Opinions on turboprops for winter mountain airport flights?

[kgruber]

If you topped off the first Learjet (which was a necessity) there was zero payload.

 

[alexcr]

They aren't necessarily taking off with full fuel. A PC-12 can fly like 1800 nm on full fuel, which is a distance they nearly never are going to fly.

There are lots of airplanes that have "poor" payload capacity with full fuel. The Challenger 605 I fly can only carry about 400 lbs of payload with full fuel, but we very rarely need that much gas. I flew a PC-12 for 2500 hours, and I think I only had to make an enroute fuel stop 2-3 times.

Thanks, guys.

Granted, it would be a slow trip, but do you think a PC-12 could pull off a flight like LAX to YYC without a fuel stop, assuming two pilots, eight passengers, and minimal luggage? Or would you likely have to drop down by a passenger or two in order to pull this off?

How about with the King Air 350, which I believe has slightly greater range?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Follow-up question for you guys.

It looks like the PC-12s have a maximum payload with full fuel of 988 lb. (https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-12) and the King Air 350s have a maximum payload with fuel of 1,534 lb. (https://beechcraft.txtav.com/en/king-air-350i). If that's the case, how do these planes ever fly at or near their capacity?

For example, if you're looking to fly them with two pilots and eight passengers, and you assume the average American male weighs close to 200 lb., wouldn't that mean that for both aircraft you're already in excess of the maximum payload with full fuel? (And that's without even factoring in luggage.)

Or am I misunderstand how maximum payload with full fuel is calculated?

Nope, not at all. What you do is choose your fuel for the mission at hand. If you're going on a shorter trip, you can take less fuel and more stuff. If you are going on a long trip and need full fuel, then you can't take as much payload. There are VERY few airplanes where you can fill both the seats and the tanks and bring any luggage along, which gives you some versatility, but also means that you can't plan on full fuel + full payload at the same time.

For example, I flew my plane to Texas with my wife and in-laws on board a few years ago. That's a trip that I could make non-stop by myself if I wanted to sit in the plane for that long. With full seats and bags for the weekend, we just needed to take less fuel and make a fuel stop halfway there.

Granted, it would be a slow trip, but do you think a PC-12 could pull off a flight like LAX to YYC without a fuel stop, assuming two pilots, eight passengers, and minimal luggage? Or would you likely have to drop down by a passenger or two in order to pull this off?

Punching that into ForeFlight Performance on a PC12, I'm getting about 5 hours and 2,000 pounds of fuel to make that trip. Figure you'll want another 400 pounds of fuel for reserve. It looks like the full fuel capacity of the PC12 is 2704 pounds, so if you leave behind 304 pounds of fuel, you would have 1292 pounds available for payload to make that flight nonstop - Not enough for 10 aboard.

BTW, scroll down on the page you linked to above for the PC12 and they have a nice rangefinder where you can click on your departure point on the map, put in how many pilots and passengers you want, and it'll give you both a mapped and numeric range. That will answer some questions for you very quickly...

How about with the King Air 350, which I believe has slightly greater range?

Again punching this into ForeFlight Performance for a King Air 350, now I'm getting a slightly shorter flight at 4:47, but burning 2558 pounds of fuel. Using about a 540-pound reserve this time, that means we can leave behind 500 pounds of fuel and take 2,034 pounds of payload, so now it's doable. The King Air 350ER (Extended Range) variant should have no problem completing the mission.

Just for kicks, now let's look at doing this in a jet instead. Going back to Pilatus and their PC-24, this time the trip takes less than 3 hours. You'd burn about 3400 pounds of fuel and want a reserve of maybe 1150 pounds, you'd have the ability to take the same payload as the King Air while getting there much faster.

 

[alexcr]

Punching that into ForeFlight Performance on a PC12, I'm getting about 5 hours and 2,000 pounds of fuel to make that trip. Figure you'll want another 400 pounds of fuel for reserve. It looks like the full fuel capacity of the PC12 is 2704 pounds, so if you leave behind 304 pounds of fuel, you would have 1292 pounds available for payload to make that flight nonstop - Not enough for 10 aboard.

