Rematch #427,395: Twins vs. Singles as Personal Airliner

[spiderweb]

Money is the big factor, but here's the question: Once I've won that $50 million lottery and finally can buy a 6-10 seat aircraft I can personally fly, can put enough away to pay for the per-hour cost, etc., am I buying a twin or a single?

I want safety, reliability, speed, and good useful load (as do we all). Most of my flying will be 200-1000 nm. (For longer, I'll just go the airlines.)

Do I get a C208, single turboprop, for it's near all-weather capabilities and great useful load?

Do I get a TBM 850 because it is faster?

Do I get a KA 90 and accept the tradeoff of cost per hour vs. safety?

Or do I buy a Citation II and get a better true airspeed while sacrificing the ability to fly into some of the smaller, more local airfields?

 

[Geico266]

TBM 850

They are cool.

 

[Alexb2000]

Not on your list, but the perfect aircraft for the mission you described would be a PC-12 IMO.

 

[SCCutler]

Not on your list, but the perfect aircraft for the mission you described would be a PC-12 IMO.

+1

 

[wabower]

You can buy a Citation for less than a third of the cost of a used PC-12 and operate in and out of all the same airports. Trip times for less than 500 nm legs won't be all that much different, but longer legs will make you appreciate the jet.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Not on your list, but the perfect aircraft for the mission you described would be a PC-12 IMO.

A PC-12 would be higher on my list than many other things, but then again I don't really value short field performance like a lot of GA pilots. I would prefer a turbofan if money wasn't an issue.

 

[MSPAviator]

Aren't C-208's kinda slow?

If it was me, TBM-850. I like propellers.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Aren't C-208's kinda slow?

If it was me, TBM-850. I like propellers.

C208s are painfully slow (at least in my book).

 

[Inverted]

This is such a stupid topic if you are talking about winning 50 million dollars. Why would a 208 even be on that list?

 

[MassPilot]

So many lotto winners blow threw their winnings within a decade. With this in mind, operating costs should be a huge factor. I would want something I could fly single-pilot. I'm not interested in charters or depending on a co-pilot (who here doesn't love the feeling of getting yourself and your passengers to a destination all on your own). The idea of two week recurrent training every six months to keep a single-pilot type-rating is not something I'd be happy with. All of this rules out jets (not that I wouldn't love to fly a jet but I couldn't justify it).

Personally it would come down to the TBM-850 and Pilatus PC-12. If I had a wife and kids to haul around I might go for the Pilatus, but since I don't, I'll take the extra speed, lower operating cost, and lower price (by a million dollars I think) of the TBM. I'm willing to put my faith in a single engine (I do it now).

 

[Henning]

Money is the big factor, but here's the question: Once I've won that $50 million lottery and finally can buy a 6-10 seat aircraft I can personally fly, can put enough away to pay for the per-hour cost, etc., am I buying a twin or a single?

I want safety, reliability, speed, and good useful load (as do we all). Most of my flying will be 200-1000 nm. (For longer, I'll just go the airlines.)

Do I get a C208, single turboprop, for it's near all-weather capabilities and great useful load?

Do I get a TBM 850 because it is faster?

Do I get a KA 90 and accept the tradeoff of cost per hour vs. safety?

Or do I buy a Citation II and get a better true airspeed while sacrificing the ability to fly into some of the smaller, more local airfields?

Why the 90 rather than a KA 200?

 

[wabower]

Which jet requires 6-month recurrency? Which recurrent in any jet requires two weeks? How many jets can be flown single-pilot?

So many lotto winners blow threw their winnings within a decade. With this in mind, operating costs should be a huge factor. I would want something I could fly single-pilot. I'm not interested in charters or depending on a co-pilot (who here doesn't love the feeling of getting yourself and your passengers to a destination all on your own). The idea of two week recurrent training every six months to keep a single-pilot type-rating is not something I'd be happy with. All of this rules out jets (not that I wouldn't love to fly a jet but I couldn't justify it).

Personally it would come down to the TBM-850 and Pilatus PC-12. If I had a wife and kids to haul around I might go for the Pilatus, but since I don't, I'll take the extra speed, lower operating cost, and lower price (by a million dollars I think) of the TBM. I'm willing to put my faith in a single engine (I do it now).

