Need "which airplane to buy" advice

That is true from an actual flying experience point of view, but not from an insurance point of view. They will want you to have a certain amount of multi time.

Also, let's face it-- if the cost of flying around in a twin for a year is an issue, you can't afford a jet or a turboprop anyway.

Once you are in a jet, you really should have a professional pilot to fly with, anyway, IMO. And yes, I've flown Citations single pilot, so I know what I'm talking about.

 

You just said what I said about insurance. Yes, no matter what you buy and when, insurance is going to dictate your training regime before going solo.

It's not just the cost of flying the twin. It's trying to sell it after a year. You may have to get yourself buried in it. It's the insurance requirements to fly a piston twin too. Youre basically doubling up everything by learning the twin and then going and learning the jet. It's an unnecessary step nowadays.

 

Trust me, if any of those costs are an issue to you, you can't afford a jet.

 

That's not what I said.

I'm talking about wasting time doing unnecessary training. I don't know about you but I only have so much time here. Money won't buy you more time.

And, I don't not want a jet. I want a PC12.

 

If you want a PC-12, then the airplane you have is perfect.

 

That's why I own it.

 

Me too. I'm envious every time I duck under the wing of a PC12 to get into my plane to get something out. Knowing where I hangar my plane, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Yup. I'm with you.

 

The TBM is smaller, but faster, the PC12 is more like an SUV, it holds a ton of stuff and has a bigger payload..

The Meridian is small, and has an engine with 1040 thermodynamic horsepower, while the other two have newer generation engines with almost twice that. The bottom line is that the 12 and the TBM are very capable airplanes, one faster and smaller, the other a lot bigger and a good bit slower. Depends on your needs and wants.

 

In my humble opinion, the PC-12 is the king of general aviation airplanes. It is one of my life goals. I don't really have much interest in messing around with corporate jets, and I love the "simple complexity" (for lack of a better term) of the Pilatus. Just thinking about how many surfboards I could cram into that thing gets me all hot and bothered!

 

PC12, TBM, Merdien all cost the same to operate.

So why not buy the biggest with the most utility?

A TBM isn't much bigger than my Bonanza. A Meridien is smaller. I'm not spending that kind of operating cost for a little airplane.

I want a bathroom, coffee maker and stewardess. The only plane that gives me this is the PC12.

The TBM isn't faster by the way. Same fuel flow equals same speeds.

 

Wow. Too many details to list. I could write a book on the subject.

Seriously, you'd need to post some that you're looking at and I can tell you the better deal.

Honestly, I wouldn't touch a Meridien or TBM. Just do the PC12. You never need another airplane. That's it. It will fly you and all your friends around the world in comfort and style. Done.

 

Not true, the Meridian has much lower power and lower fuel flow, hourly cost for fuel are lower than either the TBM or the PC12. Since the TBM is faster, it will have a lower cost per mile than the PC12, but the cost per seat mile will be better on the PC12.

Fuel flow being equal doesn't mean the speeds are the same. Do your homework. Bigger cabin = more form drag. Bigger payload = more induced drag. More drag = less speed. Bottom line is that PC12 is a bigger, slower airplane, even though they have the same power (and fuel flow) you can't expect the PC12 to be as fast as the TBM and it isn't. The TBM cruises at 320kts, and the PC12 cruises at 280. That's 40 knots faster and that's a bunch.

There are a lot of people who don't want an SUV, they want something more sporting. Being a sports car aficionado, you can appreciate that.

 

Um. I fly both TBM and PC12 regularly. Don't tell me to do my homework.

TBM 850 cruises 270-280 on 60+ gph.

PC12 cruises 260 on 55-60 gph.

TBM 850 can cruise much faster but it gets you into the 80-90 gph range.

The PC12 is a bigger airplane, but it also has a lot more horsepower than a TBM.

Is the TBM faster? Yes, by burning a lot more gas. I don't know anyone who chooses to burn that much more gas because the numbers don't work.

TBM is not more sporting. It's an SUV also. Just not as big an SUV as a PC12. The TBM is not a MIG29. The TBM has a tiny cockpit. I have more room up front in my Bonanza than a TBM. Also, in the TBM you fly with your feet straight out in front of you. It's not comfortable. Same with the Meridien.

