Aircraft Purchase Planning Handbook

Senior Fleet Analyst Nigel Prevett — nigel.prevett@aviationweek.com for Business Aviation Head of Valuations, Chris Reynolds — chris.reynolds@informa.com Chief Appraiser Senior Audience Tyler Motsinger — tyler.motsinger@aviationweek.com Development Manager Subscriber Services bca@aviationweek.com Phone: +1 (913) 850-6929 Reprints Wrights Media informa@wrightsmedia.com Phone: +1 (877) 652 5295 Executive Vice President, Gregory Hamilton Informa Markets ADVERTISING SALES Publisher Elizabeth Zlitni — elizabeth.zlitni@informa.com NORTH AMERICA Rob Howlett — rob.howlett@aviationweek.com ADVERTISING SALES Pacific Region Miguel Ornelas — miguel.ornelas@aviationweek.com Midwest Region Jodi Espinoza — jespinoza@aviationweek.com Eastern Region Eddie Lohmann — eddie.lohmann@aviationweek.com Southeast Region Beth Eddy — betheddy@aviationexhibits.com Canada David Seaberg — david@seabergmedia.com Strategic Accounts Tom Davis — tom.davis@aviationweek.com FBO & CHARTER Jodi Espinoza — jodi.espinoza@aviationweek.com ADVERTISING SALES Sara Hellon — sara.hellon@aviationweek.com Michele Markarian — michele.markarian@aviationweek.com Jennifer Shafer-Doyle — jennifer.shafer@aviationweek.com WORLDWIDE Andrea Rossi Prudente ADVERTISING SALES — andrea.rossiprudente@aviationweek.co.uk Robert Springthorpe — robert.springthorpe@aviationweek.co.uk The Pressure Is On Business aviation faces headwinds Editor’s Letter Lee Ann Shay Editor-in-Chief AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 3 TEXTRON AVIATION Is business aviation on a collision course with environ- mental goals? One side might say yes. Environmental activists are demonstrating at business aviation events and airports. Private flyers face flight-shaming. Sustainability pressures on business aviation stand out particularly in France. As Thierry Dubois writes in his article about the state of business aviation in France on page 42, opposition Green Party Deputy Julien Bayou has proposed banning business jets and defines them as “including on-demand flights for 60 passengers or less.” Even business jets derived from Airbus and Boeing commercial aircraft platforms usually do not include 60 seats. Dubois points out that “Additional taxes and use restrictions in the country might be the harbinger of a more stringent framework and disincentives for business aviation throughout the entire European Union.” If sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) was more readily available around the world, that might offset some of the pressure on the industry, but demand outpaces supply and this situation won’t change quickly. Daniel Coetzer, CEO of Titan Europe, quoted in Angus Batey’s article on SAF in Europe on page 46, notes that “SAF is still very difficult to find; supply is still very unreliable at business aviation airports, unless you want to buy a big stock and keep it—but even then, you’re lucky to find it,” Ensuring reliable supplies of SAF at airports will take time, but sustainability progress flourishes elsewhere—and not just recently. The business aviation industry has been proactive on this issue for years—including implementing tech- nologies to reduce fuel burn and emissions. Aviation Partners installed its first winglets on a business jet—the Gulfstream II—in the early 1990s. That was before it formed a joint venture with Boeing. Now, curved wing tips are a regular feature on business and commer- cial aircraft. The quest for better performance has steadily con- tinued. In 2009, the Business Aviation Commitment on Climate Change pledged to reduce carbon emissions 50% by 2050. The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) recently launched the Sustainable Flight Department Accreditation Program to acknowledge operators who meet or exceed criteria in the following areas: flight, operations, ground support and infrastructure. NBAA is accepting applications (https://bit.ly/41w6Wb9) through May 31. For those of you attending the European Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition, check out the Sus- tainability Summit May 23-24 (https://ebace.aero/2023/ events/sustainability-summit/) that is a major part of the program. Advanced air mobility (AAM) operations should launch in the next few years, enabling a new transportation mode for sustainable short hops. The latest developments will be highlighted at Paris Air Mobility (https://aam. aviationweek.com/en/home.html), which takes place on June 19-22 at the Paris Air Show. So from taking steps to make today’s operations greener to developing electric-powered transportation modes, progress is happening. The time for action is now. Clearly a lot is going on. I hope you enjoy this issue. Best wishes, Lee Ann Leeann.shay@aviationweek.com PS: BCA Podcast: Don’t miss our biweekly podcast! https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/podcast Five Questions for George Braly George Braly is co-founder of General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (GAMI), which holds a supplementary type certificate for G100UL, the first approved unleaded, 100-octane avgas. FAST FIVE INTERVIEW BY MICHAEL O. LAVITT 1 You’ve basically had three phases in developing G100UL: Doing the chemistry, winning STS approval and bringing it to market. Which was the most challenging? The initial figuring out of the chemistry took us less than 15 months. It took basically an additional 11 years to get the FAA approval. It should have taken three or four. There were a num- ber of people inside the FAA who did not want this to happen, because it was being done with a proprietary company specifi- cation. And so, they did everything that was possible to slow it down and block it. Thank God, we got a new AIR-1 in June of last year. Lirio Liu [executive director of the FAA Aircraft Certification Service] gets enormous credit for this. Engine and airframe