BTW, scroll down on the page you linked to above for the PC12 and they have a nice rangefinder where you can click on your departure point on the map, put in how many pilots and passengers you want, and it'll give you both a mapped and numeric range. That will answer some questions for you very quickly...

Again punching this into ForeFlight Performance for a King Air 350, now I'm getting a slightly shorter flight at 4:47, but burning 2558 pounds of fuel. Using about a 540-pound reserve this time, that means we can leave behind 500 pounds of fuel and take 2,034 pounds of payload, so now it's doable. The King Air 350ER (Extended Range) variant should have no problem completing the mission.

Just for kicks, now let's look at doing this in a jet instead. Going back to Pilatus and their PC-24, this time the trip takes less than 3 hours. You'd burn about 3400 pounds of fuel and want a reserve of maybe 1150 pounds, you'd have the ability to take the same payload as the King Air while getting there much faster.

Thanks again, @flyingcheesehead! Super helpful. A few questions on your analysis here...

• How are you determining the amount of reserve?

• Is the final payload number, e.g. the 1,292 pounds of payload in your PC-12 example, all the capacity you have for passengers *and* two pilots? Or are the pilots already accounted for?

• Interesting on the PC-24, though I guess it also depends on how the time savings offsets the additional cost of the jet.

• Is ForeFlight Performance a worthwhile investment for this kind of analysis? Is it the go-to software for this kind of thing? I've played around with Pilatus's range finder before, but it seems somewhat basic and limited, and also doesn't seem to account for things like altitude.

• If the flight in questions is going to Canada, say Vancouver, can an argument be made that a fuel stop is actually advantageous assuming you're able to knock out customs at the same time? From a time standpoint, it saves you from having to do customs in Canada, so it perhaps doesn't add that much overall travel time. And from a dollars standpoint, I believe you would avoid having to pay FET. (Vancouver is in the 250-mile zone.)

 

[jayhawk74]

Makes sense. Roughly what's the maximum range of a PC12 when it's at capacity and flying into high altitude mountain airports? (The passengers would not have significant luggage.)

In the PC-12 the max takeoff weight is 10450. If you plan on 7200 for the Operating weight (Aircraft, crew of 2, crew bags and catering) and 1500 for the passengers (6 passengers in the Executive configuration and 300 pounds of bags) you will have 1750 left for fuel, which is enough for a flight from KLAX to KJAC with no alternate. So in reality you would want 4-5 passengers at the max. As others have said you may want to look at the PC-24
Doing KLAX-CYYC in the PC-12 you could only take 4 passengers with no alternate and it would be a 4 hour 45 minute flight

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Thanks again, @flyingcheesehead! Super helpful. A few questions on your analysis here...

• How are you determining the amount of reserve?

Very unscientifically, because I don't have a PIM lying around for all those airplanes (Actually, I may have a King Air 350 one somewhere...), I didn't look into weather or alternates at all. This will vary from flight to flight in real life, I just divided fuel by time and put the reserve at an hour. If the weather on a given day requires an alternate, you'll need more.

• Is the final payload number, e.g. the 1,292 pounds of payload in your PC-12 example, all the capacity you have for passengers *and* two pilots? Or are the pilots already accounted for?

Passengers and pilots. I did not account for pilots separately.

• Interesting on the PC-24, though I guess it also depends on how the time savings offsets the additional cost of the jet.

Yep... You'll need to look at total trip cost vs. the time-based maintenance requirements, as well as what your potential customers are going to want. Are these going to be weekend jaunts? They're probably going to want a jet then. Leaving at 6 PM and arriving at 9 PM vs. 11 PM is going to make a difference. Same for the trip home, they can stay longer and get back at the same time if you have a jet.

• Is ForeFlight Performance a worthwhile investment for this kind of analysis? Is it the go-to software for this kind of thing? I've played around with Pilatus's range finder before, but it seems somewhat basic and limited, and also doesn't seem to account for things like altitude.

