It's with considerable trepidation that I dip my toe into this piranha-infested thread but I'd wager that a combination of significantly greater wealth and the tax advantages associated with relentlessly upgrading jets could be a factor in play here.

And man, I wish I could afford the problems you guys are arguing about.

Hours on the airframe yes, age not so much. I think this is common across aviation and the comparison to cars is not quite correct. My 1977 501SP has a glass cockpit, fresh paint, and new interior. No non-Citation-nerd has correctly guessed the age of my plane.

Put another way, what's the difference between a 1980 172 and a 2024 172 (or an old vs new Bonanza)? Avionics, interior, and slightly better fuel economy. Avionics and interior can be fixed in the aftermarket (as they have in my plane) which leaves the only difference being slightly better fuel economy. However I can buy a LOT of fuel for the price difference between a 501 and a Mustang. Just doing a back of the napkin calculation, $800k price difference (which may be low) at $4.00/gallon and 140GPH (that's what I burn in MCT @ 365KTAS) yields 1,428 hours of flying purely based on acquisition cost difference.

All that being said, I LOVE that people want to buy new planes and take that depreciation hit. I would never have been able to buy a jet had people not been willing to buy new jets and pass down the older ones for cheap. So please don't let me dissuade anyone from buying a new jet. The more people that do that, the more options I will have to upgrade in the future.

Why aren't newer jet owners happy with sticking what they got? Why is there so much churn in that market?

You can't have most of the transactions being newer jets without that meaning the average length of ownership is shorter.

Mike C.

You can put your money at Pratt or you can put it into an investment.

That is a choice you are making. You can deny the impact, but it is there.

I don't have PW615F numbers, but I do have FJ44 numbers for TAP Blue that go back to 2009. Let's compare two owners, both fly 150 hours/year, one pays into TAP Blue, the other pays the same exact sum into an SP500 ETF. This is the result:

The on program person paid in nearly $800K in total payments and has no equity. The investor owner paid in the same money, but has a balance of nearly $1.9M in his account.

The TRUE COST of the program is $1.9M since that is what you could have had today had you not paid into the program and use the most basic of investment strategies. In the future, this difference will only grow.

The effective rate of the TAP Blue program was nearly $800/hour (in today dollars) over the 2400 hours of usage represented above. That's the investor owner with $1.9M in his pocket after flying 2400 hours.

I believe the programs for the PW615F will show a similar result since program prices are not that different.

This also shows how valuable the programs are to the OEMs and why they don't want you off program. They want your money and will create leverage to force you on programs.

I can understand why owners have a blind spot in this area, it is ugly math.

It is proper to point out the TAP owner has a higher market value airplane, but he also paid more for insuring it, and possibly more taxes on it. Is that increased market value worth the difference? Very likely not.

For one thing, the investor owner could buy into the program in 2025. That would cost about $1.2M to pay for his 2400 hours of use. He is still $700K ahead and now has the exact same market value as the TAP owner.

(I made a few simplifications to make the computation tractable. I assumed all TAP payments and SP500 ETF purchases occurred in mid year as a lump sum. I did not account for dividends which add to the SP500 return (about 1.8% average per year). I assumed both owners met 150 hour minimums. If the TAP owner did not, his rate increased per hour. The TAP Blue prices are actual numbers from owners but they didn't all have the same engine exactly, though TAP prices don't vary much with engine models. A more precise modeling would not change the overall conclusion since it would be small adjustments.)

Mike C.

It would sure be cheaper if they got something they liked from the start.

Mike C.

First of all, there's just a lot more newer jets.

Second, most jet owners are looking for the upgrade about the time they start operating the airplane they just bought.

It would sure be cheaper if they got something they liked from the start.

Mike C.

It would sure be cheaper if they got something they liked from the start.

Mike C.

I've never owned a plane younger than 30 years old.

Every one of them increased in value while I owned them, with the exception of the MU2 which I flew for 1600 hours and sold for 85% of what I paid. No upgrades, no engine work.

