Also I find it unusual to have a turbine powered pressurized aircraft that doesn’t have AC. Learn something new everyday.
I'm not aware of any pressurized turbine aircraft without some form of AC. As I noted, the MU-2 has an air cycle machine like many other turbine aircraft, but it doesn't have freon AC (which you'd probably know better than me, but I mostly am familiar with being on smaller PT-6 aircraft).
ok, well due to the experience issues, and the DA takeoff limitation, I think it’s off the list then. Appreciate your advice.
You're welcome. I love the MU-2, but I hate NTSB reports. It's a fantastic airplane, but it's not a good fit for everyone.
Another option would (maybe) be a Lancair IV-P turbine (most seem to have the Walter 601) or the Evolution. (Piston versions seem to have excessive engine failures, so I think not safe enough for my risk tolerance, but even with the turbine, yes I understand they’re unforgiving).
The IV-P I would take off the list for similar reasons to the MU-2, if not moreso. That's an exceedingly unforgiving aircraft.
The Evolution, on the other hand, actually is pretty docile to fly. I only ever flew the piston version when I was working on that engine. As I recall, Lancair had designed the Evolution to be Part 23 certifiable as far as flight/handling characteristics are concerned. I always liked that airplane. I don't know if things have improved with them, I think they have, but the one I have time in got converted to a turbine and is now at the bottom of the ocean from what seems to have been a pressurization failure, which was a problem with those planes.
Incidentally, I haven't followed the piston Evolution (it was essentially out of production for some time) but the high rate of engine failures I find interesting. I can say that the piston variant was a dog performance wise for climb, and the specs called for full power climb. Which, on a 350 HP piston engine... not my recommendation.
The IV-P I would take off the list. The Evolution I would say is a consideration, but I would research the bulkhead/pressurization failures.
There's Cheyennes, and there's Cheyennes. I love the 400LS as much as anyone (maybe moreso), but there's only 25 of them still flying. You basically have one shop that supports them (in Pennsylvania, which is not convenient to Phoenix).
The Cheyenne I/II are basically pressurized Navajos with PT-6s, whereas the III/400 are a completely different aircraft that shares essentially nothing besides the name.
But with 25 ME time in the current insurance market, the OP is going to have a hard time getting insurance in a twin. It will be expensive and there will be significant transition requirements.
Yes.
What is the reason that used Mustangs seem to be cheaper (or same cost) on average than Meridians of the same vintage?
Is this similar to the reason why piston twins can be cheaper than piston singles - Ie nobody wants the fuel and maintenance of 2 engines?
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that the Mustang is slow and a poor performer as far as jets go. Keep in mind that's by design, it's supposed to be simpler and entry level. A friend of mine has had one for a few years and he seems to enjoy it for his missions.
If the space, capacity, and useful load aren't an issue for you, then I wouldn't see an issue one but I have never flown one. The biggest benefit I see to a Mustang/M600 is they're still in production, still supported by the OEMs, and so you'll have some form of support as far as transition training goes. A friend of mine is going through a similar exercise to you right now, as he has similar hours (but his are almost all multi, and he had a Cheyenne for a couple hundred hours) and the insurance requirements are what make a lot of it hard. You may want to talk to a good broker about this some.
I do have a broker I can recommend in Phoenix as far as that goes. Not someone I use personally (as I have no airplane to insure), but have recommended him to others and seen good results.
