The idiots are the people who think speed matters for short/medium haul. After 25 years flying short haul/medium I can guarantee you that what really matters is your ability to slow down. Then it’s climb performance followed by short/grass field performance. Lastly its range and speed. After you have choked on that lot, imagine a day following an evening when you had a few beers and curry. Your aircraft costs $5,000,000 and you are going to do a stinky, sloppy shit in a bucket behind a curtain…
I worked for a company that had both a PC-12 and a Cessna 560 with a cargo door installed to fly employees around. With the crazy airport security and not being allowed to carry small tools on a plane it is hard travel for day trips. It makes economic sense to have two planes to do this on different types runways. The Cessna also has a gravel kit installed.
@@Trevor_Austin You have they right. I remember I used to carry a soft Jensen Tools bag on a plane to do small tasks. Being a communications tech sometimes we only needed an hour do our work and then leave.i remember a few times where the communications site was close enough that I could do my work and get on the same plane I arrived in and return home.
Yes you can climb faster and efficiency on a turboprop aircraft but speed and surface cealing are behind a bit to jet it has a lower climbing rate and effciency is a but low and also some turboprop is faster but they are more quiter and flies a bit higher
When you talked about the speeds of each plane, you gave the cruise speed for some of them, and the top speed for others. You can’t switch what you are measuring. The cruise speed is far more important, so you should have just mentioned that. You can’t judge their speed because you didn’t record each one the same.
You mentioned the King Air, but almost ignored the Piaggio, a real game changer with a 400+ cruise and a 98 gal per hr fuel burn with a ceiling of 41,000 ft. Add to this a LARGE, comfortable cabin, and I would choose it over most jets unless I'm ocean hopping.
It’s not about cost per hour, it’s about cost by distance (km/nm) and time to reach the destination. All the cost you mentioned are based on h, but turbines are normally much slower than jets (Phenom 100). So cost per nm much closer taking your average cost per year per, same math with nm would be almost the same and than the time saving. It depends all about the mission. Would say if trips under 400nm are most of the missions a turbine is the perfect aircraft, missions above that Jet‘s are the answer. Also keep always in mind Jets fly in smoother air because is high, a Phenom 100 operates best in 38/39K feet. Turbines in a 28K range what it’s a huge different when it comes to bad weather, can tell was flying often in bumpy clouds at 28K. Due to the travel time a potty for passengers gets also important, trips beyond 2h is needed. TBM has no potty, great you can fly 5 hours but only without passengers, in other words you need a p stop if you have passengers. Also jets like Phenom 100 and Honda Jet have wider cabin what results in full up seating, also for taler persons. Correction to your video: Phenom 100 has a full lavatory including doors for privacy. Conclusion: if it comes to missions below 400/500 miles a turbine as PC12 is the way to go, beyond Phenom 100 or Honda Jet. The Vision jet is nice aircraft but for private owner flying only with the altitude (weather) limitation.
You are confused about what a jet is. Both turboprops and "jets" are turbine engines. Turboprops are fuel efficient, it comes at the cost of top speed.
The E1000 is faster than the VisionJet, but burning about half the fuel, and flying up to 3,000 feet higher. The E1000 reaches FL340 in 15 minutes and then cruises along quite happily at 270KTAS at little more than 30gph, meanwhile the VisionJet is burning 65gph to do the same thing. Sure the Phenom is faster, but it's not much higher, and if you have to fly half way across the country you are going to need to land to refuel, and there goes all that speed advantage. In one review I read the Phenom took 34 minutes to reach FL350, by which time the E1000 has been at cruise for nearly 20 minutes. And you are burning 77gph in the Phenom at cruise, plus another 30 gallons to get you to altitude, accounting for speed differences that's still twice the fuel use. But throttle the Phenom back to economical cruise to get the 1200nm range and push the E1000 to maximum cruise and they are close on speed and altitude, but the E1000 got up there sooner and can continue another 400 miles. The normal range for the P100 is only 915nm, so the P100 can do San Francisco to Denver, but the Epic can do San Francisco to Chicago. It's just not as simple as you make out.
I mean i agree, however take into account the noise factors..some tp are loud...and the tbm has no toilet. I guess both aircraft have many pros and cons
A chart would be unless unless you put in vanity and dick waving columns. The way you should select the aircraft is to plan the routes you will do, doorstep to doorstep. Then you work your way through the options available. Then the cost of delays (weather, road traffic, parking, airport parking etc.). Add this lot up and start working on the aircraft selection.
Depending on your mission. If you are an owner/operator, you would most probably go for the TBM, EPIC or Cirrus. If you are sitting in the back, you will most probably go for the Phenom. As a pilot, I would go for the TBM.
@@matthewray9208 that's what they said on a lot of planes that have had engine failure. Lycoming O-360s are supposed to be too, but I personally know 4 pilots who have had them fail
If it’s not designed to climb out on a single engine, it can give you a false sense of security too. Just because a plane has two engines, doesn’t mean it can fly well on one.
@@alexs3187 true. However, most jets are designed to meet a minimum climb gradient and will climb decently well single engine, especially when loaded a bit lighter. Single engine performance in a piston plane however is usually pretty scary in my training experience 😬
I will not fly in any single pilot airplanes unless I get the co-pilot's seat. I rather fly with a pilot slightly drunk than one who been vaxed. If I am up front, and the pilot keel over, at least I can land the plane. The drunk will sober up.
