the gap is surprising large, assumed to be only caused by the cost of manufacturing of a turbine?
That, and the huge cost of pressurisation. It is a catch-22: a turbine does poor MPG unless you fly high to get the TAS gain (then it does merely mediocre MPG
) which means FL250 or so (much higher means RVSM which is more hassle) which rules out oxygen as practical (masks for all, and a huge gas consumption), which means pressurisation, which makes the whole thing bigger, heavier, use more fuel, cost a whole pile more money, so to make it attractive you have to load it with fancy kit, shiny cocktail cabinets, and then it really does cost a load of money
I think there is a market around the £700k mark for a SE TP with a FL250 ceiling (same as any decent turbo piston tourer) provided it delivers a half reasonable MPG at FL100-180, which is the choice cruising range on cannulas, or even without oxygen (FL100).
Most European non-frontal tops are FL100-160, and frontal tops need a jet (or an F16
) to outclimb. So a FL250 ceiling would be rarely used except for the TAS gain, and then only if pressurised.
IMHO 250HP is not enough. 400HP is much more saleable; translating into a decent short field performance too.
I don't agree that the EA500 is overpriced when you compare it to TBM's and PC12's. It's half or even a third of the price (in the case of the PC12).
Yes but the E500 is only about 1/3 of a TBM850 in perceived value
And you could have a wedding in a PC12