manufacturers want to be sure that 100UL will not cause damage before they agree to honor warranty claims from aircraft owners who use the new fuel. How are you doing on that front? The only thing the OEMs can do is to try and tell the owners, “If you dare use that fuel, we’re going to void your warranties.” Well, there are only 2-3% of the aircraft covered under warranty anyway. So, it’s an empty threat. But to her credit, Jennifer Miller [senior director of engineering] at Lycoming, during a seminar [March 28] said that “We’re not going to automatically deny the warranty of somebody who uses this fuel.” The thing is, it would be catastrophic and self-destructive for the companies to get in the way of the appointment of this fuel on their large population of airplanes in California, which is where the first fuel is going. How are you doing with ramping up production of G100UL with refiners and distributors? We have a large international company, in Houston, that has agreed to produce the fuel. It produces aviation jet fuel now, and it [can] produce 100 Low Lead (100LL). It knows how to do this. It has the technical capability and the laboratory equipment to do it. It also has the ability to make 500,000-gal. batches or 3 or 4 million-gal. batches. And it has agreed to produce [G100UL]. It has given us a price schedule. We have shared that with the four major existing distributors, AvFuel, World Fuel, Titan and Epic. We GAMI 4 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA gave them the pricing, invited them to send rail cars to Houston, and the fuel would be loaded on their rail cars at that price free on board. The producer sells 80-90% of the 100LL to the FBOs in the airports. There are already unleaded 94-octane substitutes for engines. Others are working on additives that will re- place tetraethyl lead in 100-octane avgas. How much compe- tition are you expecting in the higher-octane market over the next three years? Basically, of the three candidate fuels that are announced, two of them are in PAFI [FAA Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative], which includes the Phillips-Afton effort and the Lyondell-BP Rac- ing effort. Those two fuels are part of the EAGLE (Eliminate Avia- tion Gasoline Lead Emissions) program. And then Swift Fuels has another program that’s kind of one foot in and one foot out of EAGLE. Swift Fuels is going to do an STC [supplemental type certification], but they’re also going to get an ASTM specification. The delta between the G100UL and the Swift yield is about 11% [in terms of energy per gallon]. I know this looking at their fuel chemistry because these are laws of physics. When you buy a gallon of gasoline, you’re buying so many thousands of BTUs per gallon. It’s the energy content. Well, the energy content of [Swift Fuel] is 7% below 100LL and the energy content of [G100UL] is 4% above 100LL on a volumetric basis. Last year the General Aviation Manufacturers Associa- tion and some of the companies that represent piston aircraft manufacturers seemed to be leaning toward EAGLE. Has the relationship changed now that you have the STC that applies to every aircraft and engine that uses avgas? [On March 21] EAGLE participants had an executive committee meeting with all the traditional EAGLE people. And the next day they had a follow-up meeting that was open to the public. One of the slides announced that the Phillips fuel and the Lyondell fuel were undergoing reformulation for deposit control. So, basically right now the EAGLE has no wings. There frankly is not a visible alternative to any knowledgeable fuel chemists that has a viable path to success. BCA 5 2 3 4 PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE OF 5G Digital altimeters to keep your fleets safe and resilient under any conditions Our next-generation ALT 1000+ and 4000+ digital altimeters have unique filtering technology to help mitigate the challenges of 5G interference near airports. DAL A-assured and easy to integrate, the systems deliver accurate positioning information from as high as 2,500 feet – giving pilots the precision guidance and confidence they need to safely land the plane. The future of 5G is moving fast. Let Collins help you get ready for what’s next. collinsaerospace.com/5G KEY BENEFITS • Maintain integrity of existing onboard systems • Multiple paths to compliance with 5G immunity (upgrades, form/fit replacements, new/ exchange units) • AML STC covering a range of aircraft and helicopters © 2023 Collins Aerospace THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GOES DEEPER INTO DEBT BY THE DAY, and many of the states are broke. Most people don’t own air- craft. So, there won’t be a populist revolt if the Internal Rev- enue Service and the state departments of revenue target corporate aviation for audit. Preparation is the key to surviving a tax audit and receiving a “no change” letter acknowledging that your tax returns were proper. Aircraft operators know that the FAA doesn’t believe that an inspection occurred unless the paperwork proves it. The IRS won’t believe that you use your aircraft for business unless the paper- work proves it. Do you have documents that show the business purpose of every person in every seat on every leg of every trip? That is what the IRS expects. And the IRS expects the records to be kept up contemporane- ously, not pulled together a year or more later by the harried flight department after the CFO informs them that an audit is underway. The flight department can provide a great deal of help to the CFO in main- taining current records to prove the business purpose of every person in every seat on every leg of every trip, because the flight department knows the who, when and where of each flight. But the flight department’s knowledge of who flew doesn’t always mean it knows the business purpose of why they flew. The