There's no way you could ever convince me to go back to a turbo pro. I'm much more comfortable flying to South America and places like that with roughly 4,000 horsepower where it is less than 1,000 horsepower. It also took my wife quite a bit to learn how to fly a twin engine jet with about 4,000 horsepower,
@@trangoadvisory if you send me your second hand TBM 900 I'll be very grateful sir ^___^ Seriously, I'd like to try the jet life but it's just so far above my paygrade. Trying props and turboprops I'm not sure jets can do what we do: low passes in mountains, low altitude tourism over towns, grass fields, 1700ft bush runways
haha sexual harassment caught on tape . I know they are actors. I think they picked diminutive actors to make plane look bigger. Poor guy almost looked like he needed cushion . I am kind of a big guy, I was asked ever so kindly to move to the back so as to adjust the balance of the plane.
@@ajarivas72 Not even, it was all staged. Even so, Minorities are more under the glass than most and each action is usally magnified for better or for worse. The poor guy, could hardly reach the window. sponsors were just trying to make plane look bigger. Put the racial angle ion your back pocket, life is funny enough without that base sentiment.
I had to fly out of my small town for work several times a month. I had the choice of airlines. One had a Boeing 737 and the other had Bombardier Q400. I learned that the Bombardier was much easier and quicker than the 737. The actual flight time was only about 15 minutes slower, but the startup, loading, and egress were much faster and less stressful. Also, the legroom was better on the Q400.
Back in the late 80's/early '90's I flew quite a bit between Logan and.LaGuardia. My low budget choices were a creaking, delapidated 727 on one airline and a high-wing turboprop with 10-12 rows of 2x1 seating. Flight time was shorter with the 727 but as you said everything else was faster with the turboprop so gate-to-gate differences. The turbo prop had much more legroom than the 727 and was only slightly noisier compared to back of the 727. One weird thing: The turbo prop's seats had 'SAAB' embroidered into the upholstery so I just assumed it was a Saab aircraft. Now, 30 years later I can't find a Saab plane that matches my memory.
Multiple factors have to be considered before choosing between turboprops and jets. It's not just money. I see many saying they'd rather have a jet. Well, it's not going to be that safe. If a turboprop is safer and cheaper to maintain, that's 2 great reasons to have one. If they're just as comfortable and quiet as a jet nowadays that's another reason to go for a turboprop. Very interesting that turboprops can be more expensive than jets.
Appreciate the video. However, it is really important to include 2 points. Turboprops operate in icing altitudes and really suffer because of it. Second, turboprops really are slower than the specifications might suggest, because most flights have a headwind component. AND, the slower you are, the more headwinds affect you. Our PC12 often does the NY-FL run in 4.5 hours, due to headwinds. Our G600 1:59! They are not close in real world speeds, and as always, props are props and jets are jets. Make sure to consider passenger MPG when honestly comparing planes. Spending a lot of time bucking a headwind is not a fuel efficient strategy.
Excellent points...the details matter as usual. Just not to Boeing. Lucky you with the G600...tried to get some friends to buy a G550 and lease it out...the IRR was good already, but now values are up 20%...$4mn woulda been nice too. What do I know anyway. Shiny side up...!
Congratulations for your well-done and well documented video. However in your price comparison between the TBM and the Cirrus VisionJet, there is something wrong. The $4.5 million price of the TBM 940 comes with 5 years or a 1,000 flight hours maintenance contract. So to establish a fair comparizon, you should remove the $300 per hour maintenance cost.
The price difference is still massive. 10 years of just paying for fuel in the TBM vs 10 years of fuel and maintenance on the VisionJet brings them to the same cost output. In reality you would have to own the TBM for 27.5 years to come in at even costs with the VisionJet and then you would be saving 60K per year there after. $1,800,000 difference - 2.5 x $120,000 = $1,500,000 difference after 2.5 years then $1,500,000 / $60,000 = 25 years + 2.5 years = 27.5 years and $0 difference. 2.5 years (1000h end of warranty).
Any turbine engine is more efficient at higher altitudes, not just jets. I flew a Caravan and Pilatus PC-12 for a charter company years ago and love props.
Nice video. In my opinion, it's just like whether you want a nice motorbike or a basic car. I believe the experience of flying a jet is irreplaceable even if it's just a Vision Jet.
Absolutely, the experience of not having one leg being more muscular than the other is priceless 😂. A1 sky raider joke there. Jokes aside I imagine it’s so much more like how we imagine the feeling of flying like a bird vs controlling a flying machine, due to the lack of prop torque.
Do you think that maybe the word " better " can be replaced with "efficient"? I do not think the prop is better but I do feel it is more economical, maintenance friendly and more importantly you access to more fields to land on.
Maintenance friendly in the sense that many light turboprops have one engine while most light jets have two. A jet is simpler than a turbo prop. Same basic power plant but no prop or reduction gear hanging off the front.
4:33 - Sure, the Vision Jet can hold 7 occupants while the TBM only 6, but the TBM has a cabin class interior while the Vision Jet has forward facing seats.
