If you put that $1M in an investment that returns 10% per year (long term average of SP500), then your true net economic impact of flying the plane with $100K more OPEX and $1M lower CAPEX is near zero.

You will pay less for taxes (sales and property) and insurance for the lower hull value as well. Insurance is easier to get or has less restrictions for lower hull values. You are more protected against downside hull value risk since there is les CAPEX involved.

In my case, I really like that my overall costs scale with usage (lower CAPEX) than having an expensive airplane that costs a lot sitting (higher CAPEX).

Mike C.

Wow, thank you for the generous offer Mike. If we weren't hosting an event the evening of the 20th I would be 100% for it.

I very much understand that point of a more capable airplane getting used more, that is probably my fear....

Excellent information.


You pretty much describe my profile, except I am the pilot. I fly down to KSRQ a few times per year from almost Indiana, a lot of regional flying on business trips, and some long flights, like even across the country to Las Vegas, Seattle, etc. What you will find is that a more capable airplane will get used more, so your mission profile might expand.

If safety is a priority, nothing will beat a jet. If comfort is a priority, nothing will beat a jet. If speed is a priority, nothing will beat a jet. If operating cost is a priority, almost everything will beat a jet.

$2.5M buys a lot of airplane. I have $1M invested in mine, Citation V, but that was before the price run up. I have had occupant loads from 1 to 9 and often in the 4 to 6 range. I have a potty and it has its own room with doors.

If you can be somewhat flexible, you don't need to hire pilots full time but pay pilots day rates. Rates vary but maybe $800 to $1500 per day would be typical for someone operating out of Indy. Citation pilots are typically not too hard to find.

$1500 an hour is a good budget for a well kept Citation. I am beating that by a fair margin but not I'm not counting engine reserves (I consider that a market value effect more than an on going cost). A lot will depend on your local resources, particularly the shop that maintains the airplane. Indy is not a bad place, I think there are good choices for shops up there. My plane is on a LUMP (low use maintenance plan) which cuts costs quite a bit. Your profile looks like it would fit that plan.

I'm flying KEHR to KSRQ over Christmas, down on the morning of the Wed Dec 20, back sometime around Wed Dec 27. I have a number of empty seats (at least 5), your group can come along if that works out on a sample run of what the experience is like in a Citation V.

Mike C.

One of the pilots that I've spoken with about this thought it might be a better idea to start with something like a TBM 700 to see how much it would get used and have the benefit of the lower operating cost, more pilot availability, etc. The tradeoff there being speed, noise, comfort, etc. Although I believe that would open up airports with shortly runways?

In my rational brain that makes sense, I've done the starter house, starter boat, why not starter plane? My irrational side makes me say that starting more at the midrange would be better. Obviously that is a much smaller plane, but maybe that does make more sense.

I bought a plane that could make my longest trip 6x per year, and figured I’d fly about 150 hours a year.

I’ve been averaging doing that trip 12x per year and averaging 260 hours.

Once you have a magic carpet, you tend to use it.

Your candidate equipment is way out of my league as a pleasure/hobby pilot/owner (but for useful transportation!) and the TBM is a dream plane for me. If you need to take a family of 4 + a hired pilot, you might go crawl in a cabin of one and see if there is enough physical room for everything you'd want to take. It is far smaller than the other great candidates mentioned already, so I feel you might run the risk of a TBM not doing your proposed missions well enough, and then you might sour on the whole idea. They'll certainly cost less to run with a single engine, but the hull values are still fairly high because they're such great planes. That might not matter much to you, though.

If you will consider a single engine turboprop, you might look at Epic... more room than a TBM and still fast. Your budget might allow a completed "kit" version but insurance might be an obstacle. The newer certified version might be above your budget.

No matter what you choose, buy the best you can get and if it turns out to not work for you, you should not have much trouble selling a good/great plane in this market.

Here is what I would do. Find Greg Mink “Premier 1 Driver” who was/is located in your area. Buy him lunch. Tell him what you are trying to do. He will be familiar with the lay of the land in your area for maintenance and pilot availability. More importantly, he has been there and done that with what you are trying to accomplish.

A lot of people in this world would love to have your dilemma.

This is an excellent idea, thank you.