company executives must either give the flight department adequate guidance on the business purpose of each person on each trip, or someone in the C-suite must complete that information in the flight records separately as the flights occur. And of course, there will always be some non-business flights. If someone is not on business, do your records dis- tinguish between an employee entertainment trip (Vegas bachelor party) and a personal trip (Des Moines funeral)? The employee will need to have fringe benefit income added to his/her W-2 form for either trip, but the company will only lose deductions for the entertainment trip. How do you handle a tax audit today? Sadly, the answer is, a little less politely than in the past. Most companies have learned to treat government inspectors and auditors with at least a modicum of respect because in the past, a little hospitality usually resulted in a less-intensive examination and a better outcome. A client in the soda business, however, reported this experi- ence: For many years, the company has been visited by a wide variety of government officials performing a wide variety of functions. The company has always had a policy of providing the officials with a clean, well-lighted office to work in, and all of the free soda they could possibly want. This hospitality backfired when an IRS auditor, who appar- ently loves root beer, did not want to leave, and kept pursuing new issues and asking for more records to review, so that he could sit and drink root beer in the comfortable private office provided to him. Be professional and po- lite, but be in control. It is a security-conscious world today, so, when you insist that the auditor remain in his/her assigned area and not wander the building, and not talk to other em- ployees, you can and should put those requirements in a security context. If you go to the auditor’s office, those requirements will be imposed on you, so you can present these restrictions in a non-offensive manner. Along those same lines, insist that all “Information Docu- ment Requests” (“IDR” in IRS parlance) be in writing, and that all communication with the company occur through a designated representative. What are the hot tax audit topics today? The IRS is attack- ing depreciation deductions, and its favorite weapons are pas- sive activity, hobby loss and entertainment rules. The states want “use” tax. Use tax is the evil twin of sales tax. If you buy an aircraft in a tax-free state and bring it home to a state that does impose a sales tax, your state may demand that you pay use tax, even if you have registered the aircraft in Delaware (derisively referred to as the “Delaware Dodge” by state department of revenue auditors). If you have relied on a state tax exemption, make sure that you have documented your compliance with the requirements of the exemption. The states now use FBO tenant lists and FlightAware to establish where an aircraft is actually based. No audit is fun, but if your company is ready, the auditor will leave and look for a less-prepared victim. BCA Dealing with an Aircraft Tax Audit Point of Law Kent S. Jackson Contributing Editor Kent S. Jackson Contributing Editor 6 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA The IRS is not here to help you DESIGNER491GETTY IMAGES EXPERIENCE, ELEVATED. Let’s start an unrivaled journey. Visit us at EBACE, Stand S58 DESPITE THE NEWS, IT’S LOOKING LIKE THE CHANCE TO DOWN A pulled pork parfait while being serenaded by a screaming chorus of R-1340s, Merlins and IO-540s could well continue. In March came word that this year’s National Championship Air Races, set for Sept. 13-17, will be the last held at Reno- Stead Airport (KRTS). That decision by the Reno-Tahoe Air- port Authority was a surprise to many, though not all, and is the culmination of a series of setbacks, some tragic, as well as evolving local demographics. Held annually in the “Biggest Little City in the World” since 1964, the races are the largest globally and the only such event in the United States. A combina- tion airshow, street party, trade fair, class reunion, grand bazaar, gape-fest and cacophonous compe- tition, the “World’s Fastest Motor Sport” each year draws some 120,000 attendees whose dining, wining, gaming and more richly reward their Renoite hosts. Tony Logoteta, COO of the Reno Air Race Association (RARA), references a 2019 study by the University of Nevada-Reno that reportedly puts the event’s economic impact on the region at $100 million. Even in a tourist town bristling with glistening casinos, that’s a big-time jackpot. So, why would a city of 270,000 spike such an economic engine? For reasons stated and not. The airport authority, which operates both KRTS, a general aviation facility, and airline-served Reno-Tahoe International, cited “challenging economic conditions, rapid area development [and] public safety” among its motivations. Unmentioned was a more oner- ous money issue and related matters of liability and notoriety. As to the economic challenges worrying the airports’ opera- tor, those exist pretty much everywhere, unfortunately. And while the Reno area is certainly growing, its development is more steady than sizzling. Regarding the safety of residents and visitors, that’s a con- stant concern among all communities. But the KRTS races raise that to a special level. After all, launching high-perfor- mance aircraft in wing-to-wing, high-speed, high-G heats flown close to the ground involves unique risks. Moreover, the machines are operated by pilots, some long past their youth, who are exposed to such conditions infrequently— and pos- sibly only at Reno. And all this takes place in close proximity to thousands of people watching from grandstands, the tarmac, parking lots, and others who are strolling the vendor midway or consuming show delicacies like deep-fried pickles, corn dogs and