Turbine Vs Jet...

BTAcola

New Member
(Yes I realize that the subject is a stupid oxy moron, I meant to put Turbo Prop Vs. jet, but got a bit sidetrack.. My bad)

A customer is looking at wanting to buy an airplane. A student of mine actually. He is looking at a Jet, but mainly for the purposed of when not on personal flights doing a lease back to make some return on it. However, he eventually wants to be able to fly his own airplane. So... he's been looking at King Air 350s, PC-12s and Citations. The biggest thing he likes is speed and a comfortable cabin. I hate to say it, but, money really is not too big of a deal for him. He obviously is conservative but would rather own his own bird instead of paying others for his trips. He is a private pilot, going for his instrument next month, and then looking for an aircraft purchase in a few months after that. So he is just looking for advice, and It is a bit out of my league. All 3 have a range over 1000nm, depending on pax, fuel, etc etc... but most trips would be right at a 1000nm range.

It is true that a PC-12, about 230kts avg would take a long time to go that 1000nm... a King air not quite as long and a Citation... about 2.5hrs... sooo... the BIG QUESTION IS... (keeping an FBOs view a constant)... which one would provide the most return for a lease back in todays current economy, assuming it will only get worse before it will get better.

Also.. obviously a Jet would be the first response from most people, but please only serious responses for those that have a better understanding on this type of market in todays economy as im just getting into it myself.


Thanks for the help.

Brent C.
 
Depending on his total times, he won't be insurable in any turbine-powered aircraft for quite some time.

And others may have a better vantage point from which to judge, but a large, modern turboprop like a King Air or PC-12 will be more in demand than most jets.
 
The thing to consider is the mission the plane will be flying most often.

If the plane is going to be flying under 500nm the King Air or Pilatus are the plane to go with.

If the plane is going to fly to its max range more often then you want the jet.

You should probably take your student to a small 135 operator who operates both jets and turboprops so that he can hear the pros and cons of each from someone with more experience.
 
The thing to consider is the mission the plane will be flying most often.

If the plane is going to be flying under 500nm the King Air or Pilatus are the plane to go with.

If the plane is going to fly to its max range more often then you want the jet.

You should probably take your student to a small 135 operator who operates both jets and turboprops so that he can hear the pros and cons of each from someone with more experience.


Well... haha.. thanks for the info.. lets put it this way... a member of his family already owns a jet.. he is looking "for his own"... to me it sounds like a sick contest that his family plays. See who can have the better toys ya know haha. The plane which ever it is should have a comfortable cruise and it will be used often for a 1000nm trip, the rests would be under that. He knows about not being able to be insured, which is why he wants me to fly it, and train him eventually to get him ready to go to FSI or Simuflite etc etc... so... By the sounds of it... the King Air350 might be the way he wants to go... however he would save lots of time in a citation. He wont go larger than a citation even though they are somewhat slower for a jet. And he refuses a learjet haha. SO... He informed me that I should help him choose the airplane that we would fly becuase id be the one who had to fly it, and he would eventually like to learn it. At first when he told me about it, I was as humble as possible... i still am. but Im starting to freak out about this decision, I think I need to get with soemone in person to go over options and get stuff on paper... thoughts anyone??? Anyone been in a position like this before???

BC
 
You bring up the economy-what makes this guy think anyone would want a lease back in todays economy?
Get the PC12. Easier to insure on, then when he's ready to move up time wise, he'll have an airplane thats in demand and can sell it off for what he wants.
 
You bring up the economy-what makes this guy think anyone would want a lease back in todays economy?
Get the PC12. Easier to insure on, then when he's ready to move up time wise, he'll have an airplane thats in demand and can sell it off for what he wants.


A very great point. He mentioned the economy because when he is not using the plane, he wants to make some money on it. His comment was, in today's economy which plane could I get the best return on when not in use. So he is not concerned too much with when he is flying it, he's more concerned on which aircraft would offer the best return for him.

BC
 
Hey mister, stop calling the citation a slow jet. The citation 500 series is a slow jet. Check out the 650 and 750 series :)

Can't call those slow :p

Where is he going to be flying it?
 
Hey mister, stop calling the citation a slow jet. The citation 500 series is a slow jet. Check out the 650 and 750 series :)

Can't call those slow :p

Where is he going to be flying it?

