Long Term Planning for a Fast Comfortable Cross Country Plane

[AFlyGuy]

Hi folks,

This is my first post as a new user, but I've been lurking for a while now. I'd like to present a scenario that hopefully those on this forum with far more experience will chime in on with recommendations. I've been thinking about this stuff *forever*, so please forgive the long post that ensues. If you're willing to stick it out, I'd be most grateful for your feedback and advice.

I deeply wanted to fly for the Air Force since I was around 12 or so, and everything I did in my scholastic career through high school was focused on getting into the Air Force Academy: top academic honors, Civil Air Patrol cadet, etc. I started flight lessons when I was 16 with some saved funds, but my family was pretty poor, and it was decided (rightfully so) that the funds would be better suited for my first car to ease my mom's burden and facilitate my many extra curricular activities. I just had to put that flying dream in my back pocket until a later date.

As is fairly common with young people, my path ended up looking very different, and I instead went to a top engineering school, got a degree in Computer Science, and then worked on average around 60 hours a week for the next 20 years, and I never could make the time commitment to get my private pilot's license. Anyway, long story short - I eventually created a company, grew it, and sold it years later, and now at 42 years old, I actually have the time to revisit my flight dream.

I've been taking Sporty's Private Pilot Ground School online and it has been fantastic. I found a no-BS Israeli CFI who won't go easy on me (which is right up my alley - I want to be a proficient pilot, not a 'sufficient' one), and I start in-air lessons next week. I plan on continuing immediately to get my IFR and maybe even multi - I'm not sure yet.

Anyway, when I was 16, I trained in a Piper Warrior, which I loved, and the plane I'm about to start training in is a Piper Archer III. These are great planes for training, but my ultimate desire is to eventually own a plane that takes me long distances quickly with family or friends in comfort.

Probably right along with the rest of you, I've been following the advancements in the GA market over the last 5 to 10 years, popping my head in once in a while to scratch that aviation itch and dream the dream. I've done a *lot* of reading and watching YouTube (probably far, far too much YouTube) to continue to learn about all of the aircraft options out there.

It would be more than fair to say that I fall in to the camp where I would want my primary plane to be as comfortable as a luxury sedan and I don't have much tolerance for the slow, cramped days I experienced (and will continue to experience) in C152/172s and the PA-28s. I'm over that. GA, sadly, is so incredibly behind the curve in advancements and technology, it's why Cirrus is the king - all it took was one company to realize that people wanted roomier, faster aircraft with glass panels, and now they're crushing all competitors. Sticking a beautiful G1000 Nxi in an airframe designed in 1964 is a band-aid at best IMO (although I understand fully why Piper, Cessna and Mooney, etc do it - the capex in bringing a new design to market is astronomical. But if they had just a little foresight like Cirrus did, we'd have far better options today. Anyway, I digress...).

As such, it's no surprise to me that we still have the slow rate of advancement in air speed for cross country aircraft. Less than or equal to 200 kts max cruise for most certified aircraft is... woefully disappointing to me.

My primary desire in finding an aircraft - a 'mission' if you will - would be a roomy cross country aircraft capable of flying from, say, Fort Lauderdale to Denver with only one stop as fast as possible, with 3 to 4 grown adults with full bags - and here's the tricky part - with the lowest Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) possible. Assume 75 to *maybe* 100 hours of flight a year. I also want a pressurized cabin and FIKI as I will be flying IFR as soon as I can get my certificate.

The tricky part is the cost for me. While I have been blessed with my financial outcome, I'm not going to just throw away money unless it hits a sweet spot either (ok, laugh now, because this is GA after all, and throwing away money is unavoidable). I would like the lowest cost TCO (fixed + variable) cost aircraft I can get that hits this mission.

Could I get a SR22T or a Vision Jet? There are ways I could make that work, with LLC ownership, leasing, and 100% depreciation write-offs. Do I want to? Not really. I have a hard time justifying the SF50 when it seems like you could buy a used TBM 700, pay for a new glass panel and interior upgrades, and come in at half the cost of the SF50 for the same cruise speed, or even a third or even a fourth the cost of a new TBM 930 or PC-12. Virtually same comfort and performance envelope at 1/2 or 1/4th of the cost. That's what I mean by 'bang for the buck.'

I naturally gravitate towards turboprops for their reliability and speed. NA piston engines just don't sit as well with me. Even with a hot section inspection before overhaul, the PT6A or screaming banshee Garrett really appeal to me. I'm open to twins, assuming they're relatively cost-efficient (relative to other twins in the same class) and have a good performance envelope. I just haven't seen any cost-efficient twins that go faster than 200 kts cruise. I sat in a Mooney Acclaim Ultra at Sun'n Fun last month and, as beautiful as a plan as it is, the seat was too low, and it was still far too cramped IMO. Mooney just isn't innovating enough for me, and I'm not interested.

As a relatively handy guy who enjoys building things, I'm also completely open to Experimentals as well. I've been eyeing the Velocity TXL with a wonderful 250 ktas @ FL250 for a long time (I also sat in a Velocity TXL and it was more cramped than I expected, which was a bit disappointing. I could probably make that work, but I'd really want something roomier like the Raptor.) I currently have a deposit on a Raptor, which should have a similar performance envelope, but who knows if/when that will ever be ready, so I'm looking for something else in the meantime.

Finally, don't get me wrong. I don't want to go buy a Doctor (Engineer?) Killer tomorrow (but damn, I've seen the Tradewinds Turbine Bonanza... wow). I know it will take a *long* time for me to build up the skill and training to 'fly ahead' of these aircraft. Even after I get my certifications, I plan on paying for instructor time and recurrent training every 6 months, no matter how long I've been flying, and regular checkups with the resulting aircraft manufacturer as they are offered.

I've read enough in these forums and seen YouTube videos to know that these turboprop planes and jets and even the Cirrus SR22T scare the bejeezus out of me - hypoxia, gear-up landings - all of that. And that's a good thing in my opinion. If you respect the hell out of the plane and take an abundance of caution, and train regularly, and don't fly into IMC conditions often, I know your odds of living remain high(er). The last thing I want to do is play with my life here, and I know I have a long road of training ahead of me.

