Snoopy wrote:
The good (and bad) thing in GA is you can fix most of these issues with money.
Not all of them, time being frequently one of them. There are relatively few aircraft in the market which are as spotless as the OP’s current PA-46. Getting there, other than money, costs (ground-) time.
I have first and second-hand knowledge of dozens of airliners in free EU circulation doing maintenance outside the EU on a regular basis, including major upgrades: not a single one of them has been treated customs-wise like “importing an upgrade”.
Granted: airlines , and possibly customs, do not care, cash-wise, about VAT or duty, like we might do. However they do need to follow customs procedures. If they (we) opened the can of worms of exporting/importing upgrades it could be a never-ending story which, simply is too complex for the system to manage.
This is only valid for the aircraft being flown out of the EU and back in for maintenance while being in free EU circulation, and that is how it works in practice in all of the cases I have seen.
Is the value of a large aircraft higher after a major structural check including multi-million dollar upgrades? No doubt it is, but the asset accounting and insured value is typically unchanged (for multiple reasons related to the accounting of maintenance provisions and asset depreciation) and if a customs declaration were done then value out/in would be unchanged. You could argue a Jetprop is different because the value of the upgrade could be much higher than the previous value of the asset, but I have never seen it done on large aircraft and am definitely not keen on seeing or setting such complex precedent.
A different matter is parts (rather than whole aircraft) being shipped out and in for maintenance/upgrades: those must always carry a customs declaration out/in.
I think airlines use a system called End User Certificate. This allows you to avoid (or claim back; no idea of details) any duty. Also there is a boundary at 8000kg MTOW; no idea of details but it should not be too hard to research. Something here.
AFAIK, AOC holders, and private owners based on the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man try to always get an End User Certificate.
I think @stolman may know more about this.
Did the OP think to a reasonably used King air? It has good soft field possibility, short field landing and good performances overall, vs higher operating cost, but as MEP, some lower buying cost may compensate the maintenance of 2xPT6.
First ads starts a bit over 500k.
Hadn’t considered that, interesting idea.
However, I am allergic to the over 2 tonne airways charges, and in particular what being over 2 tonnes does to landing fees in Switzerland where I go frequently.
The exercise of trying to locate a good plane has been a wonderful reminder of how terrific pilots are. I have had several long conversations with perfect strangers in the last two days in which they have given me all sorts of real world wisdom. Other people are making calls on my behalf to possible sellers. And as always the ideas and input on this forum have been great.
Thank you all again.
BTW – if this goes through I will have a very nice 2006 PA46 Malibu Mirage for sale. 1680 hours, but with completely rebuilt engine 400 hrs ago, and lots of money spent on replacing v expensive items (engine frame, pressurisation controller, hydraulic pack etc etc). Scrupulously maintained at RGV in the UK. Avionics fully and wonderfully upgraded by previous owner who is also a denizen of this community! Always hangared.
Paul B
greg_mp wrote:
Did the OP think to a reasonably used King air?
From what my customers tell me those things are expensive to operate. Average annual maintenance without any engine stuff is apparently 50-70k Euro and the list goes on. High fees due to MTOW and those really cheap ones have a lot of wear from thousands of hours. Also the interior on the older ones looks like Elvis might still be sitting in there. Overall you can not compare it to operating a PA46.
My plane lived for 10 years in a KA/TBM maintenance hangar and I saw a lot of stuff close-up.
There is only a remote comparison between the operating cost of a KA and a Jetprop 
A TBM is broadly similar to a KA and is about 2x to 3x the DOC of a Jetprop. The TBM should be a cheaper than a KA but the lengthy Socata MM schedule (which every TBM shop will follow to the last letter) coupled with some TBM parts costs, cancels that out.
The above assumes airframes in comparable condition, which a 500k KA definitely will not be, compared to a fairly recent PA46.
But any seasoned PT6 pilot, who has ferried these over the N Atlantic, will also tell you that there is no comparison between a PA46T (either type) on the one hand, and a TBM or a KA on the other. He just won’t say it in front of the client But then he is not paying for it.
Also once you go over 2T you pay much more everywhere… landing, parking, average out at several times more. And hangarage.
greg_mp wrote:
First ads starts a bit over 500k.
I’m not completely sure if an owner who considers converting his own PA46 into a Jetport at a price premium compared to buying an already converted because he knows and trusts the airframe would be interested in the most run down KingAirs in the market.
It’s always good to get some alternatives thrown into an evaluation process.
Apart, King Air’s are not the only options if twin turboprops are considered. E.g. the Cheyennes appear to be quite comfortable and nice planes too and they may be found in the same range with quite good avionics e.t.c.
However, if staying below 1999 kg is the goal, then there is practically no alternative to the Jetprop DLX.
