BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2025, 16:13

Username Protected wrote:

I second the use of a consultant

It is sad you have to pay someone else to make sure the shop isn't cheating you.

On the other hand, if you find the right shop, then not only does that shop save you money directly by doing reliable good work, but it also saves you what you would have pay the consultant to make the other shop behave. So maybe the lesson here is to find the right shop in the first place.

Sometimes the money you spend to make sure you aren't spending too much money is more than just spending the money in the first place.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2025, 16:23

Username Protected wrote:

I second the use of a consultant

It is sad you have to pay someone else to make sure the shop isn't cheating you.

On the other hand, if you find the right shop, then not only does that shop save you money directly by doing reliable good work, but it also saves you what you would have pay the consultant to make the other shop behave. So maybe the lesson here is to find the right shop in the first place.

Sometimes the money you spend to make sure you aren't spending too much money is more than just spending the money in the first place.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2025, 19:31

Username Protected wrote:

I second the use of a consultant

It is sad you have to pay someone else to make sure the shop isn't cheating you.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2025, 19:38

Username Protected wrote:

I think that is perhaps an oversimplification. They aren't cheating you as much as they are entirely so bureaucratic as to miss the forest through the trees.

Okay, "cheating" perhaps implied intent, but shops these days waste customer money like water. They have no diagnosis capability other than "replace the most expensive box first".

I'm leery of the "high a consultant to fix your problems" attitude. At some point you have so many consultants that you need a consultant to manage the consultants. Ten you add up the cost of all that and find out you might be ahead not having them.

Of course, every consultant will trot out worrisome examples of how they saved more than their fee. But is that happening enough to be worth it?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2025, 19:48

Username Protected wrote:

But is that happening enough to be worth it?

Mike C.

Anecdotally, yes. I ended up with more than 300 man hours in a single squawk. I did not hire a consultant and wish I had.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2025, 19:55

Username Protected wrote:

I ended up with more than 300 man hours in a single squawk. I did not hire a consultant and wish I had.

The question is how many of those hours would the consultant have prevented.

It is hard to have precise data on that since you can't try it both ways with the identical circumstances.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Feb 2025, 20:27

Username Protected wrote:

Of course, every consultant will trot out worrisome examples of how they saved more than their fee. But is that happening enough to be worth it?
Mike C.

You must be talking about some other kind of consultants or something, or maybe you're just scared of what you are unfamiliar with. The guys we use are all very economical. They charge a reasonable day rate plus travel expenses.

We include all of it in our fee to our client, but we refer these guys out to folks that need assistance all the time. I made a really cool friend a few years ago because he called asking if I would go to Alaska and look at a King Air for him, I referred him and Marty took care of it for a few thousand bucks.

I know that you don't see it this way, but this industry is full of really good people, working really hard, to keep people like you flying.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2025, 10:55

Did you happen to look into mentor pilots in the Mustang? That's a concern of mine + the other items you noted.

Username Protected wrote:

Looked hard at both the Phenom 100 and Mustang before going M2.

Phenom 100 cabin is head & shoulders above both the Mustang and the M2.
Systems integration also very nice. It is a clean sheet design, not a 30 year old platform with upgraded avionics.

Phenom will get there faster than a Mustang.

Phenom 100 is still in production.

Where the Phenom lags is in runway performance. We routinely go in and out of airports with 5,000' runways. Home base is 5,000' and most common city pair is 5,000'. Phenom is a no go if hot & wet or if any snow, slush contamination. In New England this is a problem. But can also be a problem down south on hot days when runway is wet.

Mustang is a clean sheet. Great bang for the buck both from a capital and operating perspective. Owners love it. But out of production.

With both platforms there will be some challenge in finding typed pilots for maintenance drop offs, sharing the load on long, multi-stop trips, etc. Just not as many pilots typed in 510 or Phenom 100 as in other platforms like the 525.

If it is runway performance, economy and bang for the buck Mustang. If cabin comfort, speed and "in production matter", and runway performance at or below 5,000' not a big deal, then Phenom.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2025, 15:57

I am currently mentoring a client who hired us to acquire their mustang, soon to be doing the same with our next client. We have 3 mustang pic/mei on our roster.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2025, 21:58

Username Protected wrote:

I am currently mentoring a client who hired us to acquire their mustang, soon to be doing the same with our next client. We have 3 mustang pic/mei on our roster.

Thanks Corey. I'll keep you in mind if we do go that route

TBM 850, Phenom 100 or Cessna Mustang?