So are there any 300-350 kts @ FL250 luxury cross country cruisers for < $1M? Is this even remotely possible?

I'm also interested in any ~ 250kts @ FL250 cruise aircraft if you think of an amazing plane and its TCO isn't blown out of the water compared to other competing aircraft in the same class.

Finally, if you were in my shoes, what training and experience arc would you take to progress to where you were comfortable flying such planes? Any recommended type and/or flight time progression before I would take a look at such planes?

Side note: Speaking of scaring the beejezus out of me, damn what I wouldn't do to have a Turbine Legend (after plenty of training) But that would be for 'fun' due to two seats as opposed for my primary mission of getting from A to B as fast and as comfortably as possible with 3-4. Amazing plane though!

Thank you for taking the time to read my long-winded puff of internet hot air. I'd be super grateful to hear your opinions about turboprops vs twins vs single engine turbocharged aircraft and if I'm way off base in my desires or research.

Thanks and Happy Flying!

 

[FormerHangie]

Ask @Ted DuPuis about his MU-2. Certain MU-2s would probably meet your requirements. Also, a Piper Cheyenne 400LS would probably do the trick as well. Both of those aircraft are not for low time pilots so you should aim a little lower at first.

 

[AFlyGuy]

@FormerHangie thanks for the reply! And yes, it'll be quite a while before I'm ready for such planes, but I want to start planning now as I build up time over the coming years.

Two turbines? That sounds fairly costly when a single would satisfy the mission, no? Or is the logic here perhaps that you can get a Cheyenne 400LS for ~ $600-$800k, so even with double the engine maintenance costs, the TCO is still lower over, say, a 10-year span?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Piper Meridian will meet your specs.

 

[Mike Blackburn]

If it was me... (damn, I wish it WAS me) I'd go for the TBM every day and twice on Sunday. One PT6 so half the maintenance of a turbine twin and while it's a lot of airplane for a low time pilot I think in that market segment you can't go wrong.

 

[deyoung]

[...]
GA, sadly, is so incredibly behind the curve in advancements and technology, it's why Cirrus is the king

Sounds like maybe you've already made up your mind? If so, okay, go for that since no one here is likely to change your mind if you're already set.

Otherwise, you keep talking about a fairly expensive mission profile (seems like to me anyway), and minimizing TCO, but you never put any numbers on what a reasonable cost of ownership is to you, so pretty hard to give useful advice there.

An MU-2 sounds like it would do the job admirably, but if you're flying 75-100 hours a year that's probably not a wise choice. I'd love a Meridian, personally, but I suspect I don't fly enough (hmm, 75-ish hours/year) that I'd feel proficient in one all the time.

I'm curious what others with more experience would say, but I wonder if flying 75-100 hours/year puts a cap on how much airplane you can expect to stay ahead of?

 

[woodchucker]

I’m glad you have done well for yourself, and have some training as a youth. But talking about a personal jet for travel seems to me like you are putting the cart well in front of the horse? I mean, you are talking about 300+ kt luxury aircraft without a pilot cert? It’s just how it comes across to me. Flying is an unforgiving hobby as I’m sure you are aware, and the outcome of a poor decision does not care how many zeros are attached to your net worth.

I would recommend you get your PPL, then instrument, while keeping your dream aircraft in mind. This would normally be done in an aircraft like a g1000 172 or similar. Then come revisit where you are in the training process. Just my lowly opinion.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

It’s good to have mission-directed long term goals, but if you’re not enjoying the process you’ll never reach the goal. No one is too good for a 172, so settle into that first. Have fun along the way!

As to the airplanes you’ve mentioned, most SR22’s won’t carry 4 adults and bags. The Raptor will never meet its promises if it ever flies at all (which it probably won’t). If you’re set on a turboprop and minimizing cost of ownership, you’ll have a hard time beating an MU-2. A friend of mine did some number crunching on another board and concluded that, including things like depreciation, relative price of Jet A, and cost of capital, it was cheaper to fly an MU-2 over a 5-year period than an SR22. Something newer might improve dispatch reliability and resale value. Then you’re looking at a single-engine turboprop, but that’s a whole new level of expense.

You don’t learn to fly because you want to haul three friends and golf clubs to Denver, creating your own very expensive charter service. You learn to fly because it’s fun. It’s airborne sunsets and moonlit taxiways, Young Eagles and pancakes, weekends in Gatlinburg and afternoons in the grass, listening to your engine cool as the red wing blackbirds trill.

Transportation to Denver? Psht! Flying is much more than that.

 

[PilotRPI]

Nothing wrong with long term goals! It keeps you going. Maybe get a g1000 182 to finish your private and IFR? Getting through thebratings may tell you a lot more about the type of flying you want to do. I know my idea has changed over 500 hours.

 

[Seanaldinho]

You'll hear a lot of nay-saying, but you sound reasonably educated on the pitfalls of aviation.

I think your goal is attainable, just one foot in front of the other for now.

I will disagree with OneCT - flying is whatever you want it to be. Will it last longer if it has some of the meanings he listed? Maybe.

 

[yetti]

Pilatus PC-12. Get the cargo door option. Load your motorcycles in the back.

 

[Hank S]

TBMs are good. Another smaller option (experimental) would be Lancair; I've not kept up with their models, but have seen and know some owners of IV-Ps who are happy with them. Fast! Far! Zoom zoom!! Seems like they have a new model that replaced the IV-P, but the name escapes me.

But the fuel burn of any turbine down low will be eye-watering. I think the Lancair above runs something like 60gph below 10,000, but up high it's only a couple of hours from Michigan UP to South Florida. No idea about TBM operating costs, but note that they have two turbine engines to feed and overhaul . . . .

