After doing some research I’m starting to think single turboprop may be a better option for me. Why? Few things. Firstly ideally I’d like to avoid avgas due to lack of availability in certain airports and uncertain future. That leaves me with the Diamond as the main contender. Boy is that aircraft expensive! For what you get in terms of speed, useful load, range, space, i found it to be poor value for money (I was quoted 1.6m eur for a basic new da62, 1.2 for a da42). The used ones in reasonable shape aren’t much cheaper. So, for that money I’m thinking I could get a reasonable turboprop (maybe a malibu mirage? Entry level user tbm?). That would give me pressurisation, higher speed, more useful load, and apparently it’s safer. Looking at the stats a turboprop single is safer than a twin piston. That is my main consideration, in that it seems if you’re not a semi pro with a lot of hours, flying a twin is borderline dangerous. However, I am guessing turboprop needs some decent experience as well. And the maintenance could be a lot higher if things go wrong.
What are people’s thoughts on this subject? What drawbacks have I not considered? And what sort of flying hours/experience do I need to safely fly a basic turboprop?
My five cents (theoretical only, what if…):
With a turboprop you are often above the weather or at least capable of climbing, you have speed and a pressure cabin. However you are still single engine although reliability is much better than the piston engines. Another aspect which is not often mentioned is that sometimes one would like to fly lower just to see landscape details or simply sightseeing and then a turboprop is getting very inefficient. In addition I personally perceive flying high somewhat boring.
And then, the costs.
For less than half the price you can buy a decent used twin piston (due to the low demand for twins), put it a complete avionics upgrade if required, have both engines overhauled and still end up with a much much lower price than for a used turboprop. (for example a Beech Baron with pressure cabin).
In the end the choice will be tough as both options are appealing.
However, I am guessing turboprop needs some decent experience as well.
Basically, operating normally, the engine itself is easier than a piston with turbo. Don’t go over red line (at all) nor yellow too long. No shock cooling to avoid. The emergencies / failure modes are different, you need to learn them.
Generally it is a faster machine, flying higher and you need to learn stuff around that and not be « behind » the machine.
Less noisy in cruise, less vibrations.
And the maintenance could be a lot higher if things go wrong.
Yes. Needs potentially six digits on engine repairs and overhauls.
Turboprop all the way. And the Jetprop is the ideal European turboprop aircraft. Pressurised, weather radar, FL270 cruise above most weather. Much easier to operate than a piston single, let alone a twin. Jet A available everywhere and which in the UK is a little over £1.0 per litre. The JP is under 2 tonnes, so no airway charges and much cheaper landing fees at most airports than the piston twins, which are over the 2 tonne cutoff. IFR range S England to Croatia,
Oh, and there is nothing like the adrenaline rush from the takeoff acceleration behind a turbine and then climbing out at 130Kts and 2,500 fpm.
This is available for less than the price of a new SR22.
Go for a single turboprop. Pressurization, radar and deicing are the three requirements for flying A to B reliably. You won’t get them in a piston twin (C421 maybe?). As for the transition, I would look for an OSD (operational suitability) document for the type you want to fly. The minimum requirements in terms of hours and qualifications will be stated there. I went from a 135 hp DA40 to a TBM in 2016. Boy was that a step change in capabilities. I was shocked for months and flew around Europe like a maniac.
You’ll be looking at 100-200k annually with a turboprop. If you like the running costs lower, go with piston.
I was going to suggest you could get the best and worst of both worlds by buying a King Air. But then I looked at some costings a friend had for his business.
Hourly rate of a PC12 is around €800
a TBM 700 €1100
and a Beech King Air 350 at around €1300
Annual costs of running a King Air is around €400,000
I couldn’t find his annual costs for the PC12 and the TBM 700 but he thinks they are somewhere upwards of 6 figures.
Good used ones all come at roughly the same price for the same sort of avionics but the TBM for instance can be bought cheaper but would cost a lot to upgrade avionics.
Meanwhile a really good used Seneca V or Beech Baron 58 will cost somewhere between €350,000 and €500,000. I’m not sure on the P version.
They will cost around €700 per hour to operate.
But they do have he disadvantage of using Avgas. I don’t know if that will change to allow eg UL91 or mogas in the near future.
It is difficult to predict annual costs on these as they seem to be much more dependent on hours flown than the turbine aircraft.
I think a realistic figure on either of these aircraft, privately run could go between €50,000 and €70,000 per annum if one includes engine and prop replacement as new fund and databases and software upgrades etc for all the modern avionics stuff.
The above is also included in the turbine annual costs.
Rami1988, I’d say try flying TB20 first to understand if it is enough for you. It is a capable plane (look at Peter’s trips) and will give you time to look around as well.