I much prefer a light jet. The prop noise really wears on me. It simply can't be attenuated. The extra time saved may not be a big deal if you are looking at only one flight but if a light jet is employed full time throughout the day it means more flights can be made throughout the day. I hired on to a company in 2011, 250 employees, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It had purchased a 9 seat Cessna Citation a year prior to ferry employees to jobsites and meetings. The company was in the oil & gas business so it flew to Houston everyday in the morning and then usually to a jobsite somewhere in the southern USA and then returned to Tulsa. Then it made an afternoon trip which was usually longer in nature to the east coast, west coast or North Dakota oil/gas production areas. If time was available it often then made a quick Houston run in the evening. A prop plane could not have executed this work load in the time alotted! The business owner was a shrewd businessman and had purchased this plane for a little over $1million. Millions less than normal. I'm certain that in the past 11 years that plane has more flight hours than any other Citation in existence. It was flying all the time. It saved the company boatloads of money not only in plane tickets and hotel rooms but work days not lost in the airports. A stateside job that would have cost three man days now only cost a single day. If we kept the plane full, and we always did, this added up to enormous savings. Not only that if a customer called in the USA, we could have someone there that evening at the latest. So our service department saw a large sales increase as customers knew our technician would be there that day. Plus, they would only get billed for one day of service, not three with two of them being for travel. Yes we billed for air travel but it was a very reasonable flat rate if I remember correctly.
Piaggio Avanti Evo - prop noise attenuated! Low rpm pt6 with scimitar pusher prop… “jet like” cabin noise levels… 40% less op./maint./pilot training costs… use the money saved to buy a new car and a cruise for the family around the Mediterranean - every year!
The Avanti originally was a joint project between Piaggio and Learjet. The americans wanted to enter the then new turboprop trend, finally pulled out leaving the project to the italians.
Awesome video! I have never thought about it like this before. Keep up the great work :D It was a little bit hard to hear your voice since the background music is so loud 🙈
Are you the pilot or the passenger? Are you in a hurry or do you just love to fly? What's your budget? Personally I love to fly and always in a hurry. A surplus Northrop T-38 works just fine!
They definitely work, but those bad boys burn fuel like you read about. What’s that? You had 3906lbs of fuel at the beginning of the sortie? Be a shame if something... happened to it... in 0.9 to 1.3 hours... lol
T-38's are fuel thirsty Go for it add bulky fuel tanks then you have to watch constantly your fuel gage that's a stress that I am not willing to take I rather enjoy flying in peace and enjoy
The Italian Piaggio Avanti Evo 120 twin turboprop is my favorite. It is superior in EVERY category and it looks gorgeous. The $7.5M price tag is worth it.
@will swift - See: Avanti Evo - retuned (lower rpm) engines…and “scimitar” props… but neither of those can be heard from the inside! And at FL410… does it really matter?
1:32 man, nice catch :D Surely there is something out there that can't be seen from the other window lol And grabbing the chick also helps pointing her to the right direction
I love the Piaggio Avanti P.180 EVO, but it's a rare turboprop that will cruise at 400 knots and FL 400. Also, most turboprops don't climb as fast as jets to cruise altitude, P.180 included. Also, the forward speed (groundspeed) of most turboprops during the climb is not as fast as a jet, which reduces the useful range, P.180 included.
Am I the only one that thinks turbo prop planes just look so good. Jets look good too but I just think prop looks better. I also love the sound when I fly in them.
For most people, props are better, but for most of the people that need a private plane, it is never the best choice. Here's the issue with speed: these small planes can be used for transporting people that make thousands of dollars per hour, so a 1 hour difference means a lot in these cases. So the issue of cost of fuel doesn't really matter in that context. A lot of the flights are fairly short; NY to DC, Denver to LA, Chicago to NY.
Piper M600 SLS, Diamond DA-62, Velocity V-Twin are personal aircrafts to be on considerations due to their impressive range 2500-3000km at more affordable costs🛫🤓
It's not about which is better overall, but which is better suited to the specific mission requirement. The common 'sales pitch' that new generation single-engine turboprops (e.g., TBM-940) offer jet-like performance is just complete 🐂💩. My experience of jet performance is climbing out at 250 knots indicated airspeed up to 10,000ft before accelerating to 300 knots above - & routinely achieving true airspeeds of >450 knots in the cruise. Turboprops are cheaper to operate & can typically get in & out of shorter, unimproved airstrips. That's it. However, if you want speed, range & the ability to climb above 90% of the weather, nothing beats a jet.
Given that, year in and year out, by far the primary cause of GA accidents and fatalities is pilot error, I find any talk of safety differences between specific aircraft to be misleading if not entirely gratuitous. All these aircraft are safe. All these aircraft are dangerous. What is safe or dangerous isn't the aircraft - it's the pilot/first officer that makes it so. Recommending an aircraft based on safety alone is doing a huge disservice to the GA community.
