In addition to probably underestimating the maintenance costs, certainly for on an older air frame, a key cost which they leave out of their published cost is depreciation, which is pretty big cost, although nothing unique to the TBM. (The PC-12 seems to be the only aircraft immune to this form of gravity…)
From Jetaviva’s most recent market update as an illustration, the TBM depreciation is a pretty meaningful, even reasonably predictable, annual cost which you’d be foolish IMHO to ignore
I’m not sure you can put a TBM P&W on the MORE program. I’ve been window shopping for a SETP for years and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one using such an overhaul postponement program. I’ve seen this for King Airs and maybe other twin turboprops. It seems most of the SETP owners, certainly TBM owners, follow the recommended schedules for nearly everything and my understanding is that postponing recommended time intervals will impact resale value (whether this loss of value is less than the MX cost you didn’t spend is above my level of knowledge). It seems TBM buyers prefer consistency and unusual aircraft seem to sit on the market for a long time, I’m remembering one which was on manufacturer’s or other third party paid in engine program (power by the hour), it seemed to be on the market forever, with nobody willing to pay a reasonable amount of the premium which this insurance was worth.
But, everything you buy in your life depreciates (except houses). In fact, almost everything becomes virtually worthless immediately. If I was buying a plane long-term I would not care about the depreciation. A TBM will last essentially for ever (several decades i.e. one’s entire flying life) if looked after. Same as a nice girl, really 
Peter, for people who have not reached the Zen status of personal perfection and don’t have their lives planned until death with a margin of error that is almost zero, there is always the chance that the aircraft might have to go away or be replaced with another one with different mission capabilities. Look at Jason and Adam who like to switch rides every 6 months…
I think depreciation is an important factor. Most GA airplanes are old, there you basically do not have depreciation but you can just write off all investments you make, such as avionics or overhauls.
Obviously the biggest enemy of value preservation is continued supply and improvements. The TBM has seen several major evolutions, the PC12 has only seen one minor evolution. The Cirrus is a great example how steady improvements increase depreciation.
Unfortunately for us Euro people, now is not the best time to buy aircraft where the US dollar is the dominant currency.
Peter, know your comment is tongue in cheek and you are stirring the pot…
But I will still respond…
I agree that most hard assets depreciate. Ownership of these assets is a cost. Perhaps the honest approach, for a long term owner you describe, is to fully expense the TBM purchase price on day one. That is gonna be an awfully expensive cost per hour in year one. And it won’t reflect economic reality…
Depreciation as a fact of life is not necessarily true for financial assets, which may include real estate, which would be the alternate use for the $1mm a potential TBM 700 buyer might be considering.
With, very, very rare exceptions, nobody buying planes to operate them makes money on the ownership portion of the equation, whether it’s the airlines or private owners (the only exception I can think of is slot buyers in new planes who then sell them upon delivery, like the g650, or in the rare aircraft dealer that purchases inventory, although in both cases I’d argue the money making is the result of savvy trading, not ownership). The airlines makes money utilizing the assets, not on owning them. The discussion at hand is really about minimizing the rate of losing your money or, perhaps, attempting to quantify the the cost and compare it to alternate ways to lose your money.
It is possibly to do a reasonably job forecasting medium term ownership costs, subject to variables and risks. This TBM doc is missing some costs.
[typos corrected]
It is possibly to do a reasonably job forecasting medium term ownership costs, subject to variables and risks.
With a piston single, especially from 1970s, it is virtually impossible to predict cost. There are just too many risks with too high a price tag. What I hear from SET owners is that there are virtually no unplanned maintenance costs. Obviously this very much depends on the age of the aircraft.
The way I would buy a TBM would be by saying to myself I have (say) 3M, I will need 2M to live on for the rest of my life (prudently assuming my business goes bust tomorrow) so if I spend 1M on it, that is ok.
Anything more complicated hangs on various assumptions and will one day bite you.
Sure depreciation is relevant but what other plane are you going to get which does the same job? Nobody who actually wants a TBM is going to buy a PC12 because it depreciates slower. The only way to get lower depreciation is to buy a Jetprop
That’s my way I know others will say “sometimes you have to take a chance” but they also regularly end up in sh1t.
In this case there are very few options for the mission capability and build quality. Sacrificing a bit of mission capability and a lot of quality is what you will get by downgrading to a Piper, and that will also greatly reduce the depreciation (but only by paying a lot less in the first place).
