I'm trying to figure out who would buy it. I can't see it being under $800k. Who is going to spend $800k on one, then deal with the high operating costs?
I'm trying to figure out who would buy it. I can't see it being under $800k. Who is going to spend $800k on one, then deal with the high operating costs?
I don't see anything about it that makes it a good choice.
What makes it sound like a good choice?
Flying Magazine said:
The small jets make much more sense, they fly fast, high, and are pressurized. They are a mini budget business jet. This is a slow utility plane of low capability. An operator who could use this can use a turbine 206 to much greater effect for the same price, and can probably end up more profitable with a 208 for a few bucks more, if any. Notice there was no price point, I suggest $800k as a minimum.
I'm just looking at a plane with what appears a non existent market.
If it can indicate 175 at FL 200 or even FL 230 then it's going to be in that 250 KTAS class as a (and here I'm guessing) $1MM to $1.3MM 4-seat single.
The PA-46 Malibu Meridian lists at $2.2MM and is a pressurized 6-place. I'd put that one a category up from the DA-50.
For 2 to 2.5 hours of O-sucking you could go a loooong way. I suck O's now for a lot less speed (and price!) than that.
Turbines are very reliable and need little care between their planned major maint cycles, not zero, but no where near a recip. One of the factors to contend with on most turbines is cycles. Not only are parts time limited, they are also hot-cold cycle limited. With Ag planes they wrote us an extension where if we kept the engine burning, we could count 3 landing cycles as 2 on the PT-6 engines. The scheduled maintenance though can be eyewateringly expensive, and when you do have surprise failures, they can be really expensive. Many people operating turbines take part in a "power by the hour" type fixed cost engine program.
