleet. I don’t understand why a newer KA would be cheaper than an old one. On your leg lengths, speed doesn’t seem to matter.

PC12 seems to be the best fit for mission described but obviously fails partner test. No jet will be better. I would not recommend Avanti for contaminated runway ops.

If newer = better, get newer KAs. I just can’t imagine based on recent accidents though that insurance is less on those than a pc12.

Mu2 fleet would be great, but you know first hand the issue with finding good pilots for them.

Agree with Erwin on captive maintenance. That seems to be the ticket on older airframes.

Conquests seem like good options but i wonder how they would handle duty cycle, can’t imagine parts are better than KA and good ones seem tough to find.

I wonder what your partners would say if you showed them safety stats on pc12 along with depreciation curves?

If it was my money, I would swap into KA200s. Bigger cabin, you keep the same pilots and a little faster improves cost per mile over 90s. You then maintain the advantage of being able to tell all your partners how much better the ride is in your mu2 on the same leg

I know little about these first hand and I’m not sure if you can get one today just yet.

But... a KA90 sized cabin to go less than 200 miles for cheaper than a KA?

Consider the Tecnam P2012. This is a similar mission to Cape Air and this is the platform they chose.

https://www.tecnam.com/aircraft/p2012-traveller/

PS: they sure seemed pretty cool at OSH

$2.7M for a piston twin? Really?

How well do they work in the mountains when trying to out climb icing?

You could buy 4 MU2 Marquise for that. And I bet they operate close to the same per mile and far more reliably.

Mike C.