Any Suggestion on an affordable light jet for retirement use
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it really does not matter wether the initial purchase of a light jet is 200k or 750k. If calculated on real TCO the flight hour might easily end up as high as 5,000 USD per flight hour, so if you spent 150h airborne you simply burn another purchase price in a year ... SET are so far cheaper and as private/retirement flying most probably is not time limited, I would go for a decent SET.
Está servira para distraerle.
A mere handful of years ago I was lucky to have the opportunity,albeit a brief one, to fly a Rockwell Shrike Commander in the Caribbean. I've flown quite a bit of charter in piston twins. Specific models include the C310R, Barons of various numbers, Senecas, but not Vs and, of course, the twin Comanche.
The Cessna can be very mildly challenging, the Senecas are desperately boring, the Comanche needs sensitivity and the Beech is simply a quality product. An old Baron is far younger than a Seneca of the same age and usage and that's just the quality difference.
However, the search for my ideal private purchase hit the buttress, as we say in Eton Fives, when I flew the Commander. It's an amalgam of perfect qualities from all the other twins put together with the great advantages inherent with an over wing construction. In a humble way, I'd like to second Adam Frisch's suggestions. There may be some of these aircraft available in South Africa. Eskom used to fly them out of Grand Central and so their engineering department might know the whereabouts of a decent one. Otherwise you could always pop along to Lanseria and buy a reef based King Air 200 with high flotation gear. That'll get in and out of anywhere really. As for single crew in a Lear, why volunteer to die young?
The Cessna can be very mildly challenging, the Senecas are desperately boring, the Comanche needs sensitivity and the Beech is simply a quality product. An old Baron is far younger than a Seneca of the same age and usage and that's just the quality difference.
However, the search for my ideal private purchase hit the buttress, as we say in Eton Fives, when I flew the Commander. It's an amalgam of perfect qualities from all the other twins put together with the great advantages inherent with an over wing construction. In a humble way, I'd like to second Adam Frisch's suggestions. There may be some of these aircraft available in South Africa. Eskom used to fly them out of Grand Central and so their engineering department might know the whereabouts of a decent one. Otherwise you could always pop along to Lanseria and buy a reef based King Air 200 with high flotation gear. That'll get in and out of anywhere really. As for single crew in a Lear, why volunteer to die young?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: PNW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The commander is a dream plane. Everyone I talk to who has flown it wore out the old phrase "like it is on rails", and with that beautiful long wing and high dihedral stabilizer, it should be. Engines up out of the dirt, built like a brick outhouse. Love to fly one some day.
I flew Piston and Turbine Commanders for several years, and I have to agree that the Turbine Commander is surely the most versatile and rewarding aircraft I have ever flown.
For the OP though, I would join the others in suggesting one of the SETs (Piper Meridian, TBM, PC12). Which one, will depend on the load carrying capacity and range required.
MJ
For the OP though, I would join the others in suggesting one of the SETs (Piper Meridian, TBM, PC12). Which one, will depend on the load carrying capacity and range required.
MJ
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity they didn't fit PT6s to the Rockwell instead of the Garretts.
They're more fuel efficient.
They're quicker to respond.
They have higher TBO.
They're easier to find replacements for.
They're cheaper to run.
Drawbacks are that they require more power to start up and are harder on the batteries. They're also noisier.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: With Wonko, outside the Asylum.
Age: 56
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam, have you compared them for MTBF? I'd be interested in anything you've found on that topic.
For the OP, I realise the collective consciousness has driven his request for a jet, to a turboprop... I'd be looking very seriously at a CJ, for its low operating cost, efficiency, and relatively easy availability of parts through a world-wide network of dealers. Really pleasant to fly, too, good performance, and a decent cabin and good luggage space.
Otherwise, it's hard to disagree with what Adam says.
For the OP, I realise the collective consciousness has driven his request for a jet, to a turboprop... I'd be looking very seriously at a CJ, for its low operating cost, efficiency, and relatively easy availability of parts through a world-wide network of dealers. Really pleasant to fly, too, good performance, and a decent cabin and good luggage space.
Otherwise, it's hard to disagree with what Adam says.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I've not done a direct comparison on paper. But due to the free turbine design of the PT6 vs. the direct drive of the TPE, it is the general consensus from many operators I've heard about that they're not quite as efficient. Maybe to the worth of 10% or thereabouts, for the same shp. Reverse flow is part of the culprit.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: With Wonko, outside the Asylum.
Age: 56
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al, I'd have to disagree with that. I know what the last three I flew sold for, and what they were costing to run. One came in south of that figure, and it's very definitely a buyer's market.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere around 27degrees
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I would tour the world, I would much rather prefer a fresh MEP than old jet. You get to cruise lower, see the sites, terrain changing and that would definitely keep the costs down.. but what do I know, I couldn't afford any of it
So assuming, as a direct consequence of the above, you don't want to do long over-water sectors or night flying..............SETP ftw.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but with a fair bit of time sat in them, including into rough & unprepared strips, I can't see how the PC12 would be in any way unsuitable.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avgas aircraft are useless for world travel. You'll have to ship in barrels of Avgas and plan it months ahead for each stop in most locations. It will end up costing much more to run than any MEP for those trips. Only place they make sense is in the US, Australia and North Europe. Everywhere else is just a total hassle.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: PNW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had no idea about that plane, I have admittedly been elsewhere. at first the 3100 pound empty weight did not impress me, as the 310 I fly is 3309. Then I got to the performance and fuel burn and the lightbulb started to glow. 