Back in the day, Eastern Airlines Electras were beating American Airlines 707s on the New Your to Miami run. The Electras were only climbing to 5,000 feet while the 707s climbed to 30,000 feet. The stage length was such that the 707s faster cruise was defeated by the extra time spent in climb and descent. Also, because the Electras were so low, they didn't get stacked in a holding pattern and because they didn't need a long runway, they were often vectored in with the General Aviation traffic. 5,000 feet is NOT above the weather. So, if the sailplane guys were happy, the Electra passengers spent most of the flight strapped to their seats. A lot of business class passengers willingly traded a few bumps for shorter flight times.
nothing beats the king air ,nothing--our flights to mexico gives us great time to hang out with the family,grand kids fall asleep in our chairs resting in my arms,
I don't get how you showed the tbm stats right next to the vision stats side by side, and tbm had best everything, double the range and all BUT then you proceeded to say - "if you need to cover long distances, light jet would be the way to go, if you need to go short distances, turbo prop is the way to go". (But that makes no sense saying how the tbm goes double the distance at 2000nm and vision goes 1k.....). Doesn't matter any sense. Love the channel though. Personally I'd go for the turbo prop always over jet. The Piaggio Avanti Evo and Pilatus PC12 NGX are my dream airplanes ❤
Noise, Vibration, and Harshness are three things that annoy the HELL out of people. There is no denying that turboprops cost less, but so does a Toyota Corolla....over a Rolls Royce! There is no denying that props can never provide the NVH comfort of a jet engine. Period!
This makes the airplane that was my first paid jet job look like a piece of junk, but I'll always love the Westwind 2 I was lucky enough to copilot . Now I see them for sale for $300, 000. The owner flown single pilot small jets being produced are wonderful and they are reported to be easy to fly. That would be a great way to go these days.
Just googled that aircraft. Cool looking plane but strange design with the mid level wing. I imagine the center spar takes up space that could've have been used for the cabin if its had a low wing.
Also, do you really think that those three young people at the very beginning of the video are actually having a conversation about turboprops and jets?
I guess people far from aviation sometimes believe business jets are "cooler"... Most can't tell a piston-prop from a turboprop and when they see a propeller (or two) - they immediately assume it's a "small airplane". Whereas - a private jet is a private jet. Even if the turboprop is larger, carries more, more comfortable, safer, flies further, and as shown here - can even be a bit faster.
Turboprops fly below 30,000ft around the storms while jets can fly above the weather. I've spend a lot of hours flying in and out of cloud at 25,000ft wishing I could go higher
The jet may be faster, but the tuboprop uses smaller closer landing fields making the door to door time much less. And I use field in place of airport because the turboprop often can use grass fields.
How many tp’s can “often use grass fields”? The MU2 is best suited due to high wing design, gear linkage and TOD over 50’ obstacle. The Epic E1000 has trailing link gear and impressive TOD but it’s big single prop out front makes it more susceptible to prop strike on rough terrain. The PC12 has same issue as Epic only 10% longer TOD. More specialized SETP’s like Caravan and Kodiak’s are capable but are very limited in speed. That’s about it unless you’re talking very smooth graded runway, in which case vlj’s can accomplish same. Biggest limitation of VLJ is TOD, I can’t think of single unit less than 3000’ TOD, several are >3500’. TOD and limited hours noise limits can be problematic for all VLJ’s in certain suburban executive airport locations.
@@MichaelM-to4sg The Beechcraft King Airs claim it although I wouldn't want to make a habit of it. C90GTx needs 2100ft plus extra for grass to land I'm thinking locally. Most have added length to handle small jets CYTB Tillsonburg 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CYQS St Thomas 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CYGD Goderich 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CYCE Centralia 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CPR7 Wingham 4000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CPR5 Woodstock 3000 ft grass fuel ? C90GTx capable CYXU London 8800 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CNR4 Tobemorey 3000 ft paved fuel ? C90GTx capable CYCK Chatham 5500 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CYSA Stratford 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable CDH6 Delhi 3000 ft paved fuel ? C90GTx capable private CPL4 Grand Bend 2340 ft gravel fuel ? C90GTx capable private CYHS Saugeen 4000 ft paved fuel ? jet capable CNL4 Port Elgin 3800 ft grass fuel ? C90GTx capable KDEH Decorah 4000 ft fuel ? paved jet capable CYG2 Pakhill 1900 ft grass private CPK2 Stathroy 2000 ft grass private fuel ? C90GTx capable
@@MichaelM-to4sg I used skyvector.com/ in the local area to find a few. It all depends on what you want to do. There's so many choices. You can start with a a Honda jet and up from there. I'm partial to the Beechcraft but that's just me.
@@easternwoods4378 I’ve a lot more seat time in MU2’s and Commander’s than KA’s but I’ve landed a KA100 on unpaved runway in Costa Rica. It was not pleasant and I did a very thorough rigging and prop inspection before flying out. The MU2 is brilliant on most any usable runway.
I like turboprops but this video overlooks at least two major considerations. Tycoon A buys a TBM and can climb over 70% of the turbulence. Also, he's flying substantially slower than they would have flown on the airlines. Alone it's not too bad, but flying other powerful tycoons, this could be embarrassing. Also, what if an issue with the prop or hub developed over the Rocky mountains in IFR weather. All the savings in the world will amount to nothing because there is a scant 50/50 chance of emerging from that situation okay. Now consider Tycoon B who buys a twin engine gulfstream. None of those issues apply. So perhaps the happy medium is a twin engine King Air, but it's still slower and more bumpy than the airlines.
Bombardier Dash8, current version Q400 but Q300 and Q200 similar size and range. Of course the massive Antonov AN22 is the TP cargo behemoth of the skies. There’s also the Airbus Atlas, MD C133 and Boeing Globemaster.