 

[MSPAviator]

So many lotto winners blow threw their winnings within a decade. With this in mind, operating costs should be a huge factor.

Yeah, a lot of people are like that, not me though, I'm pretty frugal. I'd probably take $30m out of that notional $50m jackpot and reinvest it in something dividend bearing and never spend more than the annual residuals. The rest I'd just stuff under a mattress.

1,430,000 shares of GE bought at today's price * $.19 per share, per quarter = a lot more than I make right now as an 8-5 wage slave with 2 side gigs I enjoy and don't mind working.

I'd probably keep a high performance piston single for shorter trips and nice days and save the TBM-850 for long trips or crappy weather. I wouldn't buy a new car either, but a 2001-2004 Porsche 911 Turbo can be had for around <$45k for a good example. That's still a lot of money but atleast I wouldn't lose my shirt in depreciation vs. anything else for that price.

 

[Dead Stick]

Since everybody knows that propellers are for boats, that only leaves the jets to consider. Of all of the single-pilot jets, I'd only consider three - the Phenom 100, the Citation M2, and the Eclipse 550. I'd probably go for the Citation, but I bet Eclipse and Sikorsky will be able to make a convincing argument for the new 550. If I had to lower my standards and get a turboprop it certainly wouldn't be a single. The big problem with singles - piston or turbine - is that they only have one engine. If I had to choose a turboprop it would come down to two - the KA-250 or the Piaggio P-180; but like I said, propellers are for boats; oh and motorgliders too.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Money is the big factor, but here's the question: Once I've won that $50 million lottery and finally can buy a 6-10 seat aircraft I can personally fly, can put enough away to pay for the per-hour cost, etc., am I buying a twin or a single?

I want safety, reliability, speed, and good useful load (as do we all). Most of my flying will be 200-1000 nm. (For longer, I'll just go the airlines.)

Do I get a C208, single turboprop, for it's near all-weather capabilities and great useful load?

Do I get a TBM 850 because it is faster?

Do I get a KA 90 and accept the tradeoff of cost per hour vs. safety?

Or do I buy a Citation II and get a better true airspeed while sacrificing the ability to fly into some of the smaller, more local airfields?

Even if I had a billion dollars I do not know 6-10 people that I like enough to take with me. Most I will ever need is 4-6 seats. If I wanted to pilot it I would limit it to single engine Turbine for simplicity. If I were going to hire it out, I would go for something like the Piaggio Aventi 400 knots about about useful load of a KA.

Don't think I could fly it enough so maybe I would find a partnership. Management fees get pretty pricey....oh yeah if I had that much money maybe I would just charter until it became clear exactly how much I was going to use it and what I like the most. Then look and see if my first years utilization justify it.

 

[MSPAviator]

maybe I would just charter until it became clear exactly how much I was going to use it and what I like the most.

Yeah, for me though, the point of flying is operating the actual flight. I would enjoy the heck out of planning a trans-Atlantic crossing via Iceland in a TBM-850 and flying the trip. It's essentially the same as what I'm doing now, just on a much bigger scale.

Riding in the back of a Netjets flight, that would just be boring.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Yeah, for me though, the point of flying is operating the actual flight. I would enjoy the heck out of planning a trans-Atlantic crossing via Iceland in a TBM-850 and flying the trip. It's essentially the same as what I'm doing now, just on a much bigger scale.

Riding in the back of a Netjets flight, that would just be boring.

I'm with you on both points.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'd be all about the King Air 200. It'll haul a ton, it'll go pretty fast, and it'll get into and out of most small municipal airports.

When I got to fly the Hawker, we were trying to get as close as possible to a small town that had a perfectly good airport of its own with a 3500-foot runway. Instead, we had to fly to the nearest airport with a 5000-foot runway, which was a good hour's drive away. Why have a jet if you have to fly an hour and then drive an hour, as opposed to a turboprop that'd get right to the actual destination in 1.5 hours.

IMO, if you're only going to get one airplane, the King Air 200 is the one.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

I'd still get a Stearman

 

[wabower]

Eastbound over the Atlantic at 0300 while looking for Ireland into a rising sun through scratchy sleep-deprived eyeballs is a great sales pitch for sleeping in back of a Frac.