 

[mryan75]

Hasn't been up in the air yet, wants a 350 knot airplane that cruises at 25,000 feet with his family aboard. This is the textbook definition of getting ahead of oneself.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I used to work for a skydive outfit that would make 1st time jumpers sign a few dozen pages of waivers and then watch a video with a highfaluten lawyer who would discuss risk with them. In part of the video the lawyer would talk about how something can have a risk of a failure that is say .0001% but if you happen to end up being that one person that experiences a failure then your personal level of risk would be 100% in that case. Its all semantics I guess but the point is there are lots of piston engines that go to TBO or beyond without ever having a failure and there have been no shortage of PT6's that have experienced failures. If you're considering a turbine single over a piston twin due to reliability, you're not really escaping risk. And if you happen to be the lucky winner of in-flight engine failure, now you've got a situation where you've got no thrust in a heavier plane with a higher stall speed. Long story short: Turbines fail too. Food for thought only.

 

[GeorgeC]

engineering school... degree in computer science... worked for the next 20 years... now at 42 years old...

Not another one... Welcome to PoA.

A contrarian opinion: don't worry about long term planning. Get your ticket. Fly as many different types as you can for a few years. You might be surprised where you end up.

 

[Ted]

You're not too far off from where I was 12 years ago when I got into aviation. I wanted a twin, and I got a lot of nay saying. That said, the correct point was I needed to work up to it. I jumped in and bought my first twin (a Piper Aztec) at 225 hours total time. Now at 3,000, it's been a good decision.

First thing is you do want to get good, solid training, and find yourself a good instructor/mentor pilot. The mentor doesn't necessarily need to be a CFI, but needs to be someone who can educate you on the ins and outs of this sort of travel What you're talking about is serious cross country flying, the kind that people work up to. It sounds like you don't even have your private yet. The insurance market is getting harder and so they're wanting to see people step up through a more traditional path, which is much how things were 12 years ago. 5-8 years ago was a low point and they were allowing transitions much easier.

Don't like the reliability of a piston aircraft scare you. I've got something on the order of about 4,500-5,000 hours of engine run time in pistons (since most of it is twin). I've only had to shut down an engine once, and that was a ferry flight on a plane that had been sitting for over 10 years. In other words, it was a risky flight in the first place and so that wasn't unexpected. Yes failures happen, but turbines fail as well. Of course turbines are more reliable, but they're not perfect.

There are a couple different paths you could go. The Cirrus path is really pretty well thought out by the company, starting off in an SR20/22 and then you could get into an SF50. However if $1M is your price point, you're not likely to find an SF50 in that price point for a while. Even a TBM 700, unless it's an early 700A, isn't going to be a $1M purchase. The 700As are fine but they do have useful load constraints that are worth investigating. A Meridian or JetProp (both PA46s, one is factory one is aftermarket) is another good consideration and lower price point.

Then there are a number of twin turboprops that are much better values on purchase price, offer a better cabin, etc. etc. But at 75-100 hours per year, I think the turbine singles are better ideas.

Really, you need to understand that you should have closer to 1,000 hours before you should consider doing this kind of travel regularly on a schedule. So you need to get there, and there are a lot of paths on how to do that. Really, you should have a discussion with someone who's familiar with the ins and outs of aviation and what you're trying to do, and can help you meet your goal safely. I happen to help people with this exact sort of path, and there are other people who are just as good at it as me as well. Unfortunately, one of the best died in a plane crash on Monday.

 

[Sinistar]

@AFlyGuy - I'm with those that say get your ticket first and then give this another thought. I know you don't want hear it but there's just so much that you can't know yet. Heck, I am basically just one step ahead of you (have my PPL) and at this point (for me) its really hard to imagine such a big jump....even if I had your $$$$ and time.

I did learn in our old 182 and have zero complaints about not having glass or comfortable leather seats. It was roomy, stable and lots of power (HP). I think I have stated here before that if I could have changed one thing about my initial training...I wish I had started from almost day one in a HP/complex plane. I just wish that gear & fuel pumps were the norm for me. At my age, not having to fiddle with fuel pumps and gear is nice though.

I would suggest at least getting your solo (and ideally your PPL) out of the way. Then find a nice Bonanza or 182RG that has a panel you can tolerate (think latest Garmin G3 large panel announcements). Pay that same CFI to teach you the HP/Complex really good and finish your PPL in it! Now you have a great plane to do your IR and Commericial in. Both will be able to haul 4 people and some stuff or 3 people and lots of stuff and over pretty decent distances.

While building hours you will get a feel for what a long cross country is really like. You will also find out just how often you will really have 4 adults (not that often). For me it is just my wife and daughter and its nearly impossible to find a extended weekend that works for all of us. Ironically, its easier to find a friend than get the entire family lined up. Part of what complicates that is wx, especially winter weather, our plane is not FIKI and I don't have my IR (but wife does).

If I had your $$$$ and time and I had about 300hrs behind me, most in a Complex/HP plane I would then start thinking what you are thinking. Trying to decide this all on paper or rush through can be very dangerous.

Otherwise, I think many here will mention Meridians, TBM's, Pilatus, Lancair, etc, etc, etc. Its fun to fantasize and help you spend your money. But at best its long term advice. In the short term, with your time availability and funds you could easily knock out 300+ hours in under 2 years. I will bet you by then what you are thinking in your first post will have changed. Hours of being bumped around, frustrations of wx delays and aircraft ownership will change how you think about all of this.

 

[Unit74]

If it were me, I’d go to a pilot mill like Embry, ATP or the Lufthansa academy. If you know you will be rockin a mans plane, learn from a school that is teaching people who will also be flying big iron.

But you are about on par with throwing the keys to a Lambo to your 16 year old on his 16th Bday party I think. Do you have any idea how fast you can kill your family if you are flying a plane more capable than your skills?

Hell, that one guy recently bought a Mooney with the ink still wet in his book and wound up killing himself because it was too much plane for a new pilot. A Mooney!

If you do buy a serious piece of equipment, you better also buy a type rated pilot who will fly with you every, single, time you fly until he thinks you are ready for it.

Good luck!

