i would.. if i had the money!!! hehe .. then again.. i would just get myself a submarine.. now we are talking... lol
thats not my tail number (that is a sample picture of a 35a) I'm not posting my tail number on a chat board but thanks for the bird-dogging it stays hangered in Bardstown Kentucky
Awesome plane man. Ive never sen a private jet. If you ever travel to MI and wouldn't mind giving me a tour let me know. I was amazed the first time I sat in a ferrari I could just imanagea private jet.
here are three fully operational BAC jets for 4 mil http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/_Aircraft__3-BAC-1-11-Jet-Aircraft-Business-Airliner-BUY-IT-NOW_W0QQitemZ150253186654QQadnZAircraftQQadiZ2829QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item150253186654&#ht_1781wt_0 by the way im not associated with the seller at all
worked at an airport over the summer... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Very nice. The last four photos are obviously my favorites having owned a couple of round engine examples. I think Art has very well laid out a good case study on how the numbers work on turbojets/turbofans. It would be interesting I think to compare relative bang for buck on turbojet vs. a fast turboprop. I guess it would depend on intended mission profiles. Photo of my humble Itty-bitty Airlines. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I don't know how much he's looking to spend, but if it's mid 8 figures, I'd try and buy a fighter jet or something extremely fast and cool. The biggest, most expensive, most luxurious Airbus in the Middle East isn't even 1/10th as cool as a fighter jet. Screw luxury if you can fly at 1800 mph. Time is money Modern fighter jet >> every possible form of terrestrial transportation
When I worked at Braniff 2 (3 and 4 as well) the owner, Jay Pritzker ( top 10 richest men in the US ) flew abound in an old Hawker jet with Rolls Royce Viper disposable engines. He was spending HIS money, not a corporate account. I worked at Business Jet Solutions after that gig as maintenance controller for a fleet of Lear 35's. If you have enough money to buy and operate a Lear, retire and buy an island. Much better investment and lots less stress.
Took the words right out of my mouth! I'm dreaming of a 150k Countach to go with the 308 in a few years and these guys spend that much a month just to fly 'round. *goes back to the lower class cabin* 8 figures?? did someone say 8 figures? Wow!
The mission profile doesn't matter, the turboprop beats the new Very Light Jets (VLJ's) hands down for ANY mission. It climbs faster, takes off and lands shorter, and cruises at about the same speed with a lot less fuel burn. The turboprop with the current state of the art engine technology (what you can buy today as pictured by the Epic LT that is shown in another post ) will burn about 60% of the fuel compared to a similair cabin size light jet. The turobprop will do that at 29,000 feet and you would have to fly the jet at close to 40,000 feet, meaning that there is a longer time to climb for the very light jet to get to altitude. I am comparing similar cruise speeds here (about to 340kts for each). There are turboprop engines that are on the test stand that I can't talk about that will burn about 20% to 30% less fuel than what is the typical state of the art engine that is being sold today. Yes it is going to be a bit noisier, but at altitude it is pretty darn quiet too. You heard it here first, there is a new generation of turboprops coming, and fuel prices are going to hurry them along. The Epic just one of the first of these, there are others on the drawing boards that I guarantee will knock your socks off...
