Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UDflyer

dilemma for the rich - how to spend this $3 million

Recommended Posts

This has been bugging me but fortunately I don't have $3 million to spend on a new personal aircraft.I am trying to compare side-by-side Cessna Mustang with Socata TBM 850 since in many respects they are very similar aircraft.Both are priced very close (Socata is even slightly more expensive) and have very similar cabin volume, your typical 'family' aircraft.Even though Mustang is 2-engine jet and TBM is a single engine turboprop both aren't far apart in speed - Mustang is in fact only about 20-25 kts faster. TBM has about 30% better range.Mustang should be more expensive to operate and it is but not as much as you would think - about 17% more expensive per hour.Both operate fine from shorter runways.Mustang will of course require ME license, more training, more hours, insurance will be higher, etc.Which one to chose?But I can't help wondering why Cessna can build a 2-engine jet for less than Socata's 1-engine turboprop, and Mustang is heavier with better useful load.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Have you also looked at the Eclipse Michael? I think over a hundred are in production now, and would come in well under 3 million in today's dollars.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post

>Have you also looked at the Eclipse Michael? I think over a>hundred are in production now, and would come in well under 3>million in today's dollars.Yes, I do know about the Eclipse which is significantly less expensive however it also has much less cabin volume than either of the above aircraft. The Eclipse is not a 6-person airplane so it is not really fair to compare it with either the Mustang or the TBM. I sat inside the Eclipse jet - it is tight inside.Also for those who don't know - Eclipse is still 'work in progress'. It still lacks some important FAA certifications like for example flight into known ice.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

"I sat inside the Eclipse jet - it is tight inside."I missed a chance to see the Eclipse up close during the recent auto auction in Scottsdale. Did you take any pictures of the Eclipse? Would love to see some in the real aviation photo section. As for TBM vs. Mustang, that's a tough one. I would like the comfort of a second engine, that's just a personal choice. Another aircraft that seems quite cool to own is the Lancair IV-P, but calling it a four seater is quite a stretch--the back seat is quite tight. I've seen both the piston and turboprop version. On a sad note, we lost a Lancair with three souls aboard today out of Falcon field, where I took my flight training. I know the orchard well where the crash took place--there are not many landing choices when engine trouble occurs out of Falcon.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post

>Did you take any pictures>of the Eclipse? Would love to see some in the real aviation>photo section. John,Yes, I did and two photos are there for you to see.When I was taking these photographs I thought I was witnessing aviation revolution in the making - this was a promise of a jet at a breakthrough price. Now, 3 years later after so many stumbles and price adjustments I no longer look at it this way. In terms of price alone - this airplane is not less expensive per pound of its weight than the Cessna Mustang and the company is still in red. Its future is far from certain.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting, I took a fuel usage view, I did a google search and came up with a couple links:http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?secti...0&page_number=351 minutes and used 770 pounds of fuel"ONCLUSIONThe TBM 850's performance rivals the current VLJs, although at a higher price. True, it's slower, but it carries more and has more range, so on some legs, it will beat the VLJ door-to-door. Further, while a VLJ has to burn the fuel to climb nearly 10,000 feet higher to get its best speed, the TBM 850 is happy in the mid-20s. It will be interesting to see if ATC will dole out the higher flight levels to 340-knot light jets.By our estimation, it should be cheaper to operate the TBM 850 than a VLJ. But at a purchase price of $2.8 million, will a lower hourly cost impress a potential owner that much? Maybe. We think the TBM 850 would have a better shot with a Garmin or Avidyne glass panel system. And, in the world of airplane marketing, hard facts often give way to emotion. A jet just has a cachet that a turboprop doesn't, despite the economics."also http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cessna-mustangTBMhttp://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-67...ho-needs-a.html39 GPH cruise. something around 600 pounds / hour.Perhaps a stupid question, does the TBM use AVGAS or Jet A? Isn't avgas cheaper than jet a?

Share this post


Link to post

>Perhaps a stupid question, does the TBM use AVGAS or Jet A? TBM has turbine engine and uses Jet A.> The TBM 850's performance rivals the current VLJsMustang is really not a VLJ, at least not according to the Flying Magazine, also Cessna says that Mustang is not a VLJ. TBM "carries more" than VLJ but carries less than the Mustang. When they say 'VLJ' they usually mean something like the Eclipse - an airplane with much smaller interior than TBM. I started comparison between the Mustang and TBM because they are overall in the same category of size - VLJ is a smaller beast.> By our estimation, it should be cheaper to operate the TBM 850I think they are wrong here. Eclipse (VLJ) seems significant cheaper to operate than TBM (if we believe Eclipse's website) but again - it is a smaller airplane. By the way Eclipse's website is where you can find hourly operating cost of all these aircraft, I have no reason to believe that these numbers are fudged.When carefully comparing all these airplane together one thing becomes clear - there is no magic here, basically you get what you pay for. The only surprise, at least for me is a relatively high purchase price of the TBM850, maybe it is due to really low USD. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah it is a european aircraft so it is going to cost more because of our awesome economic situation

Share this post


Link to post

As much as I love Cessna, I'd go for the TBM. One of the companies based here where I go to college has one and it is an amazing aircraft. Fuel burn for a turboprop is going to be much lower, and in most cases you have pretty close to the same performance figures. I don't know what the max gross weight of the TBM is, but because the Mustang is a pure jet, it requires a type rating in the airplane despite being below 12,500 lbs. The TBM is one #### of a powerful airplane, too, and does pretty well hot and high.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,Why the Pilatus P-12 was not mentioned in your comparison? In terms of cabin size, comfort and range it overrool the Socata.Shay

Share this post


Link to post

Cabin size and operating from an unimproved field are probably the only two where the PC-12 beats the TBM 850. The TBM is 40 knots faster and it's range is only 100 miles shorter with the standard 3 passengers that both websites list. The TBM 850 also does all this with 400 less horsepower then the PC-12.

Share this post


Link to post

Just try and think how much that money would contribute to a Cancer Research cure?The priorities of my fellow man astound me!

Share this post


Link to post