You did not mention the extraordinary safety profile of VLJs. Each of them have two extremely reliable PWC 600s. The type rating and annual 61.58 checks obviously contributes to safety. The Mustang, Eclipse Jet, Phenom 100 have incredible safety profiles after being in service for quite some time and are mostly owner flown. I believe each type only has one fatal. The EA-50 fatal was likely pilot incapacitation. The same cannot be remotely said for the TBMs, PA-46s even the Pilatus. Also, FL410 is much preferred to just touching RVSM territory. The quiet comfort of a smooth running jet at 410 with an 8,000 foot cabin is not something that most owner/pilots would relinquish.
Also you can get an old twin-turboprop Beechcraft in need of overhaul modernized & retrofitted to be pressurized with the new engines turning it into an experimental for like $400-700k. Most airports have a bunch of old derelict twins like these lined up off to the side where every owner is trying to get rid of it for next to nothing to use as the base. Will be quieter than most of these single engine planes here. Edit: that Lancair Evolution is a really great little plane too. Just wish they still sold the Lancair IV-P kit for build assist programs…would be perfect if they just fixed the window issues.
Turning it into experimental also limits it to flights close to its home base. You need to check the down side of de-certifying an aircraft. You can't just pressurize an aircraft that wasn't made to be pressurized. The Lancair is also a little twitchy to fly.
@@cageordie there are definitely significant down-sides worth considering but the limited range is practically only in the test-phase until you’re approved by the Administrator. Literally can fly internationally once approved just sometimes there’s extra paperwork. Also helps to be an engineer that was already swapping both engines to more powerful turboprops which happened to support pressurization. Essentially just sealed/reinforced the cabin & needed a few additional components borrowed from a newer King Air 250. I’ve designed experimental jets before so I got this thing approved up to 60,000ft even though it wouldn’t be safe to fly that high (probably couldn’t even get up above 45k & it’s really just convenient to be allowed to fly above 30k when needed) Retrofitted de-icers & all sorts of other stuff too. +no longer forced to use overpriced certified parts.
@@MaxGuides So tell me what your limiting factors are for being approved to 60000 feet. I am not going to give you a clue why that alone tweaks my BS meter. Care to share the registration of this fine machine so I can look it up?
TLDR If you're a private owner, do tubro-props, easier certification, easier to find a place to land, otherwise better or equivalent.... If you need to seduce customers in commercial flight, go jet... more glamorous , objectively faster, can compare to what movie/music stars fly...
Many false comparisons in this piece. I flew a turboprop for 10 years and have flown a Citation for 6. No doubt this author chose the Vision Jet to use as a comparison for a reason. The single thing that the turboprop "may" do better on is short field landing. And even with that it is honestly not a big difference. The cruise difference of FL30 vs FL41 is significant. And it's your choice in terms of opex....cheaper with one engine and more expensive with 2. I'm happy to pay more when flying into my base of Telluride for peace of mind. Turboprops are great but they are not jets. Just my 2 cents.
Many false comparisons.... Lol And by the way, this is not a turboprops vs "jets" video.... Another thing is, what turboprop did you fly? And what citation do you fly now? I used the TBM and the Epic E1000 in this video, and "Light Jets" that are similar to them are not practically better... That's the point brother
@@Dwaynesaviation that's pretty funny as that is exactly what your title says it is. I'm stating my opinion based upon my experience of flying both for years. Turboprops are great! There are times when I miss mine however I don't know anyone that has moved into a turbofan that wants to go back. There are some reasons that the turboprop may be superior for certain missions however your piece doesn't dwell on those. Jetprop and now Mustang. What turboprop and jet do you fly?
@@Dwaynesaviation you've got a good channel and my comments should not be taken as criticism of your desire to educate and promote aviation. I'm simply submitting my experience having flown the types of aircraft your piece discusses. Please keep up the great work!
Turboprops are relevant if your using the plane for personal, charter, or freights because they are fuel effecient than jet, and low maintinance than jets and parts are easier to get to, but the downside, there choppy to control, using the feather during taxi and creep mode may be crazy but thats how it goes.
Which one? The Epic E1000 needs around 2,000 feet to get airborne, same as a King Air C90. The King Air also isn't as fast, burns more fuel, climbs much slower, and... well I don't see the advantage, other than the twin engine thing.
A twin is best for hauling VIPs and if you often fly over terrain where a helicopter cannot land in less than 500 pieces. But that require more maintenance and better pilot training. I just read about a King Air crash in Australia by a pilot who basically did nothing, flight lasted just 12 seconds. You tube.
Fuel efficiency should be measured in distance, not time, as they will be flying at different speeds. As you allude to sometimes it is more efficient to fly high & fast unlike land vehicles that don’t have this option.