You are thinking about the PC12 and the TBM850. That's the old generation of turboprops, hand riveted labor intensive airplanes, both made in Europe where labor is really expensive. As the guy said to Dustin Hoffman in the "Graduate".... "I want to say one word to you. Just one word.......Plastics!!!" Ok think composites, but I couldn't help it the "Plastics!!!" line is such a classic.... And the PC12 is huge airplane, (think more like a full size stretch van inside compared to a normal car size that is the TBM) is relatively slow (270 kts) and costs about $3.5 mil, the TBM 850 is smaller a bit less expensive (around $2.8 m, the French really know how to make things expensive)... I don't see how they sell any TBM's with a price that close to the Cessna Mustang (come to think of it they aren't, the Mustang has a 2-3 year waiting list and I don't think the TBM does)... The new generation of turboprops that are on the drawing boards right now (ok they are on peoples CAD systems, nobody draws anything anymore) will be more like the size of a larger VLJ in terms of cabin dimensions (somewhat smaller than the PC12 but bigger than the TBM850). They will be just about as fast as a VLJ (350 kts), and cost about half as much in direct operating cost (60% of the fuel burn and only one engine to overhaul and maintain). And they will cost a lot less than a comparable VLJ. Think about a price of just under $2 mil (that's what the Epic Dynasty costs right now) where real airplanes (like the Mustang) are closer to $3 mil (Cessna quotes around $2.7 m for a Mustang but they are going out the door at closer to $3.0 equipped). Also note that current pricing on the Eclipse 500 is $2.15 m. Forget the 1.2 million introductory price, and forget the early production price of $1.65 m, those prices are long gone. Also, the Eclipse is tiny inside (I have been in both the Eclipse and the Epic and the Eclipse is really a marginal 5 place aircraft, where the Epic is a very comfortable six place) and the Eclipse has no range to speak of if you fill the seats. One thing that most VLJ manufacturers don't talk much about is the very limited range with a full cabin. The typical VLJ will only go 500 to at most 700 miles with the seats full. The turboprops will go 1000 to 1200 miles with six people in the cabin and a hold full of luggage. That short field capability means more takeoff weight, and that translates into almost twice the range. The Epic Dynasty is priced $225k less than the Eclipse and a lot less than the rest of the VLJ's that have a similar cabin size and payload capability. With Jet fuel hitting close to $5.30 a gallon the difference between in fuel cost when you are burning $500/hour versus $300/hour, really starts to really hit home.
Pilatus PC-12 is certainly one of the best offers out there. Beechcraft Super KingAir 350 is as good as props get. It's a real workhorse and one of the biggest best sellers in business plane category.
Late to finding this thread. First: No fractional programs in the Singapore/Southeast Asia region. NetJets keeps talking about the inevitability but still has started. 2: Like Learjet but want 5 hour range. The only possible choice is a Lear 60. If you want to stay in the brand then look at a Challenger 300 - bigger, full 8-9 passenger interior and easily has the range. 3: Look carefully at the assumption set of passengers and non-stop range. In the Singapore region hot weather operating characteristics may need to be evaluated. You may have slow time-to-climb issues that will compromise your range. Look at the specific city pairs and decide if there will be runs to the Middle East and Europe. Range is the fastest way to be buying bigger/more expensive. 4: The charter economics in Southeast Asia may be different than in the US. There are not that many aircraft in the region competing for the clients. Potentially there may be more charter revenue opportunities by having a larger aircraft. Something to give strong consideration to is operating cost versus acquistion cost. Example is that really nice Gulfstream IIs can be bought for way under $5M but the operating costs will equal the acquisition in only a few years. It is a big comfortable aircraft that will do the mission. Attached is a current project of mine in Southeast Asia. Jeff Image Unavailable, Please Login
All of the above is true, but omits one major factor: weather. If you can't get over 40k, you are going to be in the crap while flying. 29k does not get you out of the weather, especially when you REALLY want to be out of the weather. It's about mid level for a thunderstorm, while 41, 43 is on top. You get some of the fuel costs back by reduced maintenance on a jet. You don't have props to worry about, maintain or repair. I'll stick with a jet, if I can afford it. Art
All good points, the next gen of turboprops can most certainly fly there, but some might not be certified to altitudes over 35k. The Epic LT has a service ceiling of 41k, same as the Eclipse, and the same as the Cessna Mustang. A hot turboprop will actually fly pretty well up there since it has a lot of power and (generally) has more wing to meet the requirements for the lower stall speed of a single engine aircraft, and when you get up that high induced drag starts to be one of the bigger factors. The DMC (direct maintenance cost) for a single turboprop will be less than half of the VLJ's even when prop overhaul costs are added. The next gen of turboprop engines will be more like commercial turbofans in that they will likely go a good bit longer between overhauls. For the light jets you are seeing TBO's of around 4,000 hrs. Expect 7000 to 10000 hrs from the next gen of turboprops. Props do a lot better on TP engines than on recips since the crank isn't beating the prop to death. The longer engine TBO and the fact that you only have one engine drastically cuts the DMC. There will always be those who can afford it and will fly a jet. The difference here is that the next gen of TP aircraft will open new markets. Everything boils down to cost. The real market is for people who are fed up with the "crowd killers" and want to get there without the hassle of flying the airlines. If you can make it cost effective, people will do it. If you can provide the same service as light jet, for a lot less, there is clearly a market for that kind of aircraft.