ForeFlight is flight planning and "Electronic Flight Bag" software used by a huge number of pilots - I suspect it's a significant majority, in fact. There are three subscription levels: Basic, used mostly by recreational pilots; Pro, used by pilots who travel more, and Performance, used by most people that are operating airplanes that are turbocharged, turboprop, or jet. It's almost a necessity.

• If the flight in questions is going to Canada, say Vancouver, can an argument be made that a fuel stop is actually advantageous assuming you're able to knock out customs at the same time? From a time standpoint, it saves you from having to do customs in Canada, so it perhaps doesn't add that much overall travel time. And from a dollars standpoint, I believe you would avoid having to pay FET. (Vancouver is in the 250-mile zone.)

How are you going to "knock out Customs at the same time" on a trip like KLAX-CYYC? The fuel stop is generally going to need to be about halfway there, and you won't even be in Canada until you're practically there. Now, on the way back, you could stop halfway at an Airport of Entry and knock out Customs and have a purely domestic leg to finish off the trip, but it won't work on the way up.

 

[Groundpounder]

Why would someone want to spend 5 hours crammed into a PC-12 going between LAX and Vancouver when they can do it in half the time in first class on an airliner?

Also, to the OP, are you planning on getting your own 135, or using someones else's cert?

 

[alexcr]

In the PC-12 the max takeoff weight is 10450. If you plan on 7200 for the Operating weight (Aircraft, crew of 2, crew bags and catering) and 1500 for the passengers (6 passengers in the Executive configuration and 300 pounds of bags) you will have 1750 left for fuel, which is enough for a flight from KLAX to KJAC with no alternate. So in reality you would want 4-5 passengers at the max. As others have said you may want to look at the PC-24
Doing KLAX-CYYC in the PC-12 you could only take 4 passengers with no alternate and it would be a 4 hour 45 minute flight

Is this right, @jayhawk74? The range finder on the PC-12 website puts the range with two pilots and eight passengers at 1,057 nm. I believe LAX to JAC is 681 nm and LAX to YVR at 939 nm. I realize the YVR trip is getting tight and will presumably need a fuel stop, but JAC seems more than doable, no?

The assumptions used by the PC-12 range finder: "PC-12 = NBAA IFR reserve, 100 nm/185 km alternate, weight 200 lb/91 kg per person (including hand luggage), flight level 300."

 

[DavidWhite]

I was under the impression that fuel didn’t weigh anything when flying north of Bellingham.

 

[jayhawk74]

I used FltPlan.com (which where I work is what we all use) and from KLAX to KJAC it came up with 2:58 at FL250 needing 1638 fuel (including 45 min reserve and no alternate). We plan on using about 500 pounds per hour for fuel. So yes you can do KLAX to KJAC with 2 pilots and 6 passengers if you don’t need an alternate.

 

[alexcr]

I used FltPlan.com (which where I work is what we all use) and from KLAX to KJAC it came up with 2:58 at FL250 needing 1638 fuel (including 45 min reserve and no alternate). We plan on using about 500 pounds per hour for fuel. So yes you can do KLAX to KJAC with 2 pilots and 6 passengers if you don’t need an alternate.

Interesting, @jayhawk74. At the recommendation of @flyingcheesehead, I decided to trial ForeFlight. I'm attaching what I'm getting for the trip. (Note that I'm using HHR, which is within a few miles of LAX, so shouldn't make a difference.)

According to ForeFlight, 10 people on board should be fine, with 975 lb. of fuel to spare at landing.

Is there anything in the assumptions I'm using that could explain the difference?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Interesting, @jayhawk74. At the recommendation of @flyingcheesehead, I decided to trial ForeFlight. I'm attaching what I'm getting for the trip. (Note that I'm using HHR, which is within a few miles of LAX, so shouldn't make a difference.)

According to ForeFlight, 10 people on board should be fine, with 975 lb. of fuel to spare at landing.

Is there anything in the assumptions I'm using that could explain the difference?

60% of the fuel flow for nearly the same speed, for starters. 200# total baggage for 10 people going to ski country is also just a wee bit short.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Interesting, @jayhawk74. At the recommendation of @flyingcheesehead, I decided to trial ForeFlight. I'm attaching what I'm getting for the trip. (Note that I'm using HHR, which is within a few miles of LAX, so shouldn't make a difference.)