I don’t think that running a strict Part 91 programme (ignoring life limits etc) matters much if you keep it long-term. You can always throw in the new bits if you come to sell it. But unless you have substantial excess funds, you are not going to be upgrading from a TBM very soon.
Another thing worth considering is, again, the METP compared to SETP. The usual piston logic of “burning more”, doesn’t apply here to same degree. A METP will burn about as much as a SETP, for roughly the same power. The Commanders – because I have no other knowledge – burns 60gal/hr up high in total going 280-300kts. That’s what the TBM burns. Of course, now you have the trouble of servicing two engines, two props and two systems. But you will also find them for considerably less. And will depreciate less. A MU-2, early King AIr, Commander, Cheyenne can pretty much all be had for sub $500K with good times left on the engines. There are no TBM’s to be had for that.
I spoke to a guy the other day who was calling on my Aerostar. He’d had an MU-2 for years, but finally sold it because they got rid of their ski lodge, which was the main reason they needed it (to get into Telluride). He told me he had sold it for $120K in a weak moment. He was kicking himself for not having kept it now. Granted, it was close to HSI on both engines, but even so, at an average of $50K/engine, that’s a great deal. You can’t even get a SR22 used for that.
Same here, I basically got into my turbine for considerably less money than I’m selling the Aerostar for. With 1100hrs left on engines. I’m not delusional and saying that’s how it’s going to end up – no way – but at least the starting point is lower. If you’re willing to go for older, or oddball METP types, then you do have a head start. The SETP haven’t been around long enough to be part of this segment, but in 20 years time I’m sure one will be able to pick up similar deals on an older TBM 700 or Meridian etc.
For 50-150k€ I might be willing to live with a low tech 1970s US plane that has lots of squawks, doesn’t get warm, etc. but for 500k€+ I wouldn’t want that. That’s why I would not want a Silver Eagle or a 1970s twin. I don’t think you can compare the comfort and quality of a TBM to that of an old twin. The TBM really fills the personal airliner role with all the comfort and capability imaginable, combined with a very good range. Above the TBM you basically have the small jets but they don’t have the range. Only thing missing is a potty one can use
Obviously this very much depends on the age of the aircraft.
I have found that it is not so much a question of the airframe age, but to a great degree a matter of maintenance and especially about the history of the aircraft. Our 1961 Cessna 172 runs much more reliable than the Super Dimona of an aero club nearby. Our aero club Pipers were much more unreliable, too, and even the SportCruiser of a Club member has more downtime than our classic airframe.
Of course, the engine, Prop, Magnetos, Suction Pump, Alternator, Gyros, COM, NAV, DME, GPS, ADF and a good bunch of the engine instruments have been overhauled or replaced two years ago. You might call it a new plane, but to me it’s just a well maintained classic.
If you fly your equipment on condition, you will inevitably run into some unexpected downtime. But especially the engine does tell you, when it needs major maintenance – many people just don’t listen. Or don’t speak the language. In the end, you get what you pay for – no matter of age.
There is on-condition and there is on-condition.
Take the TB20 heater and air hoses. They are metric ones, made by Spiragaine in France who cheerfully tell you to get lost if you ask them to quote on one of the hoses by P/N (“we sell these only to Socata”). They are lifed at 10 years and a maint company will buy replacements only from Socata. On an EASA-reg you have c. €1000 to change them all.
On an N-reg you look at them (takes all of 60 seconds; less because you checked them all at every 50hr service) and you change the ones that need changing. I have thus far changed 3 out of about 10 (all damaged during maintenance); the others are perfect. And I used virtually identically sized US-made replacements, cut to length.
Now, multiply that little example by 10. Then remove a load of other stuff which doesn’t need doing if the aircraft gets a competent eyeball at regular intervals and is flown by an intelligent pilot who knows which bits do what.
I am not even suggesting anything other than a money-no-object maintenance policy, which is what I do I immediately fix anything what is less than 100% right. But that is a long way from blindly running life limits on stuff which is easy to run on-condition.
I have seen the innards of countless TBMs; it is a simple piece of ironware with a PT6 on the front. Any A&P/IA who knows the airframe and who can read will feel at home on it. I know one such, as it happens (EASA66) who may still be looking for a job.
The G1000 kit will need a good Garmin dealer to do anything with, but that is the price of flying anything with a G1000.