Yeah, for me though, the point of flying is operating the actual flight. I would enjoy the heck out of planning a trans-Atlantic crossing via Iceland in a TBM-850 and flying the trip. It's essentially the same as what I'm doing now, just on a much bigger scale.

Riding in the back of a Netjets flight, that would just be boring.

 

[spiderweb]

Why the 90 rather than a KA 200?

I was just throwing out examples. Actually, a 350 would be a great choice, but with higher operating costs, obviously.

 

[RussT]

Phenom 100! I charter them all the time. 3200 ft at MSL. Very comfortable, read somewhere they have one of the highest wing loading in their class and only cost about $650 an hour to run including fuel excluding insurance. Single pilot.

 

[CBeaulieu]

Are C208s bad in icing conditions? I would imagine those protrusions in fixed gear and wing struts pick the stuff up pretty good.

 

[CBeaulieu]

Phenom 100! I charter them all the time. 3200 ft at MSL. Very comfortable, read somewhere they have one of the highest wing loading in their class and only cost about $650 an hour to run including fuel excluding insurance. Single pilot.
View attachment 28281

The Phenom 100 is high on my "if I won the lottery" list.

 

[Dr. O]

You win 50 million and an airplane will be so far down your 'Crises List' that you will be an old man before you get to it.

There is a reason that movie stars, Senators, and The Donald have armed guards, blacked out limo windows, and live in a gated community - and it is that under our un-sane legal system if you have millions you are just one big fat target.

 

[MSPAviator]

Are C208s bad in icing conditions? I would imagine those protrusions in fixed gear and wing struts pick the stuff up pretty good.

They seemed to do OK on that Flying Wild Alaska show... I'm not sure I would want one unless it was on amphib floats though.

 

[weilke]

C208s are painfully slow (at least in my book).

That is because the ones you see flying have the belly pod and are loaded full of little boxes. A short-body without the pod will go 185kts or so.

All depends on where you want to go. If you don't want to go far but take the kitchen sink along and land on a gravel strip, maybe the tricked out Caravan beats the old GIII you can get for the same money.

Given a reasonable budget, for my travel and entertainment 'needs' it would be an early TBM850, a gussied up 182 on Amphibs and an Extra 300.

 

[weilke]

Are C208s bad in icing conditions? I would imagine those protrusions in fixed gear and wing struts pick the stuff up pretty good.

You can get TKS to include the struts.

It's the ice on the wing, tail and prop that brings you down, not the 200lbs you pick up on the gear and fairings.

 

[weilke]

There is a reason that movie stars, Senators, and The Donald have armed guards, blacked out limo windows, and live in a gated community - and it is that under our un-sane legal system if you have millions you are just one big fat target.

That is because they want it that way.

There are plenty of folks who have more net worth than most of the movie stars but manage to keep a low profile. The papparazzi only come after you if your 'publicist' calls them. If you live in Green Bay instead of Beverly Hills, nobody will even notice you in the local diner, millions or not.

 

[CBeaulieu]

You can get TKS to include the struts.

It's the ice on the wing, tail and prop that brings you down, not the 200lbs you pick up on the gear and fairings.

Gotcha - thanks for the info!

 

[wabower]

We just did a pod install not long ago (it was bigger than most row-boats) and the struts were booted. Somebody said it was a fleet-wide AD.

You can get TKS to include the struts.

It's the ice on the wing, tail and prop that brings you down, not the 200lbs you pick up on the gear and fairings.

 

[weilke]

We just did a pod install not long ago (it was bigger than most row-boats) and the struts were booted. Somebody said it was a fleet-wide AD.

If you need a belly pod on a personal use 208, you have to talk to the missus about packing discipline

 

[wabower]

By coincidence I was standing by the window of the FBO in San Pedro Sula, Honduras a few weeks later when it taxied onto the ramp. It belongs to a guy who has a place on Roatan and goes there frequently with family and friends.

If you need a belly pod on a personal use 208, you have to talk to the missus about packing discipline

 

[weilke]

By coincidence I was standing by the window of the FBO in San Pedro Sula, Honduras a few weeks later when it taxied onto the ramp. It belongs to a guy who has a place on Roatan and goes there frequently with family and friends.