According to ForeFlight, 10 people on board should be fine, with 975 lb. of fuel to spare at landing.

Is there anything in the assumptions I'm using that could explain the difference?

I’m not sure how you are coming up with your numbers. Average empty weight of a PC-12 is about 6,600 lbs. you would be way over gross with what you are putting in it.

 

[alexcr]

60% of the fuel flow for nearly the same speed, for starters. 200# total baggage for 10 people going to ski country is also just a wee bit short.

Hi, @MauleSkinner. Regarding fuel flow, that's automatically generated by ForeFlight, I believe. Does it look to you like their assumptions are incorrect...https://d.pr/i/CTC8Fk?

Regarding cargo, all ski gear would be shipped separately, so passengers would be traveling with very little.

 

[alexcr]

I’m not sure how you are coming up with your numbers. Average empty weight of a PC-12 is about 6,600 lbs. you would be way over gross with what you are putting in it.

Hi, @Dave Theisen. The numbers are coming straight out of ForeFlight. Here's a screenshot in case my attachment didn't work earlier...https://d.pr/i/CTC8Fk. Does anything in particular in their calculations look off to you?

 

[jayhawk74]

alexcr
Fltplan.com is showing at FL300 the burn would be 1233 (using the most used ATC routing) with 262 for reserve. However with a full load it will take forever to get to FL300 (plus it isn't an eastbound cruising altitude. Normally we would fly that route at FL190, FL210, or FL230. Using the numbers for FL210 the burn is 1436 for 2:55 and the reserve is 357. So 1796 pounds of fuel is needed with no alternate. In your screenshot it looks like the empty weight of the aircraft is 400-500 pounds less than our aircraft. For our aircraft the weight of the aircraft (in Executive Configuration which is 6 passengers) and the crew plus catering is about 7200 pounds. That number will change depending on the actual weight of the pilots and the actual weight of the aircraft but 7200 is good enough for planning. Subtract 7200 from 10450 (max takeoff) leaves you with 3250 for fuel and passengers. Going with 6 passengers (at 200 pounds) and 50 pounds of baggage each (which is very little even without ski gear) that leaves 1750 pounds for fuel. While the flight is doable it requires no alternate and bare minimum of fuel.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I don’t see what empty wt. you are stating with. By my figures starting with 6600 and adding your 2200 of people and bags and 1975 of fuel, your at 10,775 lbs.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Keep in mind that showing up at a mountain destination in winter with minimal fuel is not a good idea.

 

[alexcr]

Thanks, guys. Yeah, it seems like at least part of the difference might be the empty weight and altitude.

Regarding empty weight, ForeFlight's default assumption for the PC-12 is 6,320 lbs.. Add on the 400 lb. total that I'm assuming for two crew members, and that gets you to 6,720 lbs.. (We're not doing any catering.) Still that's a pretty big gap from the 7,200 lb. that @jayhawk74 is saying that he uses. I wonder why that is.

Regarding altitude, I change to 21,000.

Regarding cargo, I changed to 50 lb. per person on board.

This is where it's coming out now...https://d.pr/i/srfyqu. (I kept the empty weight the same.)

 

[jayhawk74]

The empty weight of our aircraft is 6600 +- 50. Add 200 pounds per pilot and 100 pounds for crew bags and catering that adds up to 7200. In any case even using 7200 and 6 passengers the flight is legally doable with no alternate, I just don’t consider it safe. You probably want to add 300-400 pounds of fuel above the minimum needed. While the PC-12 is a great aircraft anything over 2:30 you have to start reducing the passenger load. For what your talking about you should look at the PC-24

 

[alexcr]

As a further update, I searched around online a bit and Wikipedia lists the PC-12 NG's empty weight as 6,195 lb. and another site lists the PC-12/47's empty weight as 6,040 lb., both even less than the default assumption that ForeFlight uses. I also found an AOPA brochure for the PC-12 NGX that lists the empty weight as 6,173 lb.. (Our aircraft would most likely be the PC-12/47E model.)