peanut butter bombs. That combination of factors has proven deadly in some years. The worst was 2011, when a P-51 Mustang racer crashed, killing the pilot and ten spectators and seriously injuring another 70. In addition, individual race pilots were killed in accidents last year and in 2014. Trauma and the sudden death of visitors are not occurrences with which any city wants to be identified. However, since such things do happen, the airport authority had for years added a rider to its regular insurance to cover race days; according to Logoteta, that premium was modest. Meanwhile, by agreement, RARA had to take out its own policy. However, in 2022 the authority was denied the rider and, accord- ingly, insisted RARA obtain the extra coverage in addition to its own policy. That added roughly $500,000 to RARA’s insurance bill, bringing the total to “just shy of $1.3 million,” says Logoteta, and put the races at a financial loss. He expects that figure to increase further for this year’s series and hopes it won’t exceed 10-15%. Regardless, the death of Aaron Hogue when his L-29 jet crashed last year seems to have been one tragedy too many. The decision by members of the airport authority to put an end to racing at KRTS—reinforced by the fatal B-17/Kingcobra collision last November at a Dallas airshow—means the facil- ity can return to normal operations year-round, which many airport-based pilots welcome. And although there’s specula- tion that an overnight cargo carrier might begin operations there, a representative for the airport authority said no such invitation has been extended. Logoteta reports RARA had been exploring other sites for limited races by different aircraft classes as a way of lead- ing up to the national championships. Now that site search has taken on an urgency to find a new home for the big event itself. He says that effort so far “has been pretty encouraging,” with several airports and municipalities expressing interest in hosting the championship series. And while it’s possible that a competition could be held in 2024, Logoteta is doubtful that a new location could be made ready by then. More likely, he says, is RARA hosting a regular airshow at KRTS next year and then relaunching the races —complete with grand bazaar, curley fries and a celebratory pork parfait—elsewhere in 2025. BCA Situation Awareness Final Flag at Reno The competition for a new home is underway 8 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA RARA William Garvey Contributing Editor William Garvey Stay connected nationwide with SmartSky. Talk, text, game, livestream, video conference, upload and download large files. All at once. On multiple devices. Move more data than ever before via a software-defined network that advances with the latest technology. Anything else is a no go. INFLIGHT WI-FI THAT ACTUALLY WORKS SMART Be smart and ask for SmartSky on your jet. 800.660.9982 or info@smartskynetworks.com smartskynetworks.com While instructing pilots about abnor- mal procedures when flying in remote or oceanic areas, I find it helpful to go through the “there I was . . .” routine. While it would be impossible to cover every possible scenario, two that I’ve seen over the years may serve to illus- trate a few helpful concepts. Cabin Smoke “. . . There I was, the cabin filling with smoke and nothing but open ocean in front of me.” It was almost a routine flight, from Anchorage, Alaska to Honolulu. We were flying an Air Force Boeing 707, what we called an EC-135J, with about 20 Navy passengers and an Air Force crew of 10, including three mechan- ics. It had been a fun week in Alaska, but now everyone looked forward to getting back to Hawaii. We had been airborne for about 30 min., and I was getting ready for my oceanic duties as the crew’s co-pilot. But something was nagging me. Oddly, the air felt and tasted oily. I immediately suspected the engines, but the gauges looked perfectly normal. I was about to say something when the navigator beat me to the punch: “Fire!” I saw the cabin filled with dense, acrid smoke. Every- thing within a few feet of the ceiling was “WOXOF” (ceiling indefinite, vis- ibility zero) but below that it was clear. Now what? “I’ll turn us back to Anchorage,” the pilot said, “you get back there and fig- ure it out.” I unstrapped, not having a clue what I could do. My first thought was the galley, which was right behind the cockpit, but the steward was seated, 10 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA SHUTTERSTOCK/LUKAS GOJDA Depiction of an aircraft engine fire. When faced with an emergency, should you always react quickly? Divert! There I was, at 30 deg. W. Long with one engine on f ire, the other engine about to quit, and a load of passengers wonder- ing why the cabin lights had gone dim. Questions were adding up, but there were no answers in sight. The only thing certain was the altimeter, which was unwinding itself quickly as we held on to whatever airspeed we still had. So goes a recurring nightmare of mine, either a product of all the simula- tor time in my logbook or the few times where one element of the dream hap- pened in real life. In any other profes- sion, these dreams could be part of a neurosis, a mental condition caused by anxiety and stress. But since I am a pilot, these dreams seem nothing more than “chair flying,” mentally preparing myself for what I hope never happens. “ BY JAMES ALBRIGHT Piloting and his ovens were off. He shrugged his shoulders, as if this was just another day at the office. I could see the smoke spewing from an overhead duct. I doubled back and turned off the engine bleeds. The smoke stopped almost im- mediately but I knew our old airplane’s cabin leak rate meant our ears would soon be popping. One of the mechanics came for- ward and said the smoke was almost completely gone but so was our pres- surization. We had to dump over 