The only meaningful upgrade I did on them was my Garmin panel in the jet which the market values highly.

The most market depreciation of a plane happens in the first 10 years. Buy new, and you get killed with depreciation, it is a huge cost factor that is mostly unaccounted for in owner's minds.

Mike C.

That was true years ago and may be true again in the future, but it isn't true in the current market. If you ordered a new airplane a few years ago it is probably worth millions more than you paid!

I had a client who almost ordered a new Phenom 300E in 2021, they would have paid $9.6M, I called them two years later and apologized that I didn't push them to do the deal. Not buying a new airplane cost them $3M

The start of searching for their plane.

It costs a lot to buy a plane, lots of setup costs, taxes, fees, etc. If people are buying and soon selling, that's money lost. Chip basically said his clients are already looking for the next one as soon as the deal is done, which seems odd to me.

So if they could find a plane they are happy with from the start of the search, that would save money.

When pilots ask me about whether they need to make small steps on their way up the plane scale, I tell them to make big jumps because it gets you where you want to be faster. There may be more pain and effort at the start, but the long term results is better than making small steps.

Mike C.

The start of searching for their plane.

It costs a lot to buy a plane, lots of setup costs, taxes, fees, etc. If people are buying and soon selling, that's money lost. Chip basically said his clients are already looking for the next one as soon as the deal is done, which seems odd to me.

So if they could find a plane they are happy with from the start of the search, that would save money.

When pilots ask me about whether they need to make small steps on their way up the plane scale, I tell them to make big jumps because it gets you where you want to be faster. There may be more pain and effort at the start, but the long term results is better than making small steps.

Mike C.

Getting back to the Mustang…. I am getting the itch to make a big jump. That big jump for me would be from a SR22 that I have flown for about 700 hours. No multi engine time and no turbine time. My mission is 4 or five people 600 miles to the Bahamas (KILM to MYEH )and once or twice a year from KILM to KTEX. Very little business flights. I started out demoing a M600 which I liked. I was told that I really wanted a TBM 850 because it’s faster. Now, I ran into a friend this week who has had a Mustang and he told me to look at one of them. I’d pay cash for the plane and would like to be sub 2.5 mil. My yearly budget would be 200k ish for 100 - 125 hours per year. I think the insurance will be stupid the first year on either and may take me out. I like the idea of an engine program because of my budget and I like the idea of being over most of the weather. I like the idea and challenge of being type rated. Would it be worthwhile to pursue the Mustang? Would the Mustang DOC be way more than the TBM? I know it’s a lot more than the Piper. My friend and this thread has really got me wondering.

It is absolutely worth considering and the op cost is as low or lower than a TBM.

Yes, that first year will require a mentor pilot and a big check, but that is the quickest path to accomplishing what you want to do.

$2.5M will buy a very nice Mustang.

I jumped from an SR22 to a 501SP. It's definitely doable but insurance will require some amount of mentor time so you will need to have access to a 510-rated pilot to fly with you. I ended up keeping my mentor for a full year but I was only 300TT when I made the jump so I didn't know what I didn't know. So you should look into that - 510s are not super common vs 500s.

Having dual engine redundancy, power to spare, and being able to top nearly all weather is a game changer from the SR22. The family will also really appreciate the pressurized cabin and shorter flights.

You should definitely check out a Mustang in person. The flight deck is fantastic but it will be snug with 5 and any amount of luggage. The 501SP is older and burns more fuel but they are way cheaper with a larger cabin. You can get them with Garmin PFD/MFD and NAV/COMs. Garmin has been teasing that they are going to STC their autopilot and EIS but literally the only thing my plane won't do is actually fly the VNAV for you. But it will give you VNAV guidance on the PFD so you just dial the AP pitch wheel to match the magenta carat and you're good. Another option would be a CJ which is more fuel efficient, would be on programs for Williams, can also be Garminized....

There is an epic 501SP thread on here: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=146315