@jayhawk74, might there be something unique about the configuration you guys are using?

 

[Dave Theisen]

I’ve flown about 40 different PC-12’s. 6,600 lbs is a pretty solid number.

 

[alexcr]

I’ve flown about 40 different PC-12’s. 6,600 lbs is a pretty solid number.

Got it, @Dave Theisen. Weird that there's so much contradictory information out there on this. Is that 6,600 lbs. with or without crew? If with, what would it be without?

Also, if you're flying pretty close to capacity and into these mountain airport destinations, is FL210 a pretty reasonable assumption to use? (For purposes of range, time, fuel consumption, etc..)

 

[Dave Theisen]

6,600 lbs is a good empty wt. without crew. Could be a little more or less depending on equipment. FltPlan.com gives you pretty much spot on numbers for fuel burn.

 

[jayhawk74]

As a further update, I searched around online a bit and Wikipedia lists the PC-12 NG's empty weight as 6,195 lb. and another site lists the PC-12/47's empty weight as 6,040 lb., both even less than the default assumption that ForeFlight uses. I also found an AOPA brochure for the PC-12 NGX that lists the empty weight as 6,173 lb.. (Our aircraft would most likely be the PC-12/47E model.)
@jayhawk74, might there be something unique about the configuration you guys are using?

There is nothing unique about our 32 aircraft. They are all PC-12/47Es in the Executive Configuration. The empty weight that you are finding in Wikipedia and other sites may be the empty weight of the aircraft before seats and other interior items are added. BTW Pilatus is no longer building the PC-12/47E as they are only making the PC=12 NGX so if you are planning on using the PC-12/47E you will have to buy them used.

 

[Groundpounder]

Thanks, guys. Yeah, it seems like at least part of the difference might be the empty weight and altitude.

Regarding empty weight, ForeFlight's default assumption for the PC-12 is 6,320 lbs.. Add on the 400 lb. total that I'm assuming for two crew members, and that gets you to 6,720 lbs.. (We're not doing any catering.) Still that's a pretty big gap from the 7,200 lb. that @jayhawk74 is saying that he uses. I wonder why that is.

Regarding altitude, I change to 21,000.

Regarding cargo, I changed to 50 lb. per person on board.

This is where it's coming out now...https://d.pr/i/srfyqu. (I kept the empty weight the same.)

So you're putting 8 people in a PC-12 without anything to eat or drink for 3 hours, and their ski and bags are being shipped separately. Why are people going to use your services vs taking the airlines?

And you also didn't answer if you are going to get your own 135 or operate under someone else's certificate.

 

[Jim Carpenter]

Keep in mind that showing up at a mountain destination in winter with minimal fuel is not a good idea.

Yes, sometimes, legal, or even NBAA reserves as quoted in the brochures, may not be enough fuel, it can be a long way to good alternates in the mountain west. I suppose, on those trips with low weather, an intermediate fuel stop could be planned ahead.
And, as others have mentioned, more than 3 hours on board, non-stop, without a "real" potty, is probably more than most pax want to do, and, maybe less than ideal for pilot safety, even with a relief tube in the cockpit.

 

[GrummanBear]

So you're putting 8 people in a PC-12 without anything to eat or drink for 3 hours, and their ski and bags are being shipped separately. Why are people going to use your services vs taking the airlines?

And you also didn't answer if you are going to get your own 135 or operate under someone else's certificate.

5 bucks says the op doesn’t know he needs a cert. 100 bucks says he isn’t a pilot. 10,000 bucks says if he can’t afford an experienced pilot consultant, he can’t afford a certificate, let alone a PC12.

 

[kayoh190]

5 bucks says the op doesn’t know he needs a cert. 100 bucks says he isn’t a pilot. 10,000 bucks says if he can’t afford an experienced pilot consultant, he can’t afford a certificate, let alone a PC12.

Meh - I don't mind the spitballing. What the hell else are we all doing while locked up at home anyway?