My two cents. Assuming the budget works for it, avoid the starter plane. Spoiler alert, you're gonna use it. The starter plane just introduces the hassle of buying and selling and associated friction costs. Second point is buy a plane for the longer mission. Even if a jet doesn't make total sense for the regional trips, it'll do them and you'll love it for the long trips. My strongest suggestion is look at the eco system of aircraft. Who owns them, who buys them, who maintains, and so on and so on. Some planes, particularly certain legacy turboprops, are truly one-of-a-kind performers that can be very affordable to operate. But you're attached to a shrinking (at different speeds) ecosystem. Also what makes sense for an owner-operator-pilot may not make sense for someone riding in the back writing regular checks. So grain of salt with every single piece of advice you hear here (including mine!) From what you've said (assuming you're flying long-ish runway to long-ish runway at or below 1000 msl), a light jet makes sense to me.

This screams C510 Citation Mustang to me. Great avionics, great interior, has the range you need. Great way to find out, with little risk.

Indy to KSRQ is ~800 nm with routing, and descend moderately early usually happens.

Mustang is not particularly fast. 340, 350 knots? That means headwinds hurt more. In a strong headwind, I could see needing a fuel stop.

The route is mostly north south which usually avoids being directly into the wind, but it can happen. So I wouldn't assume the Mustang is a 100% non stop on this route.

The Mustang is kind of a unicorn airplane. Its own type rating, fewer pilots out there to hire, and it is made from unique parts not shared with the rest of the 500 or 525 series which can lead to some issues.

Mike C.

A few points.

It can be challenging to find pro pilots who want to fly older equipment like the 501, it is equally, if not more challenging to find pilots for the Mustang, both are great owner flown options.

The C90B with Blackhawks is a good option, I’m with Jim that the 200/B200 is better, but the price delta mentioned is accurate.5/$1M difference.

The Citation V is a great jet option, it’s challenging to find a nice airplane, but does everything well, except the $1500 an hour… but you have to factor in speed, and when you do it will stack up nicely, especially on the longer flights.

Safe bet, C90B, well within your budget, op cost good, pilots easy.

Better, B200, tough to find a nice one, pilots easy, good mix of speed and capability.

Best, Citation V, also tough to find a good one, more cost to operate and more potential unplanned maintenance that can be costly, but gives you the ability to go high, quiet and fast. Pilots easy, but more expensive. Fuel burn on short trips is a concern.

There is logic to starting out conservative, getting some experience and moving up.

You might really consider hiring a pilot / manager, especially if you go the jet route.

Having addressed what has been said so far, my recommendation…

Citation CJ1/2 hands down.

Nice CJ1 for your budget, CJ2 is possible, but tight for budget, if you need more seats / range.

Pilots are abundant.

Op cost is low.

Speed is decent.

Williams TAP is the easy button for engine operations.

Maintenance is reasonable, lots of options and it’s as easy to maintain / manage as a King Air.

Note: I separated this from my previous post to make it easier for what comes next!

Older turbo prop

King air is a easy one

Maybe a MU2

Aero commander

For sure needs a nice panel, full WAAS with a modern AP and glass panel



I’d just find the nicest example and go from there

The old jets are tempting, but often have very old avionics, get much more iffy in bad conditions and limit where you can go runway wise, they are also only slightly faster and burn much more fuel


I’d also not skimp on the pilot, which will be likely more important than the plane, ideally you’ll want to hire one who can also manage the plane, find hangars, schedule maintenance, training, etc, I’d find a ATP/CFI with min 2500tt, 500 multi, 500 turbine, ideally one who also owns his own plane, I’d expect to pay 120-140k yr with benefits

Lol

Pilots are abundant? Ba ha ha ha

Go tell that to everyone in the industry right now

Not many pilots who have the experience that you’d want for them to fly your family around, who would be willing to fly a old clapped out light jet for low six figures when most every airline would nearly start them at your highest pay, have benefits and a retirement he probably can’t afford and pay, after year 2 or 3 is going to be near 200k with less responsibility, and they can count on it being a career retirement level position

Not been my experience.

There are a dozen 500 series Citations around here with pilots to match, not a single Mustang anywhere close that I know of.

My mentor pilot lived 5 miles from me, flew a Bravo out of KOWB as his "day" job.

Finding 500 series pilots near Indy will be no problem.

525 series won't be a problem, either.

The ecosystems around both groups is expansive and you should have no trouble finding resources.

Another aspect is that you may be able to find a partner. If you can manage the schedule conflicts, that would make ownership more economical. If you hire a pilot/manager, then you only pay half his salary.

Mike C.