Louisiana to.. lets just say the southern most tip on the west coast peninsula of Mexico ha ha. and sorry about the citation. ha ha. i'll stop. =)
 
The PC12 will cruise at 250-260. I used to do pretty regular trips from Baltimore to Naples or Jacksonville in about 4 hours burning 60-70 gph with up to seven people in the back. I don't recall ever seeing much more than 300 out of the BE-350 and the fuel burn was about 50% more. He's also going to need a type-rating for the beech to log any time. He can act as PIC in the pilatus with 1,000 total and a trip to simcom (dependent on insurance of course).
 
I would also add that the bigger/faster equipment is going to cost him more to keep a qualified pilot on retainer, more in maintenance, and more in management fees. A single engine turbo-prop is much easier to manage and operate as an owner/operator. Better to start small, find the drawbacks and limitations, then work up to something bigger than to jump into the deep end with a jet in my opinion.
 
... sooo... the BIG QUESTION IS... (keeping an FBOs view a constant)... which one would provide the most return for a lease back in todays current economy, assuming it will only get worse before it will get better.

You really need to talk to your prospective lease-back customers to see what THEY need. You need to fill a need that they don't currently have covered, and you need to have serious discussion with them about how the plane will be used. There are a ton of hoops that will need to be jumped through if it's going on someone's 135 certificate, and they can make or break the possibility of actually getting some return.
 
You really need to talk to your prospective lease-back customers to see what THEY need. You need to fill a need that they don't currently have covered, and you need to have serious discussion with them about how the plane will be used. There are a ton of hoops that will need to be jumped through if it's going on someone's 135 certificate, and they can make or break the possibility of actually getting some return.


Well, you can break this down into three different categories:

1)Part 135 cert open to everyone. Then you have to find a certificate holder that can/wants to use your plane.

2)Dry lease to a specific customer and operate under part 91. This requires knowing of an individual who has that interest.

3)Buying the aircraft in a partnership- which it sounds like the OP's guy doesn't want to do- and operate under Part 91.


The owners of the plane I used to fly had an agreement with another individual who leased the aircraft from the owner. The management company I worked for had me listed as a 1099 contract employee. The lesee had their own pilots and simply paid a dry rate per hour on the aircraft. If that person's pilots weren't available for some reason, I could contract myself out to them for a daily rate, billed and paid directly through me. The aircraft owners collected an hourly rate that helped to offset some costs, but it certainly wasn't profit generating.

BTA- does the owner want to actually turn a profit with his plane, or just help with the costs of ownership? It sounds like the latter . . .
 
Well, you can break this down into three different categories:

1)Part 135 cert open to everyone. Then you have to find a certificate holder that can/wants to use your plane.

2)Dry lease to a specific customer and operate under part 91. This requires knowing of an individual who has that interest.

3)Buying the aircraft in a partnership- which it sounds like the OP's guy doesn't want to do- and operate under Part 91.


The people I used to work for drew up an agreement where another individual leased the aircraft from the owner. The management company I worked for had us all listed as 1099 contract employees. The lesee had their own pilots and simply paid a dry rate per hour on the aircraft. If that person's pilots weren't available for some reason, we could contract ourselves out to them for a daily rate, billed and paid directly through us. The aircraft owners collected an hourly rate that helped to offset some costs, but is certainly wasn't profit generating.

BTA- does the owner want to actually turn a profit with his plane, or just help with the costs of ownership? It sounds like the latter . . .


Ya, he's not looking for a shear profit by any means because he KNOWS it wont happen, and if it does it will be so marginal that he wont care much about it. So.. He just wants to help defer some costs... thanks so much for the GREAT INFO.. PLEASE KEEP IT ROLLING THIS WAY!!!!!
 
What about the PC-12NG? Anyone got a price tag on that to compare to others? The on board lav. is a great feature. And the time it takes currently in a jet to get to his "destination" would only be increased by about 45min at most with the PC-12NG. Looks very promising... keep stuff rolling in... here is a place im looking at specs and contact info on people.

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/htm...NavL3ID=200&NavL4ID=0&NavL5ID=0&NavL6ID=0&L=3



thanks everyone.
BC
 
What about the PC-12NG? Anyone got a price tag on that to compare to others? The on board lav. is a great feature. And the time it takes currently in a jet to get to his "destination" would only be increased by about 45min at most with the PC-12NG. Looks very promising... keep stuff rolling in... here is a place im looking at specs and contact info on people.