I still think taking 8 folks 1000+nm on a regular basis is better left to the jets. I used to take 6 or 7 folks in a CJ3 on 1200nm trips pretty regularly, and even then it wasn't great. I say stick to the tried and true small time 135 formula - buy a clapped out 601, put in a new interior, then BS and cheat your way into enough charter volume to stay just barely ahead of your costs.

 

[GrummanBear]

Meh - I don't mind the spitballing. What the hell else are we all doing while locked up at home anyway?

I still think taking 8 folks 1000+nm on a regular basis is better left to the jets. I used to take 6 or 7 folks in a CJ3 on 1200nm trips pretty regularly, and even then it wasn't great. I say stick to the tried and true small time 135 formula - buy a clapped out 601, put in a new interior, then BS and cheat your way into enough charter volume to stay just barely ahead of your costs.

My lane would be more of a Zenair 601. In my little trainer, I couldn’t even charter pets...https://petairways.com/

Been trying to con a friend into letting me fly right seat in his CJ next week.

When I finish my A&P, I’ll pick up a 210 and just charge my kids to come along

@Jim Carpenter Gatorade bottle at every seat. Done and done.

 

[Groundpounder]

The G4 is now the new charter whore. They are cheap cheap cheap, and the name has enough draw that the "social influencers" and "rap stars" will charter them just to say they are on a G-Six.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Got it, @Dave Theisen. Weird that there's so much contradictory information out there on this. Is that 6,600 lbs. with or without crew? If with, what would it be without?

What you're seeing is a few things: "Empty Weight" as listed on a web site is going to be the lightest possible empty weight. Start putting in options and fancy interiors and they're going to weigh more. So, your actual empty weight is going to depend on the airplane. If you look around at the used aircraft for sale sites, occasionally you'll find one listed with its actual empty weight, or you can ask around for more real-world numbers.

Empty Weight does not include crew. Basic Operating Weight, however, does.

 

[alexcr]

What you're seeing is a few things: "Empty Weight" as listed on a web site is going to be the lightest possible empty weight. Start putting in options and fancy interiors and they're going to weigh more. So, your actual empty weight is going to depend on the airplane. If you look around at the used aircraft for sale sites, occasionally you'll find one listed with its actual empty weight, or you can ask around for more real-world numbers.

Empty Weight does not include crew. Basic Operating Weight, however, does.

Ah, that makes more sense. Thank you.

 

[alexcr]

So you're putting 8 people in a PC-12 without anything to eat or drink for 3 hours, and their ski and bags are being shipped separately. Why are people going to use your services vs taking the airlines?

And you also didn't answer if you are going to get your own 135 or operate under someone else's certificate.

Sorry if it was unclear, but it seems like you and some other folks are assuming I'm looking to start my own charter company. Not at all. (I don't have a fraction of the experience necessary to do that, needless to say.)

Rather, I'm speaking with potential charter operator partners, and trying to figure out what the best approach is, and this feedback here has been quite valuable in figuring things out. (We wouldn't even be operating under their certificate; I'm not looking to get into the charter business.)

As for why not commercial, it's just not a great option for a far majority of winter destinations. There are limited direct options for flying into airports that are within an hour of resorts - the one exception being SLC - and they're often inconveniently timed for getting in a full ski day on your arrival or departure day. And they book up, so especially if you're looking to fly last minute, there's limited seating availability and you're already going to be paying a lot if you're looking to fly direct to places like JAC, ASE, EGE, SUN, BZN, TEX, TSM, etc.. Not to mention the hassle and time sink of dealing with commercial flying.

But, again, this isn't even a flight service. The flights are just one piece of a broader offering. The flights piece isn't intended to generate any profit; it's rather just an enabler of our other activities.

 

[alexcr]

Just for kicks, now let's look at doing this in a jet instead. Going back to Pilatus and their PC-24, this time the trip takes less than 3 hours. You'd burn about 3400 pounds of fuel and want a reserve of maybe 1150 pounds, you'd have the ability to take the same payload as the King Air while getting there much faster.