Guys will stick with turbines for the cost and wonder why they are always exhausted after a 5 hour flight. The smoother and quieter jets are signifigantly more comfortable if you can afford them
Too many variables and operator/customer requirements. On thing important to some, which I didn’t hear mentioned - weather and the ability to get through it and above it. A fully enclosed rear LAV is a must for me. I like the Pilatus PC12 and P 24, but the LAV is not universally liked (yes I know the reason it’s there). Speed, not important, retired and aged 66. Missions 200-1000 miles, 2-4 pax, 1 crew. The HondaJet does all that, but I’m in Europe and service centres are rare. For me, a Phenom 300 ticks all the boxes. Not a light jet, but it is readily available for charter and fractionals here in Europe.
It was initially included... It was initially the M600, TBM, and the E1000 vs the Honda Jet, Phenom 100 and the Vision Jet... But the video ended up being too long, so I took out one on each side
I disagree. What counts is doing the job and that is lifting people and their things and taking them to their destination. When your trip is 500 nautical miles the time saved by a fast jet might (and this is a HUGE might) be 25 minutes. But this is only available if you can get an immediate climb and have an optimum descent. Then you have the issue of driving the things. The US has lawyers and doctors smeared all over the place as personal turbine and jet aircraft take the place of Bonanzas in wiping out the next bunch of arrogant “High Flyers” with more money than sense/ability. All of these things are easy to fly when you know how. It took me about six months to learn how to fly a jet airliner and a couple of years to become very proficient (that is average by industry standards). I suggest that a turbo-prop single is just a little more forgiving than a jet and will be easier to for an owner operator to fly.
Not really. Something like the Epic E1000 is very comparable in cost and complexity to the Cirrus VisionJet G2 but flies much further and faster burning less fuel. The E1000 is also single lever control and has autothrottle, so no messing with pitch and managing torque to not rip the gearbox to pieces at low altitude.
Hey guys..You can't compare SINGLE ENGINE aircraft to twins..Single engine planes are of course more efficient and less expensive BUT they only have ONE engine. If it fails, you have a much bigger issue than if you have a second engine. Overall, from a purely performance/efficiency standpoint, The Piagio Avanti EVO has two turbo-prop engines and is the best plane in your presentation! Only problem is it has no sales/marketing support network in the states. Really too bad as it is a great aircraft from any angle. The Beach Starship was no match due to the inherent inefficiency of having 3 lifting surfaces. Some knowledgable organization needs to take the EVO under it's wing and fly with it!!
You all are forgetting about the Honda jet 1400 nautical mile range 420 kts Cruise @ 43,000 feet 4000 fpm claim and you can take a hot steamy dump in a private flushing laboratory with running water for the sink no other small Jet or turbo prop comes close. Now Honda has an even bigger one so put that in your pipe and smoke it…
I’m sorry, we don’t talk IAS for private transport planes… we discuss MACH… and at what FL are y’all at in the TP? Good luck making a logical discussion of flight time in the summer storms… Also, the Frickin Cirrus jet is a personal transport jet. Stop comparing it.
You bashed the CJ4 for comfort yet it has the largest most comfortable cabin than every other jet you mention in the vid, has the best rate of climb and highest service ceiling. It’s nice to be able to get over all the weather while everyone else is picking there way through it down low
@@Dwaynesaviation 🤣 then why did YOU specifically mention it? As for range, the CJ4 also wins out of everything you mentioned. You’re right, it doesn’t compete with the others 🤣
From an economics standpoint, a single engine is the way to go. You might not get there quite as fast, but ownership costs should be better. Of course, if your are running a multi-million dollar business where every minute counts, that's up to the bean counters to justify. I just want something that will get me 1000nm non stop in 5 hours or less.
Seriously? "The hondajet is the only very light jet with a lavatory". Citation M2, Phenom 100. You compare TBM's to all the other turbos, but the best selling turbo in the world is the Pilatus pc 12 series, over 1800 in service. Sorry but this video was funded by TBM
The video would hugely benefit from comparison tables. Listeners have trouble remembering the specs this way. I had to stop the video because we are better off just looking up the specs than listening to an artificial host.
Maybe not someone, but how about a company, their plant 1000 miles away have a breakdown on a Sat afternoon, and costing $12000 an hour, and you have to rush a couple of engineers there.
Piaggo is extremely noisy and is banned from some airports. Bottom line, depends on the mission, short haul, gravel/grass strips, the turboprop is best.
@@superchargedpetrolhead Cut noise by 68% they said. But I have been near Cessna Conquest , Commander turbo and other with straight through engines such as the Garrett, I do not like the noise either, even if the design is more efficient. With just one engine running, all conversation stopped within 200 ft. PT-6 are quieter.
At my age a lavatory is an enormous consideration. Although i could wear Presidential Depends. You should try to compare apples to apples. Cabin x section is important as is climb, range and field length. Tail height comes into play if you have a home/hangar. The Cirrus is a strange design but you can virtue jet signal. The TBM has a tiny cabin and range is limited with full payload. It is over 30 years old. M in TBM stands for Mooney. The Epic has a good cross section, over 300 kts and about 4000ft/min climb. The PC12 has my toilet and a large cabin. I really like the Beech Denali but i wonder when or if the engine will be certified. I used to fly DC3s so all aircraft are faster.
Wrong. TBM still produces new aircraft - current is the 960. TBM can fly fully loaded 1,700nm and that’s the full published range. Try again. There’s also a lavatory option, Biden.