100,000 lb. of fuel, but 30 min. later we were on the ground. That night at the bar, the second-guess- ing began. “The pax are unhappy,” our steward reported. “One of the mechanics com- plained to them that we didn’t need to turn back as quickly as we had, we should have isolated the bad engine by turning the bleeds on one-by-one. Then we could have made it home on the other three.” The pilot’s face reddened. “Better safe than sorry,” I replied. He brooded for the rest of the night, think- ing word of our divert would filter back to the squadron about prematurely aborting the mission. The next morning, we met for break- fast and the pilot greeted us with a hearty smile. “Well, we done good after all,” he said. The base’s maintenance shop found that an oily rag had some- how been ingested by the air cycle ma- chine and the fire was contained to our air conditioning pack and was only ex- tinguished once all the bleeds had been cut off. We only had one air conditioning pack and once that was shut off, all other options were out of the question. The di- vert, it turned out, was our only option. Sometimes the only option you have is to head for the nearest runway and land. These “no other option” decisions turn out to be the easiest to make but sometimes the hardest to execute. A fire of any kind, loss of an engine on a two-engine aircraft, or a flight con- trol problem that leaves you with any doubts about the aircraft’s airworthi- ness are examples of when the right answer is to quickly turn your air ve- hicle into a ground vehicle so some- one else can sort it out after making a safe landing. Equal Time Point “Our Equal Time Point (ETP) was ahead of us but the situation wasn’t anything we had trained for . . . ” Twenty years ago, our attitudes about drift down were more, shall we say, self-centered. “We are the emer- gency, everyone else can get out of our way.” We taught that if an engine fails, you set a specified maximum thrust on the operating engine, allow the speed to decay to a speed calculated to maxi- mize your forward distance, and then you descended at that speed. If you were past the ETP—the position along your route that results in an equal time continuing forward as the time turning around—then you pressed on. Other- wise, you turned around. Most of us today know these deci- sions are rarely this cut-and-dried, but back then, I believed the conventional wisdom. Until I was faced with reality. We were f lying a Challenger 604 from Europe to the U.S. at flight level 360 on the North Atlantic Track Sys- tem (NATS), with airplanes above, below and to either side of us. Our Standard Operating Procedure re- quired us to compute three ETPs. The one-engine- inoperative ETP consid- ered the need to descend to an optimal altitude with one engine out and less speed. The loss of pressurization ETP assumed the need to descend. Finally, the remain-at-altitude ETP was used for medical and other emergencies to minimize the remaining time in flight. While an ETP is computed using time, the “T” in the acronym, it is more prop- erly thought of as geographic point, the “P” in ETP. Our company procedures required that we compute all three, but if all three were grouped within 100 nm of each other, only the middle point was plotted. That was the case on this flight, and our ETP was at 53 05.0’ deg. N Lat., 37 17.3’ deg. W Long. Passing the infamous 30 W Long. waypoint, we made the necessary switch to Gander Oceanic on our high-frequency radio and bus- ied ourselves with the many check- lists triggered by waypoint passages. I briefed the other pilot that our ETP was still in front of us and that if we had any problems, the plan was to turn 180 deg. back to Shannon, Ireland. We would drift down in the turn if we lost an engine, complete a rapid descent if we lost pressurization, or remain at altitude if we could. “Obviously,” my fellow pilot said. “Obviously,” I agreed. Back then, we were required to take wind and temperature readings at each halfway point between waypoints and I was doing just that when an engine in- dication turned amber, letting us know one of our engines was vibrating exces- sively. The FAN VIB readout showed the left engine at 3.5 Mils, well above the 2.7 Mil limit. I pulled out the Quick Reference Handbook and read. The fan is the first set of blades in the engine compressor section, and the largest. An excessive vibration risks separation of a blade with risk to the fuselage and the rest of the engine. The procedure AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 11 AIRCARE INTERNATIONAL A cabin fire training exercise. called for us to reduce the throttle un- til the vibration was within the limits. I did that, but it resulted in enough thrust loss that our Mach number de- creased from our filed Mach 0.80 to Mach 0.76. The procedure also called for the engine to be shut down if there were any other abnormal engine indica- tions. There were not. “Back to Shannon?” my fellow pilot asked. I stared at our plotting chart, which clearly indicated the ETP was still almost a hundred nautical miles in front of us. “Give me a moment,” I said. “I need to think about this.” Turning around at this altitude would take us about 25 nm left or right, almost halving the distance between us and any aircraft on the next track and increasing the risk of running into an airliner carrying hundreds of pas- sengers (many more than the three we had onboard). But I also thought about losing the engine and wanting to mini- mize my distance to a runway should that happen. How much distance would be taken by the turn itself? Looking at the plotting chart, I thought that we might end up taking longer to turn around than just press- ing forward. Finally, I looked at the engines, both of which seemed to be operating fine, albeit one at a reduced thrust setting. “Let’s press on and let Gander know we have to