 

[Ted]

If it were me, I’d go to a pilot mill like Embry, ATP or the Lufthansa academy. If you know you will be rockin a mans plane, learn from a school that is teaching people who will also be flying big iron.

I largely consider this to be horrible advice (no offense intended).

Yes, the pilot mills are training people to go to big iron. However what they're training are people who are good at button pushing, not at flying. The CFIs are people who are there to meet their 1500 hour requirements (or less, because these mills have negotiated lower hour requirements with the FAA thanks to lobbying efforts) and then head on. In other words, you've got CFIs with no practical experience teaching the next round of students to become CFIs who also have no practical experience. The theory then becomes that these people are FOs for long enough that they build up some of those skills to get better. However that logic doesn't apply as well when you're talking about a single pilot turboprop.

A 141 school can be fine, but to do this sort of path effectively you need to have some good instructors who can give you practical, real world training based on experience. You need good mentors and instructors along the way for transition into the bigger, more capable machines, and above all, understand the limitations of each aircraft you fly and know when to make a no-go decision.

What the pilot mills offer is 1500 hour students who've been in a CRJ sim at some point and have gotten some training on crewed flying. That's good training, but not what you need in a Part 23 turboprop.

 

[Unit74]

True...

I was coming from the big picture point of view. They focus on CRM style training and how to manage an aircraft with power, speed and complex systems.

A knuckles dirty school does make a better stick and rudder

 

[Ted]

True...

I was coming from the big picture point of view. They focus on CRM style training and how to manage an aircraft with power, speed and complex systems.

A knuckles dirty school does make a better stick and rudder

Agreed, and that training is useful if you're flying some Collins/Honeywell stuff that's not hugely intuitive and you're always flying 2-pilot. But any of these turboprops where the avionics and systems are pretty simple and you're single pilot... the stick and rudder matters a lot more and that's where we see the most fatalities.

 

[N1120A]

Learn to fly the airplane, both by stick and rudder and by numbers. Ted's advice on that is spot on.

A Meridian/JetProp will keep up with the SV50 for a fraction of the acquisition and running cost. A Cheyenne 400 or a 441 will pound the SV50 into submission and it is a shame Piper and Cessna doen't make them anymore, but they are a lot more to manage and you'd be served well by doing the RVSM G600 upgrades. That said, those and even the overrated King Air aren't the light piston twins that people can tend to mess up single engine operations on.

True...

I was coming from the big picture point of view. They focus on CRM style training and how to manage an aircraft with power, speed and complex systems.

A knuckles dirty school does make a better stick and rudder

The number of times I've heard approach controllers yelling at "Riddle" callsigns suggests they aren't even doing well as basic instrument stuff.

If you want to focus on CRM, fly with a CFI who actually enjoys their art and also with a lot of safety pilots - especially junior ones - once you get your certificate. You'll learn, and learn better than a 141 mill will teach you. Also, I wouldn't compare Lufthansa to ATP or Riddle. Lufthansa creates excellent pilots who still know how to hand fly their airplanes, and who don't constantly miss comms with ATC.

 

[FormerHangie]

@FormerHangie thanks for the reply! And yes, it'll be quite a while before I'm ready for such planes, but I want to start planning now as I build up time over the coming years.

Two turbines? That sounds fairly costly when a single would satisfy the mission, no? Or is the logic here perhaps that you can get a Cheyenne 400LS for ~ $600-$800k, so even with double the engine maintenance costs, the TCO is still lower over, say, a 10-year span?

Well, you asked for a 300 knot luxury cruiser far less than a million dollars, and those are the two I could think of. Would they be expensive to operate? Depends on what you think of as expensive. It's way out of my budget, but it's pocket change to Larry Ellison. I suspect you could fly such an aircraft for 100 hours per year for about the same as the opportunity cost of not investing that million.

I'm not sure that a Piper Meridian would make it from FLL to DEN on one stop with 4 people plus bags, especially westbound in the winter. I'm fairly sure either of the twins I mentioned would. It sounds like you're looking for something really good for not too much expense. Please stop that, it's not realistic. You're basically looking for a mini airliner, that's not going to come cheap, either money or experience needed.

 

[AA5Bman]

@AFlyGuy - I'm with those that say get your ticket first and then give this another thought. I know you don't want hear it but there's just so much that you can't know yet. Heck, I am basically just one step ahead of you (have my PPL) and at this point (for me) its really hard to imagine such a big jump....even if I had your $$$$ and time.

I did learn in our old 182 and have zero complaints about not having glass or comfortable leather seats. It was roomy, stable and lots of power (HP). I think I have stated here before that if I could have changed one thing about my initial training...I wish I had started from almost day one in a HP/complex plane. I just wish that gear & fuel pumps were the norm for me. At my age, not having to fiddle with fuel pumps and gear is nice though.

I would suggest at least getting your solo (and ideally your PPL) out of the way. Then find a nice Bonanza or 182RG that has a panel you can tolerate (think latest Garmin G3 large panel announcements). Pay that same CFI to teach you the HP/Complex really good and finish your PPL in it! Now you have a great plane to do your IR and Commericial in. Both will be able to haul 4 people and some stuff or 3 people and lots of stuff and over pretty decent distances.

While building hours you will get a feel for what a long cross country is really like. You will also find out just how often you will really have 4 adults (not that often). For me it is just my wife and daughter and its nearly impossible to find a extended weekend that works for all of us. Ironically, its easier to find a friend than get the entire family lined up. Part of what complicates that is wx, especially winter weather, our plane is not FIKI and I don't have my IR (but wife does).

If I had your $$$$ and time and I had about 300hrs behind me, most in a Complex/HP plane I would then start thinking what you are thinking. Trying to decide this all on paper or rush through can be very dangerous.

Otherwise, I think many here will mention Meridians, TBM's, Pilatus, Lancair, etc, etc, etc. Its fun to fantasize and help you spend your money. But at best its long term advice. In the short term, with your time availability and funds you could easily knock out 300+ hours in under 2 years. I will bet you by then what you are thinking in your first post will have changed. Hours of being bumped around, frustrations of wx delays and aircraft ownership will change how you think about all of this.