@@johnqdoe I was being tongue and cheek, but there is a lavatory option if you call it that. Full published range at what speed and payload and altitude. I was an aircraft performance engineer for four aircraft manufacturers. Try again. 1,700 nm not possible.
Seems to me too many commenters have the author on his heels to take anything said seriously. Especially the cost per hour type stuff as opposed to a more accurate cost per distance comparison
@@Dwaynesaviation the point is when you post something pretending to be an expert on a subject and everyone is calling you out and you're constantly trying to defend yourself, that says something.
I am not a pilot but doesn't ATC limit your air speed in transit anyway? So even if the top speeds are different, because of the limitations then the top speed is not much of a difference?
Numbers are deceiving. If you believe this video you have no experience in corporate aviation. If your trip is within 400 miles and you have to worry about the cost then turbo prop. 400 + jet all the way. And not a single engine piece of junk, a real jet. You have to consider weather, available payload etc etc.
Are you an armchair aviator or what? You are talking like you have thousands of hours of flying jets and turboprops while in the reality it's definitely not the case. Jets can fly at 40000+ feet which gives tremendous increase in safety and comfort. A jet's climbing rate is much more efficient. Jets have two engines. Operating a one engine out jet is ten times easier than a turboprop without one engine. Jets have more efficient anti-ice system. Jets give more comfortable cabin altitude. And there are about a dozen another perks to a jet that a turboprop lacks. And don't get started about Cirrus. It's not a jet. It's a joke. Generally turboprops are superior - only economically - during no long hauls with a good weather. Or if there is a need to operate on a grass/short strip. But that's a common knowledge.
this is all absolute BS. where did you get the figures, top trumps cards? you are comparing apples with eggs…none of this is useful or reasonable in any way
For 3/4 century, the ignorant public been conditioned that jet is better, and propeller obsolete. To the extend airliners had to hide the propeller in a shroud and even rename the prop as a fan. A high by-pass turbo fan is nothing but a glorified turbo prop, but it fooled the public. For the same length of time, the industry also been held back by the "sound barrier" That is the speed we all stuck with, unless you have the clout to commandeer a fighter jet and the refueler to get you there at Mach 2. The latest generation of fighter jets are slightly slower than the last generation like the F4 and F104. The one important thing you did not mention is, some super rich people like to sneak in and out of places without being noticed, a jet have a much higher profile, and no one will notice a turbo prop unless you fly in with a Piaggio P180.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
The idiots are the people who think speed matters for short/medium haul. After 25 years flying short haul/medium I can guarantee you that what really matters is your ability to slow down. Then it’s climb performance followed by short/grass field performance. Lastly its range and speed. After you have choked on that lot, imagine a day following an evening when you had a few beers and curry. Your aircraft costs $5,000,000 and you are going to do a stinky, sloppy shit in a bucket behind a curtain…
no pics, didn't happen hah
I worked for a company that had both a PC-12 and a Cessna 560 with a cargo door installed to fly employees around. With the crazy airport security and not being allowed to carry small tools on a plane it is hard travel for day trips. It makes economic sense to have two planes to do this on different types runways. The Cessna also has a gravel kit installed.
@@Chris_at_Home Airport security, one of the handbrakes preventing society from advancing.
@@Trevor_Austin You have they right. I remember I used to carry a soft Jensen Tools bag on a plane to do small tasks. Being a communications tech sometimes we only needed an hour do our work and then leave.i remember a few times where the communications site was close enough that I could do my work and get on the same plane I arrived in and return home.
Yes you can climb faster and efficiency on a turboprop aircraft but speed and surface cealing are behind a bit to jet it has a lower climbing rate and effciency is a but low and also some turboprop is faster but they are more quiter and flies a bit higher
I love videos like this. There are so many ridiculous and snarky statements that it makes for a few good laughs and an entertaining comment section 😂
When you talked about the speeds of each plane, you gave the cruise speed for some of them, and the top speed for others. You can’t switch what you are measuring. The cruise speed is far more important, so you should have just mentioned that. You can’t judge their speed because you didn’t record each one the same.
I'm sure I didn't 💯💯💯💯
@@Dwaynesaviation Just watched the video. You did.
So which ones are they?
Which ones? I just checked myself and they all match for what was said. You aren't confusing knots with mph are you?
I was gonna say the same thing
You mentioned the King Air, but almost ignored the Piaggio, a real game changer with a 400+ cruise and a 98 gal per hr fuel burn with a ceiling of 41,000 ft. Add to this a LARGE, comfortable cabin, and I would choose it over most jets unless I'm ocean hopping.
Discontinue
Excellent and seriously done consideration of the individual criteria. Thank you!