I would definitely never buy a Merdien. There are 60+ on controller right now. There's a reason

TBM has limited service centers. You will be ferrying the TBM a long way for service. That costs money and therefore I contend you will spend a lot more money operating a TBM than a PC12. There is also very little parts supply for TBM here so most things will need to shipped in. Not so with the PC12. There are lots and lots of PC12s here.

The Meridien is in the same boat regarding service.

Don't get me wrong..... I'd rock TBM in a second. The PC12 is the better airplane but it's also a million$ more than the TBM. But in the end, you will spend less operating the PC12 and you will lose less in depreciation and PC12s are very liquid due to their popularity.

 

The crazy thing is that the Turbo Commander I fly goes 295 knots on about 65gph, with two engines! And, given the high cost of overhauls on the PT6s these days, it's probably no more expensive in engine reserves either.

The cabin is much larger than the TBM, but smaller than the PC-12.

 

So as to make an apples to apples comparison, I found the POH for the TBM 850 on line, and on page 5.11.13A (standard day conditions) they have the fuel burn at 30,000 ft, normal cruise. Fuel burn is 55.5 gph, and cruise speed is between 315 and 305 KTAS depending on weight. Long range cruise is quoted in the POH at 5500 pounds, and at 28,000 ft (55.5% torque) the 850 is at 241 KTAS, but is only burning 37.9 gph.

The PC12 POH used to be on line, but I couldn’t find it on the Pilatus web site anymore. Wish I had downloaded it when it was there. Anyway, the AOPA quotes the PC12 handbook numbers at 260 KTAS at 30,000 ft at 75% burning 52 gph.

Obviously at lower altitudes both aircraft will burn more fuel and will be up against the torque limit, and with the 850 you can burn more fuel since it has a different rating. Also at lower altitudes it could be closer, but I still think you will find that per pound of fuel burned the TBM will carry it's smaller payload faster.

Not to take anything from your vast experience with both aircraft, but I find it hard to believe that you could push the PC12 almost 50 knots faster for only 3 gph of fuel burn. Backing off the throttle on the TBM to the same 52 gph fuel burn will drop speed the cube root of the power change and the power change in this region is pretty linear, so I’d expect that at 28,000 ft and 52 gph, the TBM is going between 295 and 305 KTAS (again depending on weight), or about 40 knots faster than the PC12 for the same fuel burn. If you have the PC12 handbooks handy, you can check the AOPA numbers, but I still sand by my comment that the TBM is pretty darn close to 40 kts faster than the PC12 in cruise for the same fuel burn. It clearly is at 28,000 ft, and that's the only point I have to compare.

 

1. I don't care which is faster. The difference you quote doesn't amount to hill of beans when I'm flying Atlanta to Aspen. Especially since the TBM has no bathroom.

2. I give a TBM 850 all I can and I'm really happy if it approaches anything close to 300 knots. The POH is a load of hooey. But aren't they all?

The discussion is about which is the better airplane. Not "which is faster". If you want speed, buy a jet. I want utility. I want bang for the buck. The PC12 is more bang for the buck than the TBM.

If one cannot afford a PC12 then that's fine. But I say if toucan afford a TBM, you can afford a PC12 and you will spend less operating it than a TBM.

Cruising Speed is a small part of the equation when buying an airplane. There's a lot more to consider. A CJ is faster and cheaper to buy than both but you're gonna have to make a fuel stop on most trips and your burning more than 2X the gas. So what's the point?

 

Does it really matter which is faster ? The highest speed is not necessarily the fastest. Which is quicker and more economical may be better questions. There is no one correct answer, until both aircraft fly the exact same trip. Cessna had this conundrum with their 441 and their Citation. The same applies when comparing other similar aircraft. Each aircraft has its' preferred flight profile. It's a time and distance problem, not how fast a given aircraft can fly. It's been argued since the tortoise and the hare had their competition and man beat the horse in a race.