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/htm...NavL3ID=200&NavL4ID=0&NavL5ID=0&NavL6ID=0&L=3



thanks everyone.
BC

The NG is going to be marginally faster than a -47 series. All the PC-12's have a lav. Honestly, I wish they didn't. Your guy is going to have to wait a bit to get a brand new one, and I've heard a lot of . . . let's just say less than positive . . . comments about the new setup.

What you're getting is RVSM (useless on a plane that's happiest at FL250) higher gross weight (honestly the old number is more of a guideline) and a real fancy panel that I personally think is less intuitive than the old one with a 430/530 stack (disclaimer: I haven't flown the NG setup in the pilatus but have experience in the honeywell av package in general).

What are your goals? Are you going to be flying the plane for or with him?
 
The PC12 will cruise at 250-260. I used to do pretty regular trips from Baltimore to Naples or Jacksonville in about 4 hours burning 60-70 gph with up to seven people in the back. I don't recall ever seeing much more than 300 out of the BE-350 and the fuel burn was about 50% more. He's also going to need a type-rating for the beech to log any time. He can act as PIC in the pilatus with 1,000 total and a trip to simcom (dependent on insurance of course).

1000TT is not any sort of requirement whatsoever!!! I've got nearly 50hrs PIC in the NG all with about 550TT.
 
What about the PC-12NG? Anyone got a price tag on that to compare to others? The on board lav. is a great feature. And the time it takes currently in a jet to get to his "destination" would only be increased by about 45min at most with the PC-12NG. Looks very promising... keep stuff rolling in... here is a place im looking at specs and contact info on people.

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/htm...NavL3ID=200&NavL4ID=0&NavL5ID=0&NavL6ID=0&L=3



thanks everyone.
BC

I've been flying the NG for about 3 months now...Here are the main points you should know from my experience:

1. Price tag 3.8M
2. Annual budget 500k (based on 300hr/yr)
3. Average cruise 270KTAS
4. Fuel burn approx 600lb first hour 400after
5. The Honeywell Primus Apex is very user friendly given...You are flying point to point. It is not user friendly switching back and forth on multiple instrument approaches.
6. Check controller.com for availability....there are several available for immediate delivery
7. For transition training at SimCom, Ted Otto is the man!!! Very good!

Any other questions? Send me a PM
 
How bout the 200? Won't need a type rating, easy easy to fly, good fuel burn(bout the same PC-12), decent cruise, and always in demand. Something to think about.

Or if he's wants to go baller status which seems like that's part of the appeal, why not an Piaggio? Again, tech. don't need a type, fast, great fuel comsumption, and sexy sexy as hell. Just a thought.

=Jason-
 
What is your experience level? If he's expecting you to effectively fly the airplane single-pilot and give dual instruction you're probably going to need a minimum of a single-engine ATP to be insured in anything turbine powered.

Also consider a TBM 850 or a used 700. Not nearly the payload of the earlier mentioned AC but faster than a pilatus.
 
To answer the above posts all at once...

The goal is ultimately HE being able to fly his own plane, but never without me is what was communicated. He would like a Jet at some point I know that.

LOGS... do you mean the KA200? Yes it is a nice plane, however, he is looking more for the "luxury" plane, and to him atleast the pc-12 is a much more professional look to it.

Piaggio are GREAT GREAT planes. But from the sounds of it, he just wants to be able to fly upfront and overtime get used to the "flow of flying a big plane" so that he can mostly do it overtime, but id still have to be there. So bascially he does not have time to train for flying, just for the flying to go where he wants to.. He wants to be sitting up front. Sooo.. anything that we get would pretty much have to be able to be Single Pilot waiver for since he wants to sit up front.. which, one.. Single Pilot Turbine is already a work load, let alone teaching it too ya know?...

which brings me back to milleR... Yes.. the insurance thing is probably going to suck. Im not a high high timer by anymeans but have some experience under my belt. Lets just say I qualify for ATP.


Now.... He ultimatly wants a plane that he can fly... weather he is rated or not, id be there to be PIC, he just wants to have fun when on the trips ya know? So.. sure a citation would get him to and from where he wants to go in 2hrs... a Pilatus would do it in 4.. the citation he would have no understanding of the principals of it, but flying on autopilot is fun anyways right haha. Same with the Piaggio or Pilatus.. He just wants to sit up front and fly with me on the deck. Id still be the PIC rated. Which brings back to the insurance thing of... once im done with FSI, or SIMCOM.. or simuflite etc etc.... would I have to get my ATP to be Single Pilot waived for any of those aircraft?
 
Back
Top