It’s not about cost per hour, it’s about cost by distance (km/nm) and time to reach the destination. All the cost you mentioned are based on h, but turbines are normally much slower than jets (Phenom 100). So cost per nm much closer taking your average cost per year per, same math with nm would be almost the same and than the time saving. It depends all about the mission. Would say if trips under 400nm are most of the missions a turbine is the perfect aircraft, missions above that Jet‘s are the answer. Also keep always in mind Jets fly in smoother air because is high, a Phenom 100 operates best in 38/39K feet. Turbines in a 28K range what it’s a huge different when it comes to bad weather, can tell was flying often in bumpy clouds at 28K. Due to the travel time a potty for passengers gets also important, trips beyond 2h is needed. TBM has no potty, great you can fly 5 hours but only without passengers, in other words you need a p stop if you have passengers. Also jets like Phenom 100 and Honda Jet have wider cabin what results in full up seating, also for taler persons. Correction to your video: Phenom 100 has a full lavatory including doors for privacy. Conclusion: if it comes to missions below 400/500 miles a turbine as PC12 is the way to go, beyond Phenom 100 or Honda Jet. The Vision jet is nice aircraft but for private owner flying only with the altitude (weather) limitation.
You are confused about what a jet is. Both turboprops and "jets" are turbine engines. Turboprops are fuel efficient, it comes at the cost of top speed.
The E1000 is faster than the VisionJet, but burning about half the fuel, and flying up to 3,000 feet higher. The E1000 reaches FL340 in 15 minutes and then cruises along quite happily at 270KTAS at little more than 30gph, meanwhile the VisionJet is burning 65gph to do the same thing. Sure the Phenom is faster, but it's not much higher, and if you have to fly half way across the country you are going to need to land to refuel, and there goes all that speed advantage. In one review I read the Phenom took 34 minutes to reach FL350, by which time the E1000 has been at cruise for nearly 20 minutes. And you are burning 77gph in the Phenom at cruise, plus another 30 gallons to get you to altitude, accounting for speed differences that's still twice the fuel use. But throttle the Phenom back to economical cruise to get the 1200nm range and push the E1000 to maximum cruise and they are close on speed and altitude, but the E1000 got up there sooner and can continue another 400 miles. The normal range for the P100 is only 915nm, so the P100 can do San Francisco to Denver, but the Epic can do San Francisco to Chicago. It's just not as simple as you make out.
Incorrect.
I mean i agree, however take into account the noise factors..some tp are loud...and the tbm has no toilet. I guess both aircraft have many pros and cons
It would be great if you could put the stats in a chart form to better choose with aircraft might fit a parties needs....
At the end of the video maybe !
I doubt buyers of this airplane will base their decision on information from this video.
@@wyskass861 might help though
A chart would be unless unless you put in vanity and dick waving columns. The way you should select the aircraft is to plan the routes you will do, doorstep to doorstep. Then you work your way through the options available. Then the cost of delays (weather, road traffic, parking, airport parking etc.). Add this lot up and start working on the aircraft selection.
You should have used the best selling light jet for the last 7 years as a comparison: The Phenom 300
Depending on your mission. If you are an owner/operator, you would most probably go for the TBM, EPIC or Cirrus. If you are sitting in the back, you will most probably go for the Phenom. As a pilot, I would go for the TBM.
The other big reason I like jets is because MOST have two engines. I like the security of that second engine
Yes but these PT6’s are bullet proof
As a jet pilot, I totally agree
@@matthewray9208 that's what they said on a lot of planes that have had engine failure. Lycoming O-360s are supposed to be too, but I personally know 4 pilots who have had them fail
If it’s not designed to climb out on a single engine, it can give you a false sense of security too. Just because a plane has two engines, doesn’t mean it can fly well on one.
@@alexs3187 true. However, most jets are designed to meet a minimum climb gradient and will climb decently well single engine, especially when loaded a bit lighter.
Single engine performance in a piston plane however is usually pretty scary in my training experience 😬
Also do the planes need one or two pilots. That can factor in the cost too.
All these mention are single pilot, owner operated
I will not fly in any single pilot airplanes unless I get the co-pilot's seat. I rather fly with a pilot slightly drunk than one who been vaxed. If I am up front, and the pilot keel over, at least I can land the plane. The drunk will sober up.
As I recall the Cirris Jet has both the CAPS system and an emergency “Auto Land” system.
Too bad it looks like it was designed by an 8 year old.
You did not mention the extraordinary safety profile of VLJs. Each of them have two extremely reliable PWC 600s. The type rating and annual 61.58 checks obviously contributes to safety. The Mustang, Eclipse Jet, Phenom 100 have incredible safety profiles after being in service for quite some time and are mostly owner flown. I believe each type only has one fatal. The EA-50 fatal was likely pilot incapacitation. The same cannot be remotely said for the TBMs, PA-46s even the Pilatus. Also, FL410 is much preferred to just touching RVSM territory. The quiet comfort of a smooth running jet at 410 with an 8,000 foot cabin is not something that most owner/pilots would relinquish.
Also you can get an old twin-turboprop Beechcraft in need of overhaul modernized & retrofitted to be pressurized with the new engines turning it into an experimental for like $400-700k. Most airports have a bunch of old derelict twins like these lined up off to the side where every owner is trying to get rid of it for next to nothing to use as the base. Will be quieter than most of these single engine planes here.
Edit: that Lancair Evolution is a really great little plane too. Just wish they still sold the Lancair IV-P kit for build assist programs…would be perfect if they just fixed the window issues.
Turning it into experimental also limits it to flights close to its home base. You need to check the down side of de-certifying an aircraft. You can't just pressurize an aircraft that wasn't made to be pressurized. The Lancair is also a little twitchy to fly.