I think this is spot on. It's fun to fantasize and everyone will be happy to fantasize along with you, but the reality of actually accomplishing this is that you have to start somewhere, might as well start now, but be ready for your ideas to change along the way.

 

[AFlyGuy]

Thanks for all the wonderful feedback from everyone! I'll try to reply all at once:

> Sounds like maybe you've already made up your mind?

@deyoung I definitely haven't made up my mind - it's the very reason I started this thread I could care less about whether it's a Cirrus or a Meridian or a TBM or Mooney or C340A or DA62. I don't even care much about what it looks like (I guess I prefer to target my design lust at cars). I care mostly about the mission as well as enjoying time with the (hopefully many) people I'll meet and spend time with at fly-ins, etc. I've done a lot of self-introspection over the last few years, and I firmly believe that time with people and being kind to them and forming meaningful relationships - not money or things like the sexiest aircraft ever - bring fulfillment to one's life.

I also agree with @Seanaldinho that flying is whatever you want it to be. That I (or anyone else on this forum) has to prescribe to a certain set of attributes is just... odd to me. The only thing that matters is that you're happy (and safe) doing what you're doing.

My primary desire to fly is to satisfy two *very* equal desires - one does not outweigh the other:

1. Avoid commercial aviation except for overseas flights.
   
   The amount of commercial flying I've done in my career has made me tired of it. 30 minutes to drive or Uber to the airport, 15 minutes to get through security with Clear and TSA Precheck, 10-15 minutes to walk to or tram to the gate, 45 minutes of boarding, and you're already over 1.5 hours before the plane even takes off. Add taxiing delays, etc, and that could be up to 2 hours just before you even get in the air. Then reverse this process after landing (taxiing, de-boarding, airport navigation, wait for an Uber) and you're at 2.5 to 3 hours of non-flight time. If I want to go somewhere, I want to *go* somewhere.
   
   For this reason, I'm also currently looking to buy a home in an airpark and eventually get a high-performance aircraft - again, and I can't stress this enough - after getting sufficient time and training.
   
   
2. The things that @OneCharlieTango talked about:
   
   "You learn to fly because it’s fun. It’s airborne sunsets and moonlit taxiways, Young Eagles and pancakes, weekends in Gatlinburg and afternoons in the grass, listening to your engine cool as the red wing blackbirds trill."
   
   I had a dream at 16 not because of the utilitarian nature of #1, but because of these things. Just because I didn't list them in my original post (which was about a plane and a mission and training to get there) doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to these things as well.

One thing I do find odd about this thread, even though I thought I was crystal clear about it in my initial post, is people implying I might be reckless with comments like this (no disrespect to @Unit74 - it's just one example):

"that one guy recently bought a Mooney with the ink still wet in his book and wound up killing himself because it was too much plane for a new pilot"

Of course I know it's stupid to buy that much plane for a new pilot. I thought I pretty well addressed this via:

I know it will take a *long* time for me to build up the skill and training to 'fly ahead' of these aircraft. Even after I get my certifications, I plan on paying for instructor time and recurrent training every 6 months, no matter how long I've been flying, and regular checkups with the resulting aircraft manufacturer as they are offered.

I've read enough in these forums and seen YouTube videos to know that these turboprop planes and jets and even the Cirrus SR22T scare the bejeezus out of me - hypoxia, gear-up landings - all of that. And that's a good thing in my opinion. If you respect the hell out of the plane and take an abundance of caution, and train regularly, and don't fly into IMC conditions often, I know your odds of living remain high(er). The last thing I want to do is play with my life here, and I know I have a long road of training ahead of me.
​

I'm not trying to be reckless or buy the proverbial Doctor Killer. I know it will take me years to attain the skills needed to even sit in the right seat of some of these airplanes. The Piper Archer III I'm training in has a G1000 and I'll probably be in that plane for a long, long time through to IFR certification.

I was hoping for advice from experienced pilots on 1) which planes satisfy the mission profile at the lowest TCO and 2) *how* one gets to the skill level to consider buying such planes.

@Sinistar 's and @Ted DuPuis 's posts were absolute gold (thank you!), even if one told me "I'm with those that say get your ticket first and then give this another thought. I know you don't want hear it but there's just so much that you can't know yet.". That's good stuff, and I'll take it to heart, and continually re-evaluate my end-goals.

But I also firmly believe that until you put a dream to a written format and design actionable checkpoints along the way - it just stays a dream. Concrete planning with actionable items for my dreams has served me well in my life, and I don't see a reason not to design a plan for this dream like I would any other. Could that plan change as I gain more experience? Totally, and I'm very open to that possibility, per @Sinistar's advice. But I also know myself well enough that if I don't plan accordingly, it'll never happen to the degree I want it to happen.

@FormerHangie

"It sounds like you're looking for something really good for not too much expense. Please stop that, it's not realistic."

I never said that . I said that I'd prefer something that gives me the 'best bang for the buck'. For example, I could buy a twin turboprop (eventually), but would I want to when a Meridian or used TBM can meet the mission profile without double the maintenance costs? Probably not. Could I up the threshold to $2M? Why spend money unnecessarily when (potentially) a <= $1M plane with updated avionics satisfies the mission profile? This is what I meant about cost effectiveness. It's fairly obvious that this hobby is excessively expensive. That's not my concern. My concern is not spending more than I have to in order to fulfill the mission profile. I have always been a frugal person, but frugal doesn't mean cheap. It means getting the most value for your money possible given your desired goals.

So, maybe I should clarify my ask:

If you were starting in my position, and you had a concrete goal to end up at the specified mission profile with a plane that could satisfy it, what would your training arc look like? Which aircraft would you fly? How many hours in each would give you comfort to step up to the next step of training? What would be the optimal training path in your opinion? How many years? (that's not a loaded question - if it takes long, that's fine - it takes long. My life is more important than rushing.) I've already stated I'm going right through to my IFR, but would it also be worth it to get a commercial rating and maybe fly a little bit for a charter service to build up time and experience?