slow down,” I finally said. “I’ll phone a friend,” using a phrase from a game show popular at the time. I called our mechanic, who asked for a few minutes to speak with techni- cians at General Electric, the engine manufacturer. A few minutes later our mechanic called back. “They’ve been seeing more and more of this lately,” he said. “They say there is a coating on the fan blades that sometimes delaminates and causes these indications. There isn’t any increased risk of the engine failing. Just keep the engine at or be- low where you have it and bring the airplane home.” Sometimes the best decision is to delay and take time to consider your options. In some cases, a diversion decision needs to be made quickly because fuel and altitude are robbing you of time. In other cases, the best decision might be procrastination. A mid-oceanic diver- sion carries with it added risks that must be considered. Will drifting down put you into the path of another air- plane? Do your ETP fuel computations consider the winds at lower altitude or any abnormal fuel burns that have taken you off your planned numbers? If the decision doesn’t have to be made immediately, perhaps it shouldn’t be. Many in the Air Force used to say, “Flexibility is the key to air power.” To that I would add, “Procrastination is the key to flexibility.” The Divert Decision There are two, almost primal, motiva- tions tugging at us when faced with a divert decision. As mission-oriented pilots, we want to press on to the des- tination. This isn’t “get-home-itis,” it is mission accomplishment. But we are also highly trained to think in terms of action-reaction scenarios. “In case of ____, I will do ____.” Both instincts serve us well, until they don’t. In the case of a cabin fire, a struc- tural failure or any scenario where the ability to fly the airplane is in doubt, an immediate action may be necessary and the divert decision becomes easy. But for most situations, the right an- swer could be to take a breath and con- sider your options. It’s just like we used to say back in the days when bad things happened in the air almost routinely: Question: “What’s the first thing you should do in the case of an inflight emergency, and when should you do it? Answer: “You should do nothing, and you should do that immediately.” BCA Piloting 12 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA A North Atlantic plotting chart. JAMES ALBRIGHT Thank you, Hertz, for giving cancer patients a lift. Phillips 66® and the Phillips 66® Wings Logo are registered trademarks owned by Phillips 66 Company. ©2023 Phillips 66 Company. All rights reserved. Congratulations to Hertz and their entire team on being a 2023 Corporate Angel Award recipient. The award recognizes organizations for going above and beyond to support Corporate Angel Network’s (CAN) mission of bringing cancer patients closer to their cure. For over 25 years, Hertz has partnered with CAN to help cancer patients access the best treatment centers in the country by arranging free travel on corporate aircraft. CAN and the presenting sponsors are proud to honor Hertz for their commitment to filling seats with hope. Learn more about CAN: corpangelnetwork.org Presenting sponsors: CORPOR ATE ANGEL AWARD Stagflation, that ugly nightmare of the late 1970s, when the trio of persistent inflation, substantial unemployment and stagnant economic growth trapped consumers in a tailspin, is showing signs of reemerging four decades later, says Ronald Epstein, Bank of America’s senior equity analyst for aerospace. He adds that it won’t be the near-fatal disease it was when groovy tie-dyed shirts and plaid bell-bottoms were all the rage, but potentially it will slow and weaken demand for business aircraft, particularly at the entry level. “Things were slowing down gradually until two weeks ago [early March 2023],” notes Epstein. Then, the collapse of Sili- con Valley Bank and jitters at First Republic Bank, plus the implosion of Credit Suisse, rocked capital markets. They took a full haircut when Credit Suisse grabbed for a life preserver from the Swiss government to avoid drowning. Investors in, as well as depositors at, several U.S. regional banks shuddered. Those events are clouding the broader economic outlook. “People are becoming more risk-averse. They’re cashing out their holdings. Money market funds are reaching all-time highs,” notes Epstein. In other words, investors are keeping their powder dry and not taking risks. “The lower down you go on the food chain, the less the demand.” Upsets in the economy likely will hurt OEMs like Cirrus, Piper and Textron more than Bombardier, Dassault and Gulfstream. Raising interest rates, even in quarter-point increments, risks quenching, rather than just cooling, economic growth because of systemic inflation. “I have no crystal ball, but I can tell you that inflation can kill the economy. It’s the silent knife in your side,” says Marc Foulkrod, CEO of Avjet Global aircraft sales and a 40-year industry veteran. Used bizjet aircraft inventories are building and the gap is narrowing between asking and selling prices in the pre-owned market. Foulkrod cautions against speculating in the business jet market, as in betting that you’ll be able to buy an aircraft for $16-million and flip it for $18-20-million. “Buy the airplane if you need the transportation,” he adds. Brant Dahlfors, co-founder of the Jet Transactions broker- age with Mark Bloomer, has another take on the current state of the pre-owned market. “Sure, it’s slowed a little bit and inventories are three times what they were three years ago. But they’re still below 5% of all aircraft. Prices have flattened. Asking prices have decreased 5% to 10%, putting them more in line with selling prices. A lot of buyers have been rewarded for having waited until now.” 14 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA BY FRED