$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.

He clearly stated the MU2 presented insurance cap limitations, why continue to reference this as a solution?

Not a lot in speed or time, but in cost per mile, yes. The MU2 will be faster, especially on 200 mile leg into a 100 knot wind. That's 1 hour for the MU2, 1.5 hours for the KA90. Not only is it less cost per hour to main the MU2, but you get more miles per hour as well, double benefit.


Kodiak is turbine. That makes all the difference for fuel availability, reliability, low maintenance, high performance, payload, climb, speed.


P2012: 8113 lbs lifted by 750 hp, 10.8 lbs/hp. 1150 fpm climb.

MU2 Marquise: 11570 lbs lifted by 1556 hp, 7.4 lbs/hp. 2200 fpm climb.

The turboprop will radically out climb the piston airplane and that is what you want when you are in icing in the mountains.

Would I rather fly a new P2012 or an old MU2 on this mission? The MU2 wins hands down. Buy one of each, fly for 3 years, and then compare the overall cost and experience. It will be night and day.

Mike C.

Because solving the insurance problem seems possible and that is the easiest way to get the right airplane for the mission.

Mike C.

You already have the best plane for this mission.

There is a case to be made for a legacy Citation.

Won't really be faster than an MU2 for such a trip, but would be safe, would be insurable, and I think would be reasonably reliable. Good passenger comfort, too. I think that would help with you passengers, particularly if they are not "small airplane people". A jet inspires confidence.

The only downside is runway issues.

In hot weather, you have high DA which has to be factored into the operation. This would take running a few scenarios to see what the issues are. Given your very short leg lengths, you are likely NOT to have a problem since you will have very low fuel loads and thus be well under max weights.

In cold weather with ice or snow on the runway, things get a bit trickier. Landing in 6-8 inches of powder is no problem, will help slow you down. Landing on sheer ice is more of an issue but I suspect a more rare condition. This is why I suggest a legacy Citation with the original JT15D engines and, critically, thrust reversers. The landing data is NOT computed with thrust reverse, so you have margin. Very few TR equipped small cabin Citations have gone off the end of a runway, the 525 series does that more often (no TRs on the Williams).

If you have a local charter outfit who, on that rare 0.1% occasion, can take you to an ice covered runway in a King Air, then a jet might make some sense. I've seen a legacy Citation land on sheet ice before, it isn't as radical as one might imagine. TRs help *a lot*.

The legacy Citation will cost you very little to get, perhaps less than an MU2 depending on which model. The 501SP works, has enough seats, and is single pilot out of the box. The II is probably the right choice, the extra power for not much more weight helps, and pilots can be single pilot qualified. My V is pretty good short field airplane due to the much improved wing, but a V is starting to be too big. It would, however, be operating WAY under gross weight, which gives it a huge advantage. It is probably the shortest runway user of the group.

Insurance should be no problem, Citations are safe and there are many underwriters who will write high limits, particularly for a flight department with pro pilots on staff.

You can find pilots easily, probably at less cost than MU2 or King Air pilots as collecting jet time is something up and coming pilots want to do.

The fuel you use will be, say, 220 GPH block due to short legs and low altitudes. But that's a relatively small piece of the cost puzzle.

To see if this works, you need to model your missions for which airports, what weather, what leg lengths, what payloads. No plane is 100%, the question is how close to 100% do you need to get?

It will be hard to downgrade to a turboprop after your people experience the jet.

Here is my landing chart for my V, using TRs on wet and ice runways. As you can see, the adders are not particularly that high.

Mike C.

For a Citation V, assuming my plane weights, 9250 lbs empty, 5000 ft airport elevation, 13000 lbs takeoff, 11500 lbs landing (about 1100 lbs cabin payload, 1500 lbs fuel burn), you get numbers like this:

0 C:

Takeoff (flaps 7, dry, no TRs): 2670 ft
Takeoff (flaps 7, ice, with TRs): 4426 ft
Landing (flaps full, dry, no TRs): 2490 ft
Landing (flaps full, ice, with TRs): 3509 ft

30 C:

Takeoff (flaps 15, dry, no TRs): 3410 ft
Takeoff (flaps 15, wet, with TRs): 4149 ft
Landing (flaps full, dry, no TRs): 2650 ft
Landing (flaps full, wet, with TRs): 2730 ft

I'm actually surprised at how good those numbers are. The takeoff numbers are to 35 ft AGL AFTER an engine failure at V1. Landing numbers are from 50 ft high at runway threshold at Vref (which implies a touchdown about 1000 ft past the threshold). That means there are ample margins built into the data already.

At 13000 lbs takeoff, it will be amazing performance, even at 5000 ft field elevation.

Biggest negative for the legacy Citation strategy right now is lack of inventory and fuel prices are elevated somewhat.

Mike C.

The Tecnam P2012 might be good option for some at lower elevations, but, note, the OPs high country neighborhood essentially requires pressurization.

Like Adam said: Your mission profile screams "King Air". I don't think a MU-2 or legacy Citation will fare better if "maintenance downtime" and "I can't find people to maintain them" are the pain points.

Regarding hourly costs, I don't think anything up to your mission and dispatch reliability requirements will be cheaper than $1250/hr. More speed will amount to nothing on 100-200 NM legs.

What about replacing the oldest King Airs with ca. 2007 vintage with a full Garmin panel overhaul?

How about this… buy another c90A and just accept maintenance downtime

Buy an MU2 to fly the mechanics around to wherever the King Airs are broke down.

Mike C.

Bingo.

Bingo.

TBM or PC12, get over the single engine thing. Zero engine out in the TBM PT6-66D.

Start with one PC12, no need to change everything at once. I even see a combination Caravan/Kodiak for short ops with TBM/PC12. You dont want a piston anything.

Or new KA250 if you really need a twin but your cost will go up.

Just shows how few new options there are in this field. Basically King Air's and Avanti's and that's it. The twin turboprop has gone the way of the dodo.