@@eliudm472 😂 😂😂 The Hindenburg was double deck canopy w/at least 40 suites plus a formal dining room and a cargo bay. PC12 & the Cessna Denali are modern SETP aircraft certain to lead KingAirs, MU2’s, C425/441 and Cheyenne’s into obsolescence. It’s cargo limit, both volume & mass is not comparable to the legendary dirigible.
Why are we talking about shorter take-off? Is this still pitch related? Like you can spin up a ducted fan and a propeller, but on a propeller you can reduce pitch and spin it up even more and fill the "gaps" between the blades? Like a wind turbine which only needs 3 blades to harvest all the wind energy by spinning very fast.
According to Aircraft Cost Calculator, the hourly cost of a TBM 700C2 is $821.41 at $4.25 per gallon of Jet-A. According to the AOPA, the hourly cost of a Cirrus Vision SF50 is $661.63. Additionally, without anything but your word, you say that turboprops are as comfortable as jets. I've never been in a turboprop that was as quiet as a VLJ, nor have I been in a turboprop that was as smooth as a VLJ. If someone invents a turboprop engine and propeller combo that don't induce vibration, I want to experience it.
But from a buyers point of view, the initial cost of Daher TBM turboprop is too much and it will take more than 30 years to be cheaper than the Cirrus Vision Jet if everything stays the same. So buying decision may include some other reasons to choose the turboprop in this match.
I suppose a turboprop is more fuel efficient. But a jet is faster and far more prestigious. For most private pilots, a single engine piston powered is the most practical.
I'm sorry for the mistake, the range of the Avanti Evo is 2,795 km or 1800NM. And not 2,795NM
At 14 mins 18 seconds an advert shows till the end???
lol that is when I dropped out of the jet stream and saw your post. LOL
Still a lot.
There's no way you could ever convince me to go back to a turbo pro. I'm much more comfortable flying to South America and places like that with roughly 4,000 horsepower where it is less than 1,000 horsepower. It also took my wife quite a bit to learn how to fly a twin engine jet with about 4,000 horsepower,
@@trangoadvisory if you send me your second hand TBM 900 I'll be very grateful sir ^___^
Seriously, I'd like to try the jet life but it's just so far above my paygrade.
Trying props and turboprops I'm not sure jets can do what we do: low passes in mountains, low altitude tourism over towns, grass fields, 1700ft bush runways
This really helped with making my decision: sticking with the Toyota.
Thanks.
🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hahaha
I’m dead ;)
TAA-1 ? 😂
Mind says turboprop
Heart says jet
Wallet says none
Wallet says Greyhound!!!
Lmfaoooo
brain: ROCKKEEETTT!!!!
Wallet says Cessna 152 from the early 70s
Wallet laughs uncontrollably
That guy on the B roll looking at the window, then calling the lady to check it out from HIS window, smoooth lol
BS
That was funny as hell
haha sexual harassment caught on tape . I know they are actors. I think they picked diminutive actors to make plane look bigger. Poor guy almost looked like he needed cushion . I am kind of a big guy, I was asked ever so kindly to move to the back so as to adjust the balance of the plane.
@@trevormiles5852
That’s not sexual harassment because the man is a member of a protected minority group.
@@ajarivas72 Not even, it was all staged. Even so, Minorities are more under the glass than most and each action is usally magnified for better or for worse. The poor guy, could hardly reach the window. sponsors were just trying to make plane look bigger. Put the racial angle ion your back pocket, life is funny enough without that base sentiment.
I had to fly out of my small town for work several times a month. I had the choice of airlines. One had a Boeing 737 and the other had Bombardier Q400. I learned that the Bombardier was much easier and quicker than the 737. The actual flight time was only about 15 minutes slower, but the startup, loading, and egress were much faster and less stressful. Also, the legroom was better on the Q400.
Cool story bra
@@pizzaearthpancakesandother2549 Were you exposed to elevated levels of Tetraethyllead whilst developing within the womb? . . .
@@TRPGpilot Wuzzup bra?
turboprops can slow down fast! and have less speed restrictions
Back in the late 80's/early '90's I flew quite a bit between Logan and.LaGuardia. My low budget choices were a creaking, delapidated 727 on one airline and a high-wing turboprop with 10-12 rows of 2x1 seating. Flight time was shorter with the 727 but as you said everything else was faster with the turboprop so gate-to-gate differences. The turbo prop had much more legroom than the 727 and was only slightly noisier compared to back of the 727.
One weird thing: The turbo prop's seats had 'SAAB' embroidered into the upholstery so I just assumed it was a Saab aircraft. Now, 30 years later I can't find a Saab plane that matches my memory.
The capability of a light jet to get above the weather is very underrated. Weather is a big factor when it comes from getting A to B.
The safety of a turboprop is far more underrated.
Piaggio Avanti service ceiling = 41,000ft!😳👍🏻😁
Thank you I ordered mine on Amazon!
Buy me one... im married.
Amazon?
You paid too much
Try Temu next time
I worked for a company that had a PC12 to fly techs, mechanics, engineer and bosses around. They used this for small airports.