Thanks again to everyone, even if they disagree with my approach - I sincerely appreciate the feedback and I take it all to heart.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I've always had a spot in my heart for the "big" Cheyenne, the 400. 1000 HP [of screaming Garrett) per side, true 300 kts, and you can fly two miles higher than a TBM. Expensive to run, but so much cheaper to buy than even a Vision jet.

 

[Hank S]

Hell, that one guy recently bought a Mooney with the ink still wet in his book and wound up killing himself because it was too much plane for a new pilot. A Mooney!

Huh. I bought my Mooney with 62 hours in my logbook, a whopping 5 weeks after my checkride. That will be 12 years ago this summer, and I have ~800 Mooney hours in my logbook now. And I'm still alive . . . .

Don't think I'm superman or have superhuman abilities. I also know other pilots who have done the same, all still alive and healthy.

It's about your attitude towards training. Be diligent, have good instructors and take it all to heart. It's a serious avocation.

 

[hindsight2020]

A lot of euphemisms, even for a TL;DR post. What is the yearly operating budget brah? The rest is chaff.

 

[Unit74]

Huh. I bought my Mooney with 62 hours in my logbook, a whopping 5 weeks after my checkride. That will be 12 years ago this summer, and I have ~800 Mooney hours in my logbook now. And I'm still alive . . . .

Don't think I'm superman or have superhuman abilities. I also know other pilots who have done the same, all still alive and healthy.

It's about your attitude towards training. Be diligent, have good instructors and take it all to heart. It's a serious avocation.

Ok... but wasn’t talking about you unless you just came back from the dead.

 

[Sam D]

If you were starting in my position, and you had a concrete goal to end up at the specified mission profile with a plane that could satisfy it, what would your training arc look like? Which aircraft would you fly? How many hours in each would give you comfort to step up to the next step of training? What would be the optimal training path in your opinion? How many years? (that's not a loaded question - if it takes long, that's fine - it takes long. My life is more important than rushing.) I've already stated I'm going right through to my IFR, but would it also be worth it to get a commercial rating and maybe fly a little bit for a charter service to build up time and experience?

I'd buy a used SR-20 to get my private and instrument in. After a couple hundred hours and assuming this flying thing is turning out the way I envisioned it, I'd trade up to a used SR-22. I'd fly that for a few hundred more hours while I got comfortable with long cross countries and further confirmed I was ready to put down the big dollars. Then I would trade up to a used TBM for somewhere below $2M.

Based on your planned hours (I think you said 75-100), I wouldn't personally do a twin. Also, while I like homebuilt (about to start on a Super Cub), I'd be nervous about building something with a turbo prop, pressurization, de-ice, etc.

 

[MuseChaser]

I'm not sure if anything I have to add is worth anything to anyone, as I'm a relatively low-hour pilot (170 hrs) in a MUCH lower ... ummmm... income bracket than the original poster... and I own a '65 PA28-140 Cherokee. I did the first 14 hours of my training in a Cessna 152, then bought into this Cherokee, got my certificate, started my instrument work, and eventually bought out my partners. The Cherokee is in pretty awful cosmetic shape, especially the interior, and it's cramped and slow... and I still love flying it. Every once in a while, I think about just selling it, chipping in another 20 or 30K out of my savings, and buying something better/prettier/faster/newer, but the truth is that there is still much more I can learn from flying this airplane, including finishing my IFR and really starting to USE it purposefully as true transportation instead of just recreationally. At THAT point, if the airplane is not up to what I need from an aircraft, I'll consider moving up in capability. There really is no rush to do so... airplanes tend to hold their value after the initial major depreciation bottoms out, so why not just buy a cheap, inexpensive fun flier, get your ratings, get a lot of experience, and THEN drop the major dime you're talking about on the airplane you KNOW you want. By then, you'll have a much better idea of what that TRULY is. When I started flying, I was planning on buying a Cherokee Six so I could take my family or another couple places for vacations w/ baggage, figuring that I could find a really good older one for $60K or so. Once I got my ticket, I realized that the vast, VAST majority of my time spent in the air is either alone or with one other person. Burning money flying a thirsty Six would have been incredibly stupid, and very hard on me financially. The buy-in? Could have managed it. Flying constantly and maintaining it? Nope. The Cherokee I can fly whenever I want w/out sweating the cost... and the more I fly it, the cheaper it is to own figured by the hour.
If the OP really has so much money that frugality is not at all a factor, then my views probably aren't worth much. Personally, I can't imagine not taking costs in to account no matter how much wealth I'd earned or otherwise amassed. Buy an inexpensive airplane, enjoy the tar out of it until you need something better, sell it and get most of your money back out of it (unless you spent too much on it in the first place or did a lot of upgrades after purchase), then put that dough and more into your next plane. To me, that's about the only thing that makes sense. How do you know what you need until you know what you need?

 

[AFlyGuy]

@Sam D thanks for that - both you and @Ted DuPuis have now stated Cirrus' progression philosophy, so I'll definitely research that. I'll probably be happy the PA-28 or a 172 for quite a while, but it'll be good to learn how Cirrus has calculated these steps and see if I might want to take a similar approach.

I also share your concern about complex homebuilts with respect to pressurization and de-icing, so I may just stick with certified aircraft in the long run, but if something has a safety track record comparable to GA rates, I'd be open to it. I saw Velocity incident rates a while ago, but I can't remember them at all, so I'd just assume not comment on it.

 

[frfly172]

Welcome to the forum, get yourself a nice Arrow to finish your private and IFR, then think of moving up.

 

[AFlyGuy]

I'm not sure if anything I have to add is worth anything to anyone...
If the OP really has so much money that frugality is not at all a factor...

@MuseChaser your post is actually worth quite a lot - thanks for replying. And frugality is definitely a factor. While I could probably afford higher-cost aircraft, I feel exactly as you do - if you don't have to spend more than what meets your mission profile, why would you? I would want the lowest TCO aircraft that still satisfies my mission profile, and not more.