@@cageordie there are definitely significant down-sides worth considering but the limited range is practically only in the test-phase until you’re approved by the Administrator. Literally can fly internationally once approved just sometimes there’s extra paperwork.
Also helps to be an engineer that was already swapping both engines to more powerful turboprops which happened to support pressurization. Essentially just sealed/reinforced the cabin & needed a few additional components borrowed from a newer King Air 250. I’ve designed experimental jets before so I got this thing approved up to 60,000ft even though it wouldn’t be safe to fly that high (probably couldn’t even get up above 45k & it’s really just convenient to be allowed to fly above 30k when needed)
Retrofitted de-icers & all sorts of other stuff too. +no longer forced to use overpriced certified parts.
@@MaxGuides So tell me what your limiting factors are for being approved to 60000 feet. I am not going to give you a clue why that alone tweaks my BS meter. Care to share the registration of this fine machine so I can look it up?
Comfort comes when Jet engine planes climb above bad weather prop planes are screwed then.
You need to throw the PC12 into the mix
TLDR If you're a private owner, do tubro-props, easier certification, easier to find a place to land, otherwise better or equivalent.... If you need to seduce customers in commercial flight, go jet... more glamorous , objectively faster, can compare to what movie/music stars fly...
Many false comparisons in this piece. I flew a turboprop for 10 years and have flown a Citation for 6. No doubt this author chose the Vision Jet to use as a comparison for a reason. The single thing that the turboprop "may" do better on is short field landing. And even with that it is honestly not a big difference. The cruise difference of FL30 vs FL41 is significant. And it's your choice in terms of opex....cheaper with one engine and more expensive with 2. I'm happy to pay more when flying into my base of Telluride for peace of mind. Turboprops are great but they are not jets. Just my 2 cents.
Many false comparisons.... Lol
And by the way, this is not a turboprops vs "jets" video.... Another thing is, what turboprop did you fly? And what citation do you fly now? I used the TBM and the Epic E1000 in this video, and "Light Jets" that are similar to them are not practically better... That's the point brother
@@Dwaynesaviation that's pretty funny as that is exactly what your title says it is. I'm stating my opinion based upon my experience of flying both for years. Turboprops are great! There are times when I miss mine however I don't know anyone that has moved into a turbofan that wants to go back. There are some reasons that the turboprop may be superior for certain missions however your piece doesn't dwell on those. Jetprop and now Mustang. What turboprop and jet do you fly?
I understand your point brother... Thank you 😊😊😊
@@Dwaynesaviation you've got a good channel and my comments should not be taken as criticism of your desire to educate and promote aviation. I'm simply submitting my experience having flown the types of aircraft your piece discusses. Please keep up the great work!
Turboprops are relevant if your using the plane for personal, charter, or freights because they are fuel effecient than jet, and low maintinance than jets and parts are easier to get to, but the downside, there choppy to control, using the feather during taxi and creep mode may be crazy but thats how it goes.
As the saying goes , if it flys fucks or floats, rent it.
I prefer a twin engine turbo prop. Shorter landing and take off requirements. You can land almost in any small airport.
Which one? The Epic E1000 needs around 2,000 feet to get airborne, same as a King Air C90. The King Air also isn't as fast, burns more fuel, climbs much slower, and... well I don't see the advantage, other than the twin engine thing.
A twin is best for hauling VIPs and if you often fly over terrain where a helicopter cannot land in less than 500 pieces. But that require more maintenance and better pilot training. I just read about a King Air crash in Australia by a pilot who basically did nothing, flight lasted just 12 seconds. You tube.
I fly on a piper m600 single pilot with a garmin g3000! Amazing and fast aircraft!
PHX-MEX as a common commute might need a jet
Fuel efficiency should be measured in distance, not time, as they will be flying at different speeds.
As you allude to sometimes it is more efficient to fly high & fast unlike land vehicles that don’t have this option.
Can someone explain why the turbo props max out around 31000 ft and the phenom gets higher at 41000 ft...?
Thanks
No, ask ChatGPT.
Great job 👏
Very good and useful infos! An Excel comparaison file would have been excellent and more useful! Thank you anyways!
HondaJet, King Air 200, M600, Citation M2?
Nice info
Also when you add "Turbo" on to any standard word it becomes cooler. Like "Gama" or "Quantum."
Guys will stick with turbines for the cost and wonder why they are always exhausted after a 5 hour flight. The smoother and quieter jets are signifigantly more comfortable if you can afford them
Props rock!
Fantástic 👍 👍
Pc12 (24)?
연료를 절약하는 기술이 친환경 기술 입니다
Too many variables and operator/customer requirements. On thing important to some, which I didn’t hear mentioned - weather and the ability to get through it and above it. A fully enclosed rear LAV is a must for me. I like the Pilatus PC12 and P 24, but the LAV is not universally liked (yes I know the reason it’s there). Speed, not important, retired and aged 66. Missions 200-1000 miles, 2-4 pax, 1 crew. The HondaJet does all that, but I’m in Europe and service centres are rare. For me, a Phenom 300 ticks all the boxes. Not a light jet, but it is readily available for charter and fractionals here in Europe.
Why did you leave out the Piper M600?