GEORGE Strong Outlook, with Some Hurdles Purchase Planning Handbook The market outlook is still rosy but . . . “There are no panic sales. A lot of people are taking advan- tage of the market by trading up. We’ve signed four new let- ters of intent in the last month. And OEMs remain bullish on harder [new-aircraft] prices,” Dahlfors notes. Sheila Kahyaoglu, equity analyst at Jefferies Research Services, is even more bullish on the pre-owned market than Dahlfors. Her March 19, 2023 newsletter says that while used aircraft inventories are up 53% year-over-year, only 3.5% of the fleet is on the market, significantly below the 5.7% five- year average. And prices for aircraft 7-years-old or younger are up 22%. Moreover, she notes that business jet operations are up 15% from 2019, including a 30% increase in private flights and a 21% boost in fractional and charter operations. Top performers in the jet card, fractional and charter sector include NetJets, FlexJet and Kinston, North Carolina-based flyExclusive. But overall activity levels are 5% lower than a year earlier, and corporate flight department activity remains almost flat. Even so, business jet operations were higher in both 2021 and 2022 than they were in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic virtually closed down international flights. Barring a recession more severe than in 2008, deliveries of new business jets will remain robust, says Rolland Vincent, the veteran market analyst. The Big Five—Bombardier, Dassault, Embraer, Gulfstream and Textron Aviation—racked up a record $49 billion backlog in 2022, a 27% increase over 2021. Their book-to-bill ratios, the number of orders versus number of deliveries, average 1.3:1 to 1.6:1, and provide 2+ year backlogs, Vincent notes. Vincent predicts 750 deliveries in 2023, up 6% from 2022. He also foresees 800 deliveries in 2024. Delivery rates in 2026 should accelerate, climbing to about 950 shipments in the second half of his ten-year forecast period. This will reduce backlogs of some current-production aircraft. But, the arrival of new aircraft, such as the swift Gulfstream G400, roomy Falcon 6X, four-section cabin G700 and top-of-the-class Falcon 10X will help spur a new round of orders and thus sustain long-term demand. Evolution also continues in the piston-engine segment, although Vincent and Epstein don’t track that end of the market. For 2023, Piper is dropping the PA-34-220T Seneca V from its model line-up, leaving the PA-44-180 Seminole trainer as its only multi-engine aircraft. Piper dropped the PA-28R- 201 Arrow in 2022, ceding the four-seat high-performance single-engine market to Cirrus and Textron Aviation. Prices for some piston-engine aircraft generally have risen 5-6% over 2022, but Cirrus hiked the SR20 price by 10%. Textron, in contrast, is holding fast on its $999,000 asking price for the Beechcraft Bonanza G36. Single-engine turboprop sales remain strong, with Daher delivering 56 TBM 960, 16 Kodiak 100 utility aircraft and its first $3.5-million Kodiak 900, a faster, longer and more power- ful variant of the Kodiak 100. Piper delivered 41 M600 aircraft in 2022, bolstering a $226,000 price hike for 2023. Sales of the M500, essentially a rebadged Meridian, remain lackluster. Epic remains focused on poaching sales from Daher with its all-composite 300+ KTAS E1000 GX, a direct competitor to the TBM 910/960. The Bend, Oregon-based company also is hiking prices by $260,000, closing the gap between the E1000 GX and TBM 910 to $90,000. Pilatus delivered 80 PC-12 NGX aircraft in 2022 and pre- dicts it will deliver the 2,000th PC-12 in 2023. It’s celebrating by hiking prices by 5.5%, so a new PC-12 NGX will cost more than $6 million this year. Textron Aviation still is forecast- ing certification and first customer deliveries for the Beech Denali, a direct competitor for the PC-12 NGX, in late 2024. Ongoing development woes with Denali’s GE Catalyst turbo- prop engine continue to delay the program. Notably, Textron has reduced 2023 prices for both the Caravan and Grand Caravan EX to stimulate sales. Twin turboprops remain a strong suit for Textron, as the venerable Beech King Air B200 and B300 series soldier on with steady sales. Deliveries of freighter versions of the ver- satile Cessna CE-408 SkyCourier began in May 2022 and are expected to ramp up in 2023. The SkyCourier Freighter can tote three LD3 cargo containers in its 884-ft. 3 cabin, making an ideal fit for launch partner Fedex, which has 50 orders and 50 options for the aircraft. There continues to be room for growth in the single-engine turbofan segment, a niche solely owned by the Cirrus SF50 at AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 15 TEXTRON Textron is holding firm on the $999,000 asking price for the Beechcraft Bonanza G36. 16 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA Purchase Planning Handbook present. Stratos Aircraft of Redmond, Oregon has intentions of developing a 1,600-nm range, 41,000-ft. cruise, 400+ kt., step-up single-engine jet with better fuel efficiency than current single-engine turboprops, but chronic underfunding continues to hobble development work. The FAR/CS 23 light-jet segment remains a strong segment for Textron as deliveries of Citation M2, CJ3+ and CJ4 Gen2 remain robust. New entrants, however, are challenging the old guard. Embraer’s EMB-505 Phenom 300 retains its posi- tion as the best-selling light jet of the last decade, racking up 59 deliveries in 2022. Pilatus anticipates rolling out its 200th PC-24 this year, but industry analysts say production is capped at 40- 45 units per year because of supply chain bottlenecks. In other news, many industry observers still are wait- ing for Embraer to announce a successor to the EMB-500 Phenom 100. For now, Embraer is concentrating its efforts upmarket with its Praetor 500 and 600 super-midsize jets, plus its