In summary, the (really great) advice I'm getting from many pilots on this forum seems to be summarized as follows:

1. Plan for your dream, and take action to the best that you are able, but be diligent and calculated and don't rush.
2. Spend solid time to find a quality CFI, one who will teach your real stick and rudder skills, push you to be the best you can be, and who is in it because of their love of teaching and not someone who is just trying to accumulate time to leave for their ATP certification.
3. Get as much training as possible in a calculated progression of manageable aircraft, preferably a couple hundred hours in each type before progressing to the next one.
4. Leave your ego and hubris at the door. Being an alert, focused, extensively trained and humble pilot is so much better than being a dead pilot.
5. Fully realize that your plans may change with each aircraft you fly and as you accumulate time, and this isn't a bad thing at all. You don't know what you don't know, so enjoy the journey and be happy wherever it takes you.
6. If you've still been able to progress through all of that, and you have the same goal, get your TBM or Meridian or SF50 or whatever because you'll have the skill and knowledge and self-awareness to know if it's right for you.
7. Don't ever stop training. Spend $ on recurrent training and instructors as regularly as you can because being alive is worth it.

These are largely the assumptions I had coming in to this thread. But it is so much more valuable to me (and any that might come after me) to hear it from experienced pilots, especially with context that I couldn't provide or envision.

Thanks everyone for chiming in!

 

[idahoflier]

Lots of good advice here! I'll just chime in my 2¢... Get your pilot's license and instrument rating first and then start thinking about what aircraft best fits your mission. It really doesn't matter much what aircraft you do that in. A G1000 equipped Archer would be great. You may find you don't have an aptitude for flying or really don't much like being a pilot. Probably not, but you never know. What probably is likely is things are going to look a little different after you have your license and IR. In other words, what looks appealing now may not after you have a little experience. Right now odds are you don't know what you don't know...

One other thought, regardless of what aircraft you end up with, I don't think you are ever going to be able to beat the airlines for your intended mission... Good Luck, you're going to have a lot of fun!

 

[AFlyGuy]

regardless of what aircraft you end up with, I don't think you are ever going to be able to beat the airlines for your intended mission... Good Luck, you're going to have a lot of fun!

Thanks for your 2¢!

And yes, anyone doing a cost-benefit analysis against the airlines is always going to lose. Always. But for me, 'beating' the airlines is not as much about cost as it is the gain in freedom, time and flexibility. IIUC, for all but longer cross country flights, a private turbine aircraft leaving from an airpark residence will usually beat the airlines in door-to-door time due to the logistics I mentioned above:

30 minutes to drive or Uber to the airport, 15 minutes to get through security with Clear and TSA Precheck, 10-15 minutes to walk to or tram to the gate, 45 minutes of boarding, and you're already over 1.5 hours before the plane even takes off. Add taxiing delays, etc, and that could be up to 2 hours just before you even get in the air. Then reverse this process after landing (taxiing, de-boarding, airport navigation, wait for an Uber) and you're at 2.5 to 3 hours of non-flight time.

Plus it's so much more fun along the way even though you're going slower.

 

[Clip4]

Hi folks,

This is my first post as a new user, but I've been lurking for a while now. I'd like to present a scenario that hopefully those on this forum with far more experience will chime in on with recommendations. I've been thinking about this stuff *forever*, so please forgive the long post that ensues. If you're willing to stick it out, I'd be most grateful for your feedback and advice.

I deeply wanted to fly for the Air Force since I was around 12 or so, and everything I did in my scholastic career through high school was focused on getting into the Air Force Academy: top academic honors, Civil Air Patrol cadet, etc. I started flight lessons when I was 16 with some saved funds, but my family was pretty poor, and it was decided (rightfully so) that the funds would be better suited for my first car to ease my mom's burden and facilitate my many extra curricular activities. I just had to put that flying dream in my back pocket until a later date.

As is fairly common with young people, my path ended up looking very different, and I instead went to a top engineering school, got a degree in Computer Science, and then worked on average around 60 hours a week for the next 20 years, and I never could make the time commitment to get my private pilot's license. Anyway, long story short - I eventually created a company, grew it, and sold it years later, and now at 42 years old, I actually have the time to revisit my flight dream.

I've been taking Sporty's Private Pilot Ground School online and it has been fantastic. I found a no-BS Israeli CFI who won't go easy on me (which is right up my alley - I want to be a proficient pilot, not a 'sufficient' one), and I start in-air lessons next week. I plan on continuing immediately to get my IFR and maybe even multi - I'm not sure yet.

Anyway, when I was 16, I trained in a Piper Warrior, which I loved, and the plane I'm about to start training in is a Piper Archer III. These are great planes for training, but my ultimate desire is to eventually own a plane that takes me long distances quickly with family or friends in comfort.

Probably right along with the rest of you, I've been following the advancements in the GA market over the last 5 to 10 years, popping my head in once in a while to scratch that aviation itch and dream the dream. I've done a *lot* of reading and watching YouTube (probably far, far too much YouTube) to continue to learn about all of the aircraft options out there.

It would be more than fair to say that I fall in to the camp where I would want my primary plane to be as comfortable as a luxury sedan and I don't have much tolerance for the slow, cramped days I experienced (and will continue to experience) in C152/172s and the PA-28s. I'm over that. GA, sadly, is so incredibly behind the curve in advancements and technology, it's why Cirrus is the king - all it took was one company to realize that people wanted roomier, faster aircraft with glass panels, and now they're crushing all competitors. Sticking a beautiful G1000 Nxi in an airframe designed in 1964 is a band-aid at best IMO (although I understand fully why Piper, Cessna and Mooney, etc do it - the capex in bringing a new design to market is astronomical. But if they had just a little foresight like Cirrus did, we'd have far better options today. Anyway, I digress...).

As such, it's no surprise to me that we still have the slow rate of advancement in air speed for cross country aircraft. Less than or equal to 200 kts max cruise for most certified aircraft is... woefully disappointing to me.