Re: twins – I’m afraid there is magic there, it is either a Diamond DA42 at £600K+ or Avgas-burner. Although that one could be very comfortable, for example C340 or C421c – they are pressurised, fast and could fly some distance above a lot of weather (FL280), and I read lot’s of comments from the pilots of these Cessnas that the engine failure is almost a non-event. Annual would be more than double of what you pay now and hourly – 150L/h + engine/prop/service fund. It could also be Cessna P337? Baron pressurised is apparently not bad, but the bigger Cessnas are better at the same cost. Unpressurised – the best one is (Turbo) Twinkie (PA-30/PA-39) – slightly faster than TB20, fairly low cost (fuel burn is only about 50% than TB-20).
Re: TurboProp – more reliable engine, but much more expensive in annual costs (hourly rates are going to be similar), heard from some owners that TP is best shared for precisely that reason. And for any problem you pay a LOT. Another consideration with TPs – with single you’d need to thing about your plan B when you fly over mountains and/or night and/or open water, harder to justify a direct flight from Scotland to Norway in SE aircraft over north sea or Bay of Biscay, or… Multi-Engine Turbo is better in that sense but it is in effect doubles the annual cost and I don’t know it moves from Part-NCO to Part-NCC, it might. As many said above, TPs are best for A-B flights at altitude, no bimbling about.
And if want just to get from A to B, quite a few people I had a chat with have said that it would be better to share a Citation or CirrusJet or Eclipe and get a jet… :)
Rami1988, I’d say try flying TB20 first to understand if it is enough for you. It is a capable plane (look at Peter’s trips) and will give you time to look around as well.
Sell TB20 and buy TBM, life is too short (if money is not a problem). If he is looking for value out of the aircraft, I am sure TB20 does lot of stuff
One tiny inconvenience with DA62 (+12m wingspan) or TBM (+3T) are the hassles one gets with PPR for parking, handling, security, fire cover, somone on duty…even an easy airport like Cannes needs few emails for DA62 visit, however, none of this is an issue with extra cash !
The other tiny inconvenience, is maintenance, there will be zero control: one has to budget 100k is on the table per year !
I recommend a search for turboprop, TBM, jetprop, etc threads. Lots in the past. As always those from actual owners have the most value.
You need a good technical knowledge of all aspects of flying. It will deliver a much better despatch rate versus weather but it is even more “technical” than pistons.
Costs are significantly higher, with the Jetprop (I looked at it too) being the lowest cost option. You can run any plane on less money if you are smart but at the higher end of the market nobody does that. Landing fees are much higher.
Forget piston twins. Do a search too. The avgas ones are a dead end now and the Diamond ones have ~100% serious QA issues coming out of the factory.
For any new owner-pilot I would absolutely not recommend buying anything which might be a difficult because if you think you have “fun” with “ground ops” on the TB20 then you can multiply that 10x with a turboprop, because far fewer people can work on them, so you end up flying somewhere to get anything done. That is the reason I never went that route; the “ground situation” would be too hard. I could buy a Jetprop or a TBM700C2 anytime…
Finally remember that Jet-A1 is taxed (duty) in the UK… on a self declaration basis 
And finally you won’t get decent photos out of any pressurised aircraft, due to the windows. Well, you can, but nowhere near as effectively as out of say a TB20. That was another big reason I never went for the Jetprop.
You lose a lot of visibility in any pressurized aircraft. It makes for a very different flying experience (not talking from direct experience, but sitting in an airliner / mil cockpit, and in the sim, it becomes quite obvious).
In a TP, you engage AP in initial climb, and the rest of the flight is managing systems and the radio. There are exceptions, but it’s what it’s designed for and what the standard flight aims to look like. Maybe it’s the same in capable IFR SEPs, but I think the combination of complex systems, high altitude and lower visibility due to pressurization push this direction even further.
So for your case it really depends on what flying experience you want. If you want a go-places aircraft with a luxury jet feel (but little visibility, especially for passengers), go for a TBM or Pilatus. If you prefer more traditional flying, indeed the options are limited and Diamonds seem like the only avgas alternative. They are heavily affected by diesel overvaluation (inflating the prices of diesel aircrafts by much more than what they save you – so you’re definitely paying extra to choose Jet-A1 instead of avgas), and lack a proper used market. Other than that, their prices new is not totally insane compared to other aircrafts. They are just in a different place in terms of performance / efficiency / comfort. And IMO the 62 is gorgeous (although TBMs are as well). I would advise against a 42 since its OEI performance is really not ideal.
Another different compromise (depending on pax capacity needs) is the Lancair Evolution, it’s a go-places TP, very efficient and fast, with good visibility despite pressurization, but is not certified (so IFR touring around Europe and beyond may be an issue).