second-generation regional jets. The industry still waits for Textron to announce a successor to the Citation XLS+, perhaps a large-fuselage variant of the CJs. Those light jets share their fuselage cross-sections with the original Cessna Fanjet 500 announced in October 1968. The average American is much larger than a half-century ago, so bigger would be better inside the cabin. Vincent believes Honda Aircraft will announce the launch of its HondaJet 2600 in the next several months, a super-light jet with a cabin larger than the now-discontinued Learjet 75, but with 30% more range, higher usable cruising altitudes and a considerably quieter cabin environment. Super-midsize aircraft continue to be hot sellers, as Bombardier, Embraer, Gulfstream and Textron collectively delivered 166 units. “Every OEM has its own niche,” Vincent says. Top honors go to the Citation Latitude, with 42 deliver- ies in 2022. Its blend of runway performance, cabin comfort and $20-million price tag make it a winner. Bombardier’s Challenger 350/3500 came in second, with 38 deliveries. Challenger 3500 carries on as Bombardier’s only super-mid in 2023. It’s an airplane essentially identical to Challenger 350, but having a plusher interior and lower cabin sound levels. The Big Three—Bombardier, Dassault and Gulfstream— continue to control the large-cabin-class segment. Gulfstream maintains its unassailable first-place position, logging $6.6 billion in revenue with 120 deliveries. At the end of 2022, its backlog stood at $19 billion, 20% higher than at the end of 2021. Gulfstream’s order book now totals nearly almost as much as Bombardier and Dassault combined for 2022. Gulfstream’s financial strength is enabling it to refresh its model line more aggressively than either Bombardier or Dassault. This is especially evident in the 4,000-mi.-class large-cabin entry point. Speed sells, and slower competitors are at a potential disadvantage. Gulfstream’s 4,200-nm, Mach 0.85 GVII-G400 arrives in just over two years. The 4,000-nm Bombardier Challenger 650 and Dassault Falcon 2000LXS clearly are in its sights. The G400 will have a larger Embraer’s Phenom 300 retains its position as the best-selling light jet. EMBRAER cabin than either competitor, a 50-60-kt. speed advantage on the longest missions, higher cruising altitudes, lower cabin altitudes and more advanced technologies, including fly-by- wire flight controls. It’s also the only entry-level large-cabin aircraft to offer an optional forward lavatory in addition to the standard aft lav. Brant Dahlfors of Jet Transactions offers counterpoints in defense of the Challenger 650 and Falcon 2000LXS. He notes that while Challenger 650 is the sixth iteration of the original 1980 Challenger 600, it has earned considerable operator loy- alty. Similarly, the Falcon 2000LXS has been refreshed four times since it was first certified in 1995 and Dassault is tops in the industry for brand allegiance. Long order backlogs will slow migration to the G400. In addition, Bombardier likely will offer deep discounts on the Challenger 650 to spur sales, if the G400 becomes a threat. “G400 will kill Challenger 650,” opines Epstein. But “G400 also is late to the game. People are looking for solutions . . . now,” counters Foulkrod. Older Challenger operators continue to trade up to the Challenger 650, says Dahlfors, because they’re comfortable with its capabilities and its support requirements. Dassault is moving away from entry-level, large-cabin models with its commodious 5,500-nm-range, Falcon 6X, due to enter service in 2023 and topline Falcon 10X flagship slated for 2025 deliveries. Falcon 6X offers the largest cabin cross-section of any current-production large-cabin aircraft outside of jetliner derivatives, exceptionally low cabin sound levels, unparalleled low-speed agility and advanced safety technologies. Long-range cruise speed is Mach 0.80. Push it up to Mach 0.85 and range drops to 5,100 nm. The Falcon 6X competes head-to-head with Bombardier Global 5500 and Gulfstream G500. Bombardier only delivered 8 Global 5500s in 2022, preferring to step up to the Global 6500. Gulfstream, in contrast, delivered 23 G500 jets, in large part due to its blend of speed, superior fuel efficiency, high cruise altitudes, quiet cabin and the lowest cabin altitude in its class. Gulfstream’s 6,600-nm-range G600, its replacement for the G550, continues to sell against Bombardier’s Global 6500. As with the G500, it offers an unmatched combination of speed, fuel efficiency and cabin comfort. Fuel-efficiency issues continue to dog the Global 5500 and 6500, as the basic designs remain rooted in 1990s-era Global Express technology. Newer designs from Dassault, such as the Falcon 7X and 8X, and Gulfstream’s G500 and G600, are far more economical to operate. Savannah also is well-positioned with its 6,900-nm-range G650 and 7,400-nm-range G650ER models. The 500th G650/ G650ER should be delivered in 2023, just as the first 8,000+ nm G800 enters service. The G800 is an enhanced version of the G650 with an improved wing, more powerful and fuel- efficient engines, and new Symmetry flight deck adapted from the G400/G500/G600 series. Foulkrod expects the G800 to have considerably more range than Gulfstream cur- rently predicts—more than any other purpose-built business aircraft. The G800 eventually may replace the G650 in Gulf- stream’s product line, but for now the G650/G650ER continue to sell well, especially with their lower prices. Bombardier reset expectations for large-cabin aircraft in 2018 when its 7,700-nm-range, four-section cabin Global 7500 entered service. It’s the biggest, heaviest and roomi- est purpose-built business aircraft in current production, proving quite popular with ultra-high net worth individuals seeking the ultimate air yachts. Bombardier makes no pre- tense about Global 7500’s being designed primarily for