Multiple factors have to be considered before choosing between turboprops and jets. It's not just money. I see many saying they'd rather have a jet. Well, it's not going to be that safe. If a turboprop is safer and cheaper to maintain, that's 2 great reasons to have one. If they're just as comfortable and quiet as a jet nowadays that's another reason to go for a turboprop. Very interesting that turboprops can be more expensive than jets.
"The most popular single engine jet" : That's funny considering it's the only certified single engine jet.
Appreciate the video. However, it is really important to include 2 points. Turboprops operate in icing altitudes and really suffer because of it. Second, turboprops really are slower than the specifications might suggest, because most flights have a headwind component. AND, the slower you are, the more headwinds affect you. Our PC12 often does the NY-FL run in 4.5 hours, due to headwinds. Our G600 1:59! They are not close in real world speeds, and as always, props are props and jets are jets. Make sure to consider passenger MPG when honestly comparing planes. Spending a lot of time bucking a headwind is not a fuel efficient strategy.
Very good point. This is a video made by kids for other kids though, so few will see the point :)
Excellent points...the details matter as usual. Just not to Boeing. Lucky you with the G600...tried to get some friends to buy a G550 and lease it out...the IRR was good already, but now values are up 20%...$4mn woulda been nice too. What do I know anyway. Shiny side up...!
Congratulations for your well-done and well documented video. However in your price comparison between the TBM and the Cirrus VisionJet, there is something wrong. The $4.5 million price of the TBM 940 comes with 5 years or a 1,000 flight hours maintenance contract. So to establish a fair comparizon, you should remove the $300 per hour maintenance cost.
Nice info!
The price difference is still massive. 10 years of just paying for fuel in the TBM vs 10 years of fuel and maintenance on the VisionJet brings them to the same cost output. In reality you would have to own the TBM for 27.5 years to come in at even costs with the VisionJet and then you would be saving 60K per year there after.
$1,800,000 difference - 2.5 x $120,000 = $1,500,000 difference after 2.5 years then $1,500,000 / $60,000 = 25 years + 2.5 years = 27.5 years and $0 difference. 2.5 years (1000h end of warranty).
Not to mention the price difference will pay for maintenance on the VisionJet for pretty much its lifetime.
Any turbine engine is more efficient at higher altitudes, not just jets. I flew a Caravan and Pilatus PC-12 for a charter company years ago and love props.
Roger that big buddy -
Having flown both small turboprop and jet aircraft, I'll take the jet every time. Sooooo much nicer to fly.
Less safer too.
Nice video. In my opinion, it's just like whether you want a nice motorbike or a basic car. I believe the experience of flying a jet is irreplaceable even if it's just a Vision Jet.
Absolutely, the experience of not having one leg being more muscular than the other is priceless 😂. A1 sky raider joke there.
Jokes aside I imagine it’s so much more like how we imagine the feeling of flying like a bird vs controlling a flying machine, due to the lack of prop torque.
Yes, less safe too.
One of the oddest dialects I’ve ever heard
Yeah, totally. I thought it was a computer generated voice for the first few minutes.
You mean accent? Dialect is basically a different language.
Sounds like a Nigerian who migrated to the US as an adult.
He is from Texas, Russia.
Accent + ESL factor 3 + speech impediment + nerd.
I love how you have people standing up and walking around in a turboprop. There aren't any turboprops you can do that in.
Avanti
If you think about it a turbofan (which most civilian jets are) is a turboprop with alot more blades and a shrouded prop.
Do you think that maybe the word " better " can be replaced with "efficient"? I do not think the prop is better but I do feel it is more economical, maintenance friendly and more importantly you access to more fields to land on.
You're right about that... 💯💯💯
Maintenance friendly in the sense that many light turboprops have one engine while most light jets have two. A jet is simpler than a turbo prop. Same basic power plant but no prop or reduction gear hanging off the front.
4:33 - Sure, the Vision Jet can hold 7 occupants while the TBM only 6, but the TBM has a cabin class interior while the Vision Jet has forward facing seats.
1:41 - Smooth move!
You can charter a whole bunch of planes before you've spent more than what these cost to buy (let alone to operate, store and maintain).
Turboprops are not better than "jets". It all depends on the mission.
Thanks Dwayne from Dwayne! Loved the video!
❤️❤️❤️❤️
I much prefer a light jet. The prop noise really wears on me. It simply can't be attenuated. The extra time saved may not be a big deal if you are looking at only one flight but if a light jet is employed full time throughout the day it means more flights can be made throughout the day. I hired on to a company in 2011, 250 employees, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It had purchased a 9 seat Cessna Citation a year prior to ferry employees to jobsites and meetings. The company was in the oil & gas business so it flew to Houston everyday in the morning and then usually to a jobsite somewhere in the southern USA and then returned to Tulsa. Then it made an afternoon trip which was usually longer in nature to the east coast, west coast or North Dakota oil/gas production areas. If time was available it often then made a quick Houston run in the evening. A prop plane could not have executed this work load in the time alotted! The business owner was a shrewd businessman and had purchased this plane for a little over $1million. Millions less than normal. I'm certain that in the past 11 years that plane has more flight hours than any other Citation in existence. It was flying all the time. It saved the company boatloads of money not only in plane tickets and hotel rooms but work days not lost in the airports. A stateside job that would have cost three man days now only cost a single day. If we kept the plane full, and we always did, this added up to enormous savings. Not only that if a customer called in the USA, we could have someone there that evening at the latest. So our service department saw a large sales increase as customers knew our technician would be there that day. Plus, they would only get billed for one day of service, not three with two of them being for travel. Yes we billed for air travel but it was a very reasonable flat rate if I remember correctly.