For what your talking about you should look at the PC-24

@flyingcheesehead and @jayhawk74, the PC-24 does look pretty ideal, as far as jets ago, with regards to its range and passenger capacity. One issue, though, is that it looks like there are very few of them out in the wild.

Are there any other jets that are comparable in range and passenger capacity, and that also might be cost competitive with turboprops when you factor in time saved? Maybe Citation Vs? (We're very focused on cost per passenger, so six-passenger jets are unlikely to work for us.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

@flyingcheesehead and @jayhawk74, the PC-24 does look pretty ideal, as far as jets ago, with regards to its range and passenger capacity. One issue, though, is that it looks like there are very few of them out in the wild.

Are there any other jets that are comparable in range and passenger capacity, and that also might be cost competitive with turboprops when you factor in time saved? Maybe Citation Vs? (We're very focused on cost per passenger, so six-passenger jets are unlikely to work for us.)

Yeah, Pilatus is kind of the Mattel of the light jet world, unfortunately. They could sell a lot more than they are right now if they'd just crank 'em out faster.

The competition in the same class consists mainly of the Cessna Citation CJ4 and the Embraer Phenom 300. The latter is (one of?) the best-selling jets out there right now, it's got a great balance of price and utility.

 

[alexcr]

Yeah, Pilatus is kind of the Mattel of the light jet world, unfortunately. They could sell a lot more than they are right now if they'd just crank 'em out faster.

The competition in the same class consists mainly of the Cessna Citation CJ4 and the Embraer Phenom 300. The latter is (one of?) the best-selling jets out there right now, it's got a great balance of price and utility.

Good stuff, @flyingcheesehead. It looks like both have a configuration where you can do eight passengers and two pilots without having to stick someone in the lavatory?

Is the Learjet 45 in this class, too? How about some of the older Cessna models?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Good stuff, @flyingcheesehead. It looks like both have a configuration where you can do eight passengers and two pilots without having to stick someone in the lavatory?

Is the Learjet 45 in this class, too? How about some of the older Cessna models?

Well, kinda, maybe. The three mentioned so far (PC24, CJ4, Phenom 300) are all single-pilot certified. No Lears are... And the 45 is out of production now. But if you're looking for older jets, there are probably a number of different options. It all depends on what you're trying to hit for operating costs vs. speed vs. payload and the balance you're looking to strike.

Wikipedia has a good breakdown of all of the Citations, current and older: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_family

 

[alexcr]

Well, kinda, maybe. The three mentioned so far (PC24, CJ4, Phenom 300) are all single-pilot certified. No Lears are... And the 45 is out of production now. But if you're looking for older jets, there are probably a number of different options. It all depends on what you're trying to hit for operating costs vs. speed vs. payload and the balance you're looking to strike.

Wikipedia has a good breakdown of all of the Citations, current and older: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_family

Yeah, older is fine, especially as I'm chartering, so this isn't an asset that I'm acquiring or holding onto. Main focus is on cost, capacity, range, and availability...

• With regards to cost, getting as close to turboprops as possible with regards to overall trip cost per passenger, assuming that the lower trip time somewhat makes up for the higher hourly rates.

• With regards to capacity, being able to accommodate two pilots and eight passengers without having to stick someone in the lavatory. (More capacity would be even better, but my sense is that if you want to have two pilots, then eight passengers is the best you're going to do in this class and at this price point.)

• With regards to range, being able to do a trip as long as 1,050 nm at full capacity without having to do a fuel stop. (We won't need further range beyond that, at least not for the moment. Also, as a reminder, our passengers will have limited luggage.)

• With regards to availability, we're going to need at least three aircraft for each of the two or three markets we're in. Might end up needing to be a mix of the models we're discussing depending on what inventory we find among operators.

• As far as speed, any of these options would already be a nice step up on turboprops, so it's not a primary focus.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah, older is fine, especially as I'm chartering, so this isn't an asset that I'm acquiring or holding onto. Main focus is on cost, capacity, range, and availability...

Really then, you should be looking at what charter operators already have in their inventory in the markets where you're looking at chartering. https://www.charterhub.com is a good place to start - Click on the "Aircraft for Charter" on the menu.