Haha no way this thread was going to stay on topic. What thread about comparing make and models ever stays on topic. LOL.


Mike

Flew my Mustang from KELM to KAPF today, about 10 hours ago as I write this. You can look at it on Flightaware for N77TZ. Unusual to have a tailwind in that direction but it was there today. 03:14 flight time. I burned 1750 lbs of fuel. That includes the fact that ATC starts bringing me down over 200 miles from destination. I'm at FL200 125 miles out, and 10,000 ft for the last 70 miles. Wind was favorable, its usually a bit more time and a bit more fuel. I could have cut the fuel by 75 lbs by pulling back power on those low altitude sections but I had plenty of reserve so lets go fast...

Sweet spot is the TBM when considering range, payload capability, short field performance and airframe vintage.

Same winds? Note this is an actual flight (with ATC routing and early descent, but some tailwind) versus a theoretical one you will never get.

The Mustang took 48 gallons more, or under $200 more in fuel. Seems like a small price to pay for twin jet redundancy.


Where's the reserve fuel?

People + luggage = 810 lbs
Used fuel = 1426 lbs (ideal)
Reserve fuel = 600 lbs

Total is 2836 lbs, so not doable with a 2500 lbs useful load. You will need a fuel stop unless you have a good tailwind with that cabin load.

Mike C.

Y’all are finally addressing why I went with the C90 King Air. Over 800 pound payload with full fuel. That could be increased with some paperwork. I could do 800 NM with seats full with kids and three adults. Capex was much lower.
When I flew the Citation II from Dallas to Madison, WI, it took 100 gallons more fuel and I arrived about 45 minutes sooner. For me traveling personally, that wasn’t worth it. For someone where time was more important and getting higher, it certainly could be.

Is the recommended TBM fuel reserve really 600 pounds? Seems high to me. We used 300 in the Meridian - but we wouldn't have to worry about that on this flight as we'd definitely be stopping.

Chip-

100 gallons = $350. In a KA90, that flight takes, say, 3 hours, so costs ~$3000 in a KA90. 100 extra gallons is not a big percentage of the overall trip cost.

45 minutes sooner means less airframe time which offsets that cost. One has to keep in mind the hourly "burn" for airframe hours and not just focus on fuel usage. This makes the faster airplanes not as expensive as you might think. This is particularly true when accounting for the impact of headwinds.


A KA90 is 800 lbs flown 800 nm at 250 knots?

Well, that answers why I bought an MU2. 1200 lbs flown 1200 nm at 300 knots.

It would not surprise me if a Citation 501 can be operated for the same per mile as a KA90. This is particularly true if you can get the 501 on an extended inspection program which moves inspections to 3 year intervals.

I'm expecting my Citation V to run about $1500/hour ($700/hr for fuel, $800/hr for everything else). KDAL to KMSN is about 2 hours, or $3000. Not a lot different than the KA90 and that would carry more than double the payload if desired and go 420 knots.

Mike C.

What is the speed and ceiling of that C90? Less than the Meridian. Almost twice the fuel. 3 hours in the Meridian to cover almost 800 nm at FL280 works well for me and my bladder thanks me. I just don’t see a fuel stop, if needed, is that big of a deal. If most of my missions were more than 800nm I’d consider something else. Average mission should be the driving factor in this decision.

The C90 ceiling was FL300 but we usually flew near FL200 to keep the cabin altitude reasonable. Usually trued out near 225KTs. I could basically fill the cabin (and did many times), with full fuel. One can get a nice older King Air for around 1/2 million with -21 engines. A million used to be a mid-80s King Air with mid time Black Hawk engines. They seem to be more now. The Meridian had the range, but not the payload for me at the time and the Capex was much higher.

This is said a lot but it is not actually a good idea. If we did that for buying cars, they would have 1 seat and drive 30 miles on a tank of gas.

If you buy an airplane for your average mission, then you lost ALL above average missions. Now your average is LOWER than you wanted.

I believe the correct approach is to define the maximum mission you want to be able to do. Then buy the airplane that fits it.

In most cases, you buy the most airplane you can afford and your mission profile grows to fill its capabilities. This is supply side economics rather than demand side.

Someone once asked me "if money was no object, what airplane would you buy?". My answer was the USS Enterprise, though I'd settle for a warp capable shuttle if the market was tight.

Mike C.

Mike: I hear you, but hours on the airframe wasn’t much of a consideration on an older bird. We flew our King Air around 150 hours a year for eight years. Sold it for almost $100,000 less than we paid for it. Some of that is attributable to market conditions, but it worked well for us.

Ouch.

A good winter headwind would kill travel time, maybe to the point of not being worth going. I've seen 150 knot winds at FL200 and in my MU2 I cursed my 150 knot ground speed in those conditions.

Mike C.

No matter what you’re flying, 150 knot headwinds make it seem slow!! .
We had that in the Citation II once and found lower better! The jet stream is like a river of air, we got just under it.