Piaggio Avanti Evo - prop noise attenuated! Low rpm pt6 with scimitar pusher prop… “jet like” cabin noise levels… 40% less op./maint./pilot training costs… use the money saved to buy a new car and a cruise for the family around the Mediterranean - every year!
The Avanti originally was a joint project between Piaggio and Learjet.
The americans wanted to enter the then new turboprop trend, finally pulled out leaving the project to the italians.
Awesome video! I have never thought about it like this before. Keep up the great work :D
It was a little bit hard to hear your voice since the background music is so loud 🙈
Your fine video was definitely improved with a scene near the start that shows the Palisade at Gateway, Colorado.
Are you the pilot or the passenger? Are you in a hurry or do you just love to fly? What's your budget? Personally I love to fly and always in a hurry. A surplus Northrop T-38 works just fine!
hell ya.... any time man.
They definitely work, but those bad boys burn fuel like you read about.
What’s that? You had 3906lbs of fuel at the beginning of the sortie? Be a shame if something... happened to it... in 0.9 to 1.3 hours... lol
T-38's are fuel thirsty Go for it add bulky fuel tanks then you have to watch constantly your fuel gage that's a stress that I am not willing to take I rather enjoy flying in peace and enjoy
Good luck trying to own that! Those are government planes!
@@ZackWolfMusic Ok.......... th-cam.com/video/bKHhyFnmnrQ/w-d-xo.html
The Italian Piaggio Avanti Evo 120 twin turboprop is my favorite. It is superior in EVERY category and it looks gorgeous. The $7.5M price tag is worth it.
@will swift - See: Avanti Evo - retuned (lower rpm) engines…and “scimitar” props… but neither of those can be heard from the inside! And at FL410… does it really matter?
I can do without your video music!! - Too loud - bad mix & what makes you think that it's necessary anyway?
@0:35 So Mike Tyson lost some weight and bought a ticket?
The mini version
Sorry what’s the make and model of the last airplane? The audio changed to a promo clip
You're background music is too loud and distracting. Just some constructive feedback. the rest was great.
1:32 man, nice catch :D Surely there is something out there that can't be seen from the other window lol
And grabbing the chick also helps pointing her to the right direction
I love the Piaggio Avanti P.180 EVO, but it's a rare turboprop that will cruise at 400 knots and FL 400. Also, most turboprops don't climb as fast as jets to cruise altitude, P.180 included. Also, the forward speed (groundspeed) of most turboprops during the climb is not as fast as a jet, which reduces the useful range, P.180 included.
Am I the only one that thinks turbo prop planes just look so good. Jets look good too but I just think prop looks better. I also love the sound when I fly in them.
Mee too, the purchase decition depends on the customer necesity
Nothing beats a good, old fashioned King Air.
… Avanti for the win!!! Two words… silent cabin … (pusher props).
And … much better view for passengers!
I want Mike Patey Turboprop Lancair Legacyyy. That thing is a bullet!!
For most people, props are better, but for most of the people that need a private plane, it is never the best choice.
Here's the issue with speed: these small planes can be used for transporting people that make thousands of dollars per hour, so a 1 hour difference means a lot in these cases. So the issue of cost of fuel doesn't really matter in that context. A lot of the flights are fairly short; NY to DC, Denver to LA, Chicago to NY.
Piper M600 SLS, Diamond DA-62, Velocity V-Twin are personal aircrafts to be on considerations due to their impressive range 2500-3000km at more affordable costs🛫🤓
the final advert is so creepy!!
Oh my gosh that is my dream plane the TBM 940 Wahooooo!
Agree and great comparison
It's not about which is better overall, but which is better suited to the specific mission requirement. The common 'sales pitch' that new generation single-engine turboprops (e.g., TBM-940) offer jet-like performance is just complete 🐂💩. My experience of jet performance is climbing out at 250 knots indicated airspeed up to 10,000ft before accelerating to 300 knots above - & routinely achieving true airspeeds of >450 knots in the cruise. Turboprops are cheaper to operate & can typically get in & out of shorter, unimproved airstrips. That's it. However, if you want speed, range & the ability to climb above 90% of the weather, nothing beats a jet.
What " jet " powered aircraft is the real question -
I always found propeller aircraft to be more romantic.
I ordered a turboprop on Wish and got an RC airplane.
Given that, year in and year out, by far the primary cause of GA accidents and fatalities is pilot error, I find any talk of safety differences between specific aircraft to be misleading if not entirely gratuitous. All these aircraft are safe. All these aircraft are dangerous. What is safe or dangerous isn't the aircraft - it's the pilot/first officer that makes it so. Recommending an aircraft based on safety alone is doing a huge disservice to the GA community.