There are a couple of really nice ones on amphibs owned by folks with lodges up in northern Canada.
A relative of mine had a nice retirement gig in the 90s. Pick up the Caravan in Islip in the morning, hop over to somewhere in the Hamptons, pick up his boss, fly to the east river sea plane base, drop off the boss, fly back to Islip and be home for a late breakfast.

 

[spiderweb]

Phenom 100! I charter them all the time. 3200 ft at MSL. Very comfortable, read somewhere they have one of the highest wing loading in their class and only cost about $650 an hour to run including fuel excluding insurance. Single pilot.
View attachment 28281

That sounds phenomenal!

What do you mean 3200 ft at MSL. Is that a climb rate?

 

[Alexb2000]

There are a couple of really nice ones on amphibs owned by folks with lodges up in northern Canada.
A relative of mine had a nice retirement gig in the 90s. Pick up the Caravan in Islip in the morning, hop over to somewhere in the Hamptons, pick up his boss, fly to the east river sea plane base, drop off the boss, fly back to Islip and be home for a late breakfast.

Since we're talking about 208's...

I can see why a lot of people would by them for certain missions. They might look like big clumsy beasts, but they fly really sweet with a lot of power (especially the newer ones). Not at all hard to hand fly for extended periods of time. Also, easy to land short, real short. Less than a 1000' wasn't close to hard on my first short attempt.

Very confidence inspiring, bring it on, flying brick quality, that is just hard to put into words.

 

[J3 Driver]

For me it would be either a CE-441 with -10s. (300 knots on 340 PPH at altitude.) Or a King Air 350. Speeds the same but you're going to burn more. But the thing will haul whatever you can cram into it. The one I'm currently flying is fill the tanks and seats and Gina's still have some useful load left over. The. You can operate it out of 3500 feet all day long as well. It's an airplane that does a lot if things really well.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Money is the big factor, but here's the question: Once I've won that $50 million lottery and finally can buy a 6-10 seat aircraft I can personally fly, can put enough away to pay for the per-hour cost, etc., am I buying a twin or a single?

I want safety, reliability, speed, and good useful load (as do we all). Most of my flying will be 200-1000 nm. (For longer, I'll just go the airlines.)

Do I get a C208, single turboprop, for it's near all-weather capabilities and great useful load?

Do I get a TBM 850 because it is faster?

Do I get a KA 90 and accept the tradeoff of cost per hour vs. safety?

Or do I buy a Citation II and get a better true airspeed while sacrificing the ability to fly into some of the smaller, more local airfields?

Depends on your skill level, also vans are kinda slow for your mission.

Personally if I had a boat load of money and wanted to burn a bunch of it for a personal transporter

 

[SteveinIndy]

We just did a pod install not long ago (it was bigger than most row-boats) and the struts were booted. Somebody said it was a fleet-wide AD.

I don't know if it was an AD, but it came out of the series of icing crashes in the 208. The Canadians investigated the hell out of a couple of them.

Regarding TKS, I would rather have either a heated system or boots. I can't put my finger on it but something about TKS just leaves me uneasy.

I can see why a lot of people would by them for certain missions. They might look like big clumsy beasts, but they fly really sweet with a lot of power (especially the newer ones). Not at all hard to hand fly for extended periods of time. Also, easy to land short, real short. Less than a 1000' wasn't close to hard on my first short attempt.

Very confidence inspiring, bring it on, flying brick quality, that is just hard to put into words.

One of my friends owns one. He describes it as the basset hound of the aviation world: "It is not something you would want to enter in a race but if you need something reliable, steady and able to stop on the dime, it is a great choice."

If I were doing STOL operations into undeveloped fields and needed to have some hauling capability, the 208 would be high on my list of choices. If I am looking to go point A to point B involving places with hard surface runways, it is not going to be as far up in the choices.

 

[weilke]

If I were doing STOL operations into undeveloped fields and needed to have some hauling capability, the 208 would be high on my list of choices. If I am looking to go point A to point B involving places with hard surface runways, it is not going to be as far up in the choices.

If true off-road is the plan, the Kodiak looks like a lot of capability.