What's going to power these next-gen turboprops? When I first read your post, I thought you were talking about some breakthrough engine technology, but on rereading it, it looks like you are just talking about new airframes? And, why would the maintenance cost on a turboprop engine be significantly lower than on a comparable jet engine? Usually the opposite is true, since you need the gearbox for the prop, in addition to the prop itself. One thing to consider is owner and passenger acceptance. In addition to the altitude issue, turboprops generally are noisier and have more vibration than a comparable jet. On paper, this may not seem like a big deal, but go on a three or four hour flight and then let me know what you think! And, anything with props tends to be viewed as inferior, even something like the Avanti-- which is about the closest thing to what you are describing. Last time I checked, it looked like CJ1s and CJ2s-- reasonably comparable to the Avanti-- were outselling it by a pretty good margin. That might tell you something. One more thing to consider: when Cirrus decided to move up market, why did they go for a jet and not for a turboprop?
All great points and questions that I keep asking myself. It all boils down to the distance you have to fly and in my case a turboprop will not do for more then 1-1'5 hr for simple comfort reasons...
Actually I was talking about new engines. On that point I can't say much, other than the fact that there are demo engines that have run and that have a major improvement in fuel consumption over existing engines. This is about all that is in the public domain, if I told you much more I would have to kill you. But I will give you a hint, the work is being done under contract to the military, so it isn't a snake oil scam or blue sky baloney.... Even with a PT6, the fuel consumption is about 60% of a jet, with the next gen engines, fuel consumption will be less than half.... The next gen of engines will be built more to commercial standards, and will go a lot longer between overhauls than a typical biz jet engine. The engines are basically lighter, so more heft can be put into the gearbox and the weight won't be different. Yes it will not be as quiet, but it won't be bad either. The one prop on these airplanes is way out on the nose. Add to that the more stout structure (to handle pressurization), thicker windshield and the fact that at altitude sound isn't as strong, and you have a pretty pleasant ride. It isn't anything at all like what you hear in a typical single engine airplane (unpressurized recip). It will be a lot better than a typical twin (read King Air) because the props aren't right outside the cabin and you don't have the two props droning in and out of phase (even with syncrophasers it's still there). I can't do anything about perceptions, and there will be resistance to prop airplanes, no question about it. On the other hand the people flying PC12's seem to be pretty happy with the experience and they aren't complaining about the noise. If the economics are there, the buyers will be too. The Avanti is expensive, dressed it is going for around $6.5m the CJ2 is a good bit less. Although the Avanti is economical to operate you would have to be flying an awful lot for it to make sense. Cirrus went jet because these new engines are still about 4 years away, and they wanted to move now. Again, don't ask me how I know...
No matter how you look at it,the future seems very interesting (at least in private planes, that is).
Jeff, pretty interesting for a medium size cabin (correct?). We're working on a project that is primarily in the aircraft industry. Currently looking at a C300, C605, G350, G450, Legacy600.....605 seems like the best choice right now. Do you do custom interiors for medium/large business jets? If so, please send me a PM with some details. Thanks
PM sent. The rendering is for a Boeing 737-400. Yes, I am in the custom interior side of the business. Jeff