My primary desire in finding an aircraft - a 'mission' if you will - would be a roomy cross country aircraft capable of flying from, say, Fort Lauderdale to Denver with only one stop as fast as possible, with 3 to 4 grown adults with full bags - and here's the tricky part - with the lowest Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) possible. Assume 75 to *maybe* 100 hours of flight a year. I also want a pressurized cabin and FIKI as I will be flying IFR as soon as I can get my certificate.

The tricky part is the cost for me. While I have been blessed with my financial outcome, I'm not going to just throw away money unless it hits a sweet spot either (ok, laugh now, because this is GA after all, and throwing away money is unavoidable). I would like the lowest cost TCO (fixed + variable) cost aircraft I can get that hits this mission.

Could I get a SR22T or a Vision Jet? There are ways I could make that work, with LLC ownership, leasing, and 100% depreciation write-offs. Do I want to? Not really. I have a hard time justifying the SF50 when it seems like you could buy a used TBM 700, pay for a new glass panel and interior upgrades, and come in at half the cost of the SF50 for the same cruise speed, or even a third or even a fourth the cost of a new TBM 930 or PC-12. Virtually same comfort and performance envelope at 1/2 or 1/4th of the cost. That's what I mean by 'bang for the buck.'

I naturally gravitate towards turboprops for their reliability and speed. NA piston engines just don't sit as well with me. Even with a hot section inspection before overhaul, the PT6A or screaming banshee Garrett really appeal to me. I'm open to twins, assuming they're relatively cost-efficient (relative to other twins in the same class) and have a good performance envelope. I just haven't seen any cost-efficient twins that go faster than 200 kts cruise. I sat in a Mooney Acclaim Ultra at Sun'n Fun last month and, as beautiful as a plan as it is, the seat was too low, and it was still far too cramped IMO. Mooney just isn't innovating enough for me, and I'm not interested.

As a relatively handy guy who enjoys building things, I'm also completely open to Experimentals as well. I've been eyeing the Velocity TXL with a wonderful 250 ktas @ FL250 for a long time (I also sat in a Velocity TXL and it was more cramped than I expected, which was a bit disappointing. I could probably make that work, but I'd really want something roomier like the Raptor.) I currently have a deposit on a Raptor, which should have a similar performance envelope, but who knows if/when that will ever be ready, so I'm looking for something else in the meantime.

Finally, don't get me wrong. I don't want to go buy a Doctor (Engineer?) Killer tomorrow (but damn, I've seen the Tradewinds Turbine Bonanza... wow). I know it will take a *long* time for me to build up the skill and training to 'fly ahead' of these aircraft. Even after I get my certifications, I plan on paying for instructor time and recurrent training every 6 months, no matter how long I've been flying, and regular checkups with the resulting aircraft manufacturer as they are offered.

I've read enough in these forums and seen YouTube videos to know that these turboprop planes and jets and even the Cirrus SR22T scare the bejeezus out of me - hypoxia, gear-up landings - all of that. And that's a good thing in my opinion. If you respect the hell out of the plane and take an abundance of caution, and train regularly, and don't fly into IMC conditions often, I know your odds of living remain high(er). The last thing I want to do is play with my life here, and I know I have a long road of training ahead of me.

So are there any 300-350 kts @ FL250 luxury cross country cruisers for < $1M? Is this even remotely possible?

I'm also interested in any ~ 250kts @ FL250 cruise aircraft if you think of an amazing plane and its TCO isn't blown out of the water compared to other competing aircraft in the same class.

Finally, if you were in my shoes, what training and experience arc would you take to progress to where you were comfortable flying such planes? Any recommended type and/or flight time progression before I would take a look at such planes?

Side note: Speaking of scaring the beejezus out of me, damn what I wouldn't do to have a Turbine Legend (after plenty of training) But that would be for 'fun' due to two seats as opposed for my primary mission of getting from A to B as fast and as comfortably as possible with 3-4. Amazing plane though!

Thank you for taking the time to read my long-winded puff of internet hot air. I'd be super grateful to hear your opinions about turboprops vs twins vs single engine turbocharged aircraft and if I'm way off base in my desires or research.

Thanks and Happy Flying!

Luxury and 300-350 kts for less than a million? Not asking for much are you?

 

[AFlyGuy]

Luxury and 300-350 kts for less than a million?

In just the replies I've seen here, it definitely seems possible. A Cheyenne 400LS will do 350 kts @ FL240 and can be had for ~ $800k and that definitely is lower than $1M. In coming years, some used TBMs will be right under that mark as well.

 

[MIFlyer]

I'd buy a used SR-20 to get my private and instrument in. After a couple hundred hours and assuming this flying thing is turning out the way I envisioned it, I'd trade up to a used SR-22. I'd fly that for a few hundred more hours while I got comfortable with long cross countries and further confirmed I was ready to put down the big dollars. Then I would trade up to a used TBM for somewhere below $2M.

Based on your planned hours (I think you said 75-100), I wouldn't personally do a twin. Also, while I like homebuilt (about to start on a Super Cub), I'd be nervous about building something with a turbo prop, pressurization, de-ice, etc.

If he's going to move up as planned, I actually wonder if it'd be worth getting a folding gear airplane with a CS prop right post solo so he builds primacy on complex systems as he moves up. A mooney or ARcher? While HP singles have moved away from folding legs, the stuff he's talking about flying long term are all retracts

 

[MIFlyer]

Also, depending on how many steps he wants to take, I wonder if a PC-12 should actually be his goal aircraft. You'd be just squeezing in under $2M. There's a guy on Beechtalk who flies one.

PS, I know you're talking TCO, and it's how I think too. The good thing with a PC-12 is while you'd have to tie up a lot of capital in it, it would have a high resale if you get to a space 10 years later where you want to just fly a cub around because the kids have all moved out.

You'd have reasonable running costs, high acquisition costs, but relatively high recapture at the end.

Or, like others mentioned, you could get the Cheyenne 400 for 1/3 of the acquisition price https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17131163/1985-piper-cheyenne-400ls and burn more Jet A, but your cost of capital on the 1.4M delta way than makes up for fuel and MX