 

+1

 

All true. Climb rate comes into the block to block time and in that case the much lighter TBM really wacks the PC12, 2600 fpm for initial climb on the TBM and 1600 for the PC12. At max gross, the TBM can be at 30,000 ft in about 15 minutes, faster than most VLJ's.

Jason wants a bigger more capable aircraft, and that's fine if his mission is to fly from Atlanta to Aspen, non-stop in a more comfortable airplane. Some folks don't want or need as big a plane and their missions aren't as long, so I can see a lot of cases where the TBM might make sense.

As to operating costs you always should be looking at costs per mile and not per hour. The slower airplane makers will always quote you in $/hr, the faster ones quote $/mile. Since the TBM is 15% faster, at cruise and a lot faster in ROC costs will likely be about 20% less to operate per mile than the PC12 for items such as engine reserve and fuel. I know nothing about how each airplane is built or the cost of maintaining it, but engine reserve and fuel are two of the biggest items in the cost per mile. The PC12 has a more complex control sysetm, the TBM is all cables and rods. I don't know which is better.

I don't understand the comment that, "if you can afford the TBM, you can afford the PC12". The PC12 costs about $4.5m out the door, where the TBM is more like $2.8m. That's a pretty big difference. Not disputing the capabilities of the PC12, it's just that's a lot of jack. $1.7m will pay for a lot of maintenance or fuel. Or to look at it another way that's a lower lower monthly payment. I'm guessing that you mean that if you have the bucks to blow on either one you can probably afford anything you want, but if money isn't an issue why are we talking turboprops in the first place? Other than short field capability (admittedly critically important to some, but not an issue at all for 80% of the folks out there), the biggest advantage to a turboprop is cost of operation and fuel burn. The downside is noise, and higher workload compared to a jet.

Different strokes for different folks. Airplanes are a lot like cars. Everybody sees it differently and you buy what you like and makes sense for how you expect to use it.

 

TBM is 3.5 million plus. Are you confusing a Meridien with a TBM?
Here you go http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/SOCATA-TBM-850/2012-SOCATA-TBM-850/1224545.htm?

PC12 is 4.5 million plus.

If its the same price to run both, why not choose the larger, more capable airplane? Why intentionally choose the smaller airplane?

You say the TBM is cheaper to run. I totally disagree.

 

I'm way below the current discussion. I have owned many planes over the years, and for my mission(similar to the OP) I settled on a fork-tailed doctor killer. He's not flying into or out of a gravel trap in Idaho. He doesn't need or want to be in the flight levels with kero. He wants to do 5-700NM reliably for two, and sometimes three without breaking the bank.

Hands down, this is a mission for a well equipped late model Bonanza or if you prefer a TN Bonanza. The 210 would also be a decent selection but I've flown both and I still prefer the build quality and the handling of the Bonanza, even if it cost me ~5-10NMPH.

I fly out of N TX and go to CO regularly, I go to the beach in S TX, around AZ and into OK and the occasional trip to the upper midwest. You can spend a lot more money to get that extra 25 knots if you want. The block times on a 600NM trip are going to be limited. Maybe 30 minutes. When you move into the turbines, you really step up in cost, and down in block times. I think the Bonanza hits a sweet spot in cost/time while maintaining decent safety margins of GA piston flight. I can never reach the safety margin of a turbine or a jet, or even a twin.

If I were to move up in the piston range it would be into something like Rob has with the Columbia. Better speed, newer panel, fixed gear with RG type speeds. Problem is, the cost goes way up for that extra 30 minutes. If I flew 3-600 hours per year on biz and pleasure, I would sure look into it. I do about 80-140 hours of flight per year, and my well under $100k investment does me just fine.

The Bonanza line are some of the easiest complex planes in the world. They handle like butter and will make even the most ham-fisted pilot look ok on landing. If you are concerned about the V tail, get a straight tail. I am not concerned because I am an engineer and I did my homework.

There's a lot of choice out there around $500k or so, and some are going to be better than the Bonanza. I've never flown a Cirrus but from everything I've heard so far, they sound like a good go-somewhere plane for many GA pilots. Others with experience in that platform will have to fill in on that.