Back in the day, Eastern Airlines Electras were beating American Airlines 707s on the New Your to Miami run. The Electras were only climbing to 5,000 feet while the 707s climbed to 30,000 feet. The stage length was such that the 707s faster cruise was defeated by the extra time spent in climb and descent. Also, because the Electras were so low, they didn't get stacked in a holding pattern and because they didn't need a long runway, they were often vectored in with the General Aviation traffic. 5,000 feet is NOT above the weather. So, if the sailplane guys were happy, the Electra passengers spent most of the flight strapped to their seats. A lot of business class passengers willingly traded a few bumps for shorter flight times.
nothing beats the king air ,nothing--our flights to mexico gives us great time to hang out with the family,grand kids fall asleep in our chairs resting in my arms,
I don't get how you showed the tbm stats right next to the vision stats side by side, and tbm had best everything, double the range and all BUT then you proceeded to say - "if you need to cover long distances, light jet would be the way to go, if you need to go short distances, turbo prop is the way to go". (But that makes no sense saying how the tbm goes double the distance at 2000nm and vision goes 1k.....). Doesn't matter any sense. Love the channel though. Personally I'd go for the turbo prop always over jet. The Piaggio Avanti Evo and Pilatus PC12 NGX are my dream airplanes ❤
People often think of "puddle jumper" experiences with badly soundproofed planes such as a Cessna Caravan, not a King Air or Pilatus.
Yea but saying I have a private jet sound better than saying I have a private plan.
I like Pilatus, because i'm from Switzerland ....
gotta buy 2 now. will order it from wish.
Very nice displays of planes. What is the name of the music in the background?
Bill Lear of Learjet fame designed the EVO. Avanti picked it up.
Wise man is two different words not one word
Noise, Vibration, and Harshness are three things that annoy the HELL out of people. There is no denying that turboprops cost less, but so does a Toyota Corolla....over a Rolls Royce! There is no denying that props can never provide the NVH comfort of a jet engine. Period!
as soon as i hear "smash the like button" I immediately leave the video.
You are still here
@@ajarivas72 didn't finish the video. The point is obvious.
This makes the airplane that was my first paid jet job look like a piece of junk, but I'll always love the Westwind 2 I was lucky enough to copilot . Now I see them for sale for $300, 000. The owner flown single pilot small jets being produced are wonderful and they are reported to be easy to fly. That would be a great way to go these days.
Just googled that aircraft. Cool looking plane but strange design with the mid level wing. I imagine the center spar takes up space that could've have been used for the cabin if its had a low wing.
You should have compared the Meridian to the Vision jet, because they are much more similar in purchase cost.
Lower fuel burn than the TBM too
You should have used the high speed cruise for fuel burn comparisons for the TBM.
I love the stock video when he’s talking about a single engine turbo prop and it’s clearly a wide body business jet
Also, do you really think that those three young people at the very beginning of the video are actually having a conversation about turboprops and jets?
@mark 🤣… @ chase - actors were well proportioned but only 4’9” tall 🤣 ads are all about the smoke… and the mirrors 🙂
This has made me decide I want a turboprop when I can finally get my own plane
The Pilatus has such a cute face lol.
Now... where did I put my duffel bag stuffed with hundred dollar bills? Must be around here somewhere...
The Cirrus Vision Jet is the most popular single engine jet because it’s the only single engine jet.
Honda jet?
@@hdskf115 Two engines, one on a pylon on each wing.
I guess people far from aviation sometimes believe business jets are "cooler"...
Most can't tell a piston-prop from a turboprop and when they see a propeller (or two) - they immediately assume it's a "small airplane". Whereas - a private jet is a private jet. Even if the turboprop is larger, carries more, more comfortable, safer, flies further, and as shown here - can even be a bit faster.
@ 0:29 is the same prop set everyone on insta use to pretend they are on a jet lol
Flew a turboprop from Las Vegas to Phoenix and it was definitely a bumpy ride. Some of that has to do with the heat and air I'm sure.
Turboprops fly below 30,000ft around the storms while jets can fly above the weather. I've spend a lot of hours flying in and out of cloud at 25,000ft wishing I could go higher
Good video. What's the name of the music?
In my opinion the big difference is the interior space, a jet has more. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours
excellent video dwayne, extremely enlightening and insightful.
disclaimer: this video was brought to you by turbo prop manufacturers
Sarcasm at it's best 😂😂😂😂
And… Daher TBM 😂
The jet may be faster, but the tuboprop uses smaller closer landing fields making the door to door time much less. And I use field in place of airport because the turboprop often can use grass fields.
Pc24: hold.my beer
How many tp’s can “often use grass fields”? The MU2 is best suited due to high wing design, gear linkage and TOD over 50’ obstacle. The Epic E1000 has trailing link gear and impressive TOD but it’s big single prop out front makes it more susceptible to prop strike on rough terrain. The PC12 has same issue as Epic only 10% longer TOD. More specialized SETP’s like Caravan and Kodiak’s are capable but are very limited in speed. That’s about it unless you’re talking very smooth graded runway, in which case vlj’s can accomplish same. Biggest limitation of VLJ is TOD, I can’t think of single unit less than 3000’ TOD, several are >3500’. TOD and limited hours noise limits can be problematic for all VLJ’s in certain suburban executive airport locations.
@@MichaelM-to4sg The Beechcraft King Airs claim it although I wouldn't want to make a habit of it.
C90GTx needs 2100ft plus extra for grass to land
I'm thinking locally. Most have added length to handle small jets
CYTB Tillsonburg 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CYQS St Thomas 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CYGD Goderich 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CYCE Centralia 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CPR7 Wingham 4000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CPR5 Woodstock 3000 ft grass fuel ? C90GTx capable
CYXU London 8800 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CNR4 Tobemorey 3000 ft paved fuel ? C90GTx capable
CYCK Chatham 5500 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CYSA Stratford 5000 ft paved has Jet A1 jet capable
CDH6 Delhi 3000 ft paved fuel ? C90GTx capable private
CPL4 Grand Bend 2340 ft gravel fuel ? C90GTx capable private
CYHS Saugeen 4000 ft paved fuel ? jet capable
CNL4 Port Elgin 3800 ft grass fuel ? C90GTx capable
KDEH Decorah 4000 ft fuel ? paved jet capable
CYG2 Pakhill 1900 ft grass private
CPK2 Stathroy 2000 ft grass private fuel ? C90GTx capable
@@MichaelM-to4sg I used skyvector.com/ in the local area to find a few. It all depends on what you want to do. There's so many choices. You can start with a a Honda jet and up from there. I'm partial to the Beechcraft but that's just me.
@@easternwoods4378 I’ve a lot more seat time in MU2’s and Commander’s than KA’s but I’ve landed a KA100 on unpaved runway in Costa Rica. It was not pleasant and I did a very thorough rigging and prop inspection before flying out. The MU2 is brilliant on most any usable runway.
I like turboprops but this video overlooks at least two major considerations. Tycoon A buys a TBM and can climb over 70% of the turbulence. Also, he's flying substantially slower than they would have flown on the airlines. Alone it's not too bad, but flying other powerful tycoons, this could be embarrassing. Also, what if an issue with the prop or hub developed over the Rocky mountains in IFR weather. All the savings in the world will amount to nothing because there is a scant 50/50 chance of emerging from that situation okay. Now consider Tycoon B who buys a twin engine gulfstream. None of those issues apply. So perhaps the happy medium is a twin engine King Air, but it's still slower and more bumpy than the airlines.
O well
I turbo walk places, and my bicycle is named jet. I’ve made it.
Excellent presentation.
I'll stick to piston engines :P
Where can I get the turboprop with cabin space equivalent to that of the Hindenburg?
design One. i will buy the 1st serial number produced
Go in Russia or Ukraine, you might stand a good chance with the AN-22.
PC 12Ngx
Bombardier Dash8, current version Q400 but Q300 and Q200 similar size and range. Of course the massive Antonov AN22 is the TP cargo behemoth of the skies. There’s also the Airbus Atlas, MD C133 and Boeing Globemaster.
@@eliudm472 😂 😂😂 The Hindenburg was double deck canopy w/at least 40 suites plus a formal dining room and a cargo bay.
PC12 & the Cessna Denali are modern SETP aircraft certain to lead KingAirs, MU2’s, C425/441 and Cheyenne’s into obsolescence. It’s cargo limit, both volume & mass is not comparable to the legendary dirigible.
Nice content but I couldn’t get used to the narration or the graphics that made me dizzy.
So the vision jet still beats the TBM except for range and runway requirements.
Everyone already knows this. I'd take a Beechcraft King Air 360 over any light jet.
i will always love propellers more
Nice! This is why I like my propeller powered jet 😎🤙
Why are we talking about shorter take-off? Is this still pitch related? Like you can spin up a ducted fan and a propeller, but on a propeller you can reduce pitch and spin it up even more and fill the "gaps" between the blades? Like a wind turbine which only needs 3 blades to harvest all the wind energy by spinning very fast.
Because turboprops are slower the engine inspection and overhaul intervals are shorter based on distance because these intervals are flight hours.
Nice video
Definitely educational except the music is much to loud for this old man.
Really informative video but i have to say the music is WAY too loud in comparison to your speech.
According to Aircraft Cost Calculator, the hourly cost of a TBM 700C2 is $821.41 at $4.25 per gallon of Jet-A.
According to the AOPA, the hourly cost of a Cirrus Vision SF50 is $661.63.
Additionally, without anything but your word, you say that turboprops are as comfortable as jets. I've never been in a turboprop that was as quiet as a VLJ, nor have I been in a turboprop that was as smooth as a VLJ. If someone invents a turboprop engine and propeller combo that don't induce vibration, I want to experience it.
Can you lease one of those? And yes, for how much?
But from a buyers point of view, the initial cost of Daher TBM turboprop is too much and it will take more than 30 years to be cheaper than the Cirrus Vision Jet if everything stays the same. So buying decision may include some other reasons to choose the turboprop in this match.
I suppose a turboprop is more fuel efficient. But a jet is faster and far more prestigious.
For most private pilots, a single engine piston powered is the most practical.
Doesnt the E1000 costs as much as a Phenom 100?
Is this even real? The comparisons feel like a I have a narrative and I need an example to fit it. Not a subjective comparison. Good TBM ad though.
Thank you.
You should look at the Epic. I would consider one now that Rick and Mike are gone and not associated with the company.
All was ok until the big ADVERTISEMENT at the end.
and a diamond da62 would kick them both for operating costs , upfront and ROI
Comparing apples and onions here, a DA62 is not pressurized and cannot be flown above the weather.