It was initially included... It was initially the M600, TBM, and the E1000 vs the Honda Jet, Phenom 100 and the Vision Jet... But the video ended up being too long, so I took out one on each side
@@Dwaynesaviation I just feel left out. ❤️
Comparing turboprops to light jets is like comparing jeeps to limousines. Two different planes designed for 2 different missions.
"Jeep" "limousine"
You mean it's like comparing a Toyota to a vehicle?
I thought he did a pretty good job of distinguishing the pro's and cons by mission
I disagree. What counts is doing the job and that is lifting people and their things and taking them to their destination. When your trip is 500 nautical miles the time saved by a fast jet might (and this is a HUGE might) be 25 minutes. But this is only available if you can get an immediate climb and have an optimum descent. Then you have the issue of driving the things. The US has lawyers and doctors smeared all over the place as personal turbine and jet aircraft take the place of Bonanzas in wiping out the next bunch of arrogant “High Flyers” with more money than sense/ability. All of these things are easy to fly when you know how. It took me about six months to learn how to fly a jet airliner and a couple of years to become very proficient (that is average by industry standards). I suggest that a turbo-prop single is just a little more forgiving than a jet and will be easier to for an owner operator to fly.
Not really. Something like the Epic E1000 is very comparable in cost and complexity to the Cirrus VisionJet G2 but flies much further and faster burning less fuel. The E1000 is also single lever control and has autothrottle, so no messing with pitch and managing torque to not rip the gearbox to pieces at low altitude.
@@Dwaynesaviationno... It was a pretty accurate (and simple)analogy. What exactly was confusing to you?
Do you knot like swiss?? Pc12
And the PC 24
the Westwind can do coast to coast so can the falcon 100 now give me the damn award
Not a typical light jet 😂😂😂
When comparing turbos and jets you totally ignored the Honda Jet specs, but then you mentioned the jet very briefly at the end….. not impressed.
Hey guys..You can't compare SINGLE ENGINE aircraft to twins..Single engine planes are of course more efficient and less expensive BUT they only have ONE engine. If it fails, you have a much bigger issue than if you have a second engine. Overall, from a purely performance/efficiency standpoint, The Piagio Avanti EVO has two turbo-prop engines and is the best plane in your presentation! Only problem is it has no sales/marketing support network in the states. Really too bad as it is a great aircraft from any angle. The Beach Starship was no match due to the inherent inefficiency of having 3 lifting surfaces. Some knowledgable organization needs to take the EVO under it's wing and fly with it!!
What would fly a family of 5(including pilot) + luggage with a low overhead.
You all are forgetting about the Honda jet 1400 nautical mile range 420 kts Cruise @ 43,000 feet 4000 fpm claim and you can take a hot steamy dump in a private flushing laboratory with running water for the sink no other small Jet or turbo prop comes close. Now Honda has an even bigger one so put that in your pipe and smoke it…
I’m sorry, we don’t talk IAS for private transport planes… we discuss MACH… and at what FL are y’all at in the TP? Good luck making a logical discussion of flight time in the summer storms…
Also, the Frickin Cirrus jet is a personal transport jet. Stop comparing it.
Props = crop duster in stupid public eye.
tiny jests....mail your luggage ahead of time
You bashed the CJ4 for comfort yet it has the largest most comfortable cabin than every other jet you mention in the vid, has the best rate of climb and highest service ceiling. It’s nice to be able to get over all the weather while everyone else is picking there way through it down low
The CJ4 don't compete with these planes, and by "comfortably", I'm speaking trans continental range, not cabin size
The CJ4 don't compete with these planes, and by "comfortably", I'm speaking trans continental range, not cabin size
@@Dwaynesaviation 🤣 then why did YOU specifically mention it? As for range, the CJ4 also wins out of everything you mentioned. You’re right, it doesn’t compete with the others 🤣
From an economics standpoint, a single engine is the way to go. You might not get there quite as fast, but ownership costs should be better. Of course, if your are running a multi-million dollar business where every minute counts, that's up to the bean counters to justify. I just want something that will get me 1000nm non stop in 5 hours or less.
You didn’t compare noise levels, especially at cruise.
I mean it combines a prop with a jet engine - you cant beat that.
I know this is a year old. The Honda Jet Echelon/2600 could fly across the Atlantic non-stop
Is it single pilot operated and in the price range of a TBM? Oh no? Genius.
Seriously? "The hondajet is the only very light jet with a lavatory". Citation M2, Phenom 100. You compare TBM's to all the other turbos, but the best selling turbo in the world is the Pilatus pc 12 series, over 1800 in service. Sorry but this video was funded by TBM
The video would hugely benefit from comparison tables. Listeners have trouble remembering the specs this way. I had to stop the video because we are better off just looking up the specs than listening to an artificial host.
How can someone have 600k per year separated to pay the operating costs though, what am i doing wrong
Maybe not someone, but how about a company, their plant 1000 miles away have a breakdown on a Sat afternoon, and costing $12000 an hour, and you have to rush a couple of engineers there.
@@tonylam9548 You have a good point!
Can you please put something in your videos to let people know how fast they’re going miles per hour. Not all of us speak aviation talk.
Piaggo is extremely noisy and is banned from some airports. Bottom line, depends on the mission, short haul, gravel/grass strips, the turboprop is best.
didn't they cut the Db's significantly on the new/reconditioned models?
@@timothysullysullivan2571 i think they did.
@@superchargedpetrolhead Cut noise by 68% they said. But I have been near Cessna Conquest , Commander turbo and other with straight through engines such as the Garrett, I do not like the noise either, even if the design is more efficient. With just one engine running, all conversation stopped within 200 ft. PT-6 are quieter.
what are the technical reasons that it is so noisy?
At my age a lavatory is an enormous consideration. Although i could wear Presidential Depends. You should try to compare apples to apples. Cabin x section is important as is climb, range and field length. Tail height comes into play if you have a home/hangar. The Cirrus is a strange design but you can virtue jet signal. The TBM has a tiny cabin and range is limited with full payload. It is over 30 years old. M in TBM stands for Mooney. The Epic has a good cross section, over 300 kts and about 4000ft/min climb. The PC12 has my toilet and a large cabin. I really like the Beech Denali but i wonder when or if the engine will be certified. I used to fly DC3s so all aircraft are faster.
Wrong. TBM still produces new aircraft - current is the 960. TBM can fly fully loaded 1,700nm and that’s the full published range. Try again. There’s also a lavatory option, Biden.
@@johnqdoe I was being tongue and cheek, but there is a lavatory option if you call it that. Full published range at what speed and payload and altitude. I was an aircraft performance engineer for four aircraft manufacturers. Try again. 1,700 nm not possible.
Seems to me too many commenters have the author on his heels to take anything said seriously. Especially the cost per hour type stuff as opposed to a more accurate cost per distance comparison
The cost per hour on turboprops vs light jets on most cases is double, but distance covered isn't even 50 percent more, so what's the point brother?
@@Dwaynesaviation the point is when you post something pretending to be an expert on a subject and everyone is calling you out and you're constantly trying to defend yourself, that says something.
"Pretending to be an expert" 😂😂😂😂
Some people would be far better off NOT posting videos, but then, what would we laugh at.
I love incompetent videos like this! 😂
TBM9XX costs more than a CitationM2. I’ll go with an M2.
Lol ill still take light jets for anything over an hour
honda jet? did you forget about it!
Have you watched the entire video? It is mentioned at the 12:00 mark.
I am not a pilot but doesn't ATC limit your air speed in transit anyway? So even if the top speeds are different, because of the limitations then the top speed is not much of a difference?
No, only sometimes in airfield traffic patterns.
Never say 'fall short' in reference to aircraft range. 🤦♂ facepalm
Numbers are deceiving. If you believe this video you have no experience in corporate aviation. If your trip is within 400 miles and you have to worry about the cost then turbo prop. 400 + jet all the way. And not a single engine piece of junk, a real jet. You have to consider weather, available payload etc etc.
Traduzir psra Português
You guys are rich
Are you an armchair aviator or what? You are talking like you have thousands of hours of flying jets and turboprops while in the reality it's definitely not the case. Jets can fly at 40000+ feet which gives tremendous increase in safety and comfort. A jet's climbing rate is much more efficient. Jets have two engines. Operating a one engine out jet is ten times easier than a turboprop without one engine. Jets have more efficient anti-ice system. Jets give more comfortable cabin altitude. And there are about a dozen another perks to a jet that a turboprop lacks. And don't get started about Cirrus. It's not a jet. It's a joke. Generally turboprops are superior - only economically - during no long hauls with a good weather. Or if there is a need to operate on a grass/short strip. But that's a common knowledge.
He is not talking about jets in general, it is about light jets.
BTW, Vision jet has abysmal climb rate and with full tanks it is twoseater. At best.
Since when has 'Jets have 2 engines' been an argument? The vision jet has just 1 engine? Lost all credibility there.
Some turboprops, Piaggio Avanti happyly cruise at FL 410 at speeds not all jets can reach, at half or even third fuwl burn of comparable jets, so.....
Your cartoon voice tell everyone you are lying.
this is all absolute BS. where did you get the figures, top trumps cards? you are comparing apples with eggs…none of this is useful or reasonable in any way
Turbos are great until you quickly need a bathroom to go number 2 at 40,000 feet elevation.
Light Jets are better and getting chaeper.
WAY more expensive to operate. Two words: engine program.
@@johnqdoe Did I say that the price is coming down .
For 3/4 century, the ignorant public been conditioned that jet is better, and propeller obsolete. To the extend airliners had to hide the propeller in a shroud and even rename the prop as a fan. A high by-pass turbo fan is nothing but a glorified turbo prop, but it fooled the public. For the same length of time, the industry also been held back by the "sound barrier" That is the speed we all stuck with, unless you have the clout to commandeer a fighter jet and the refueler to get you there at Mach 2. The latest generation of fighter jets are slightly slower than the last generation like the F4 and F104. The one important thing you did not mention is, some super rich people like to sneak in and out of places without being noticed, a jet have a much higher profile, and no one will notice a turbo prop unless you fly in with a Piaggio P180.
Learn to fly first. Then come back and discuss your experience. Thanks!
Light jets range is low so turboprops get vastly superior fuel economy for just slightly slower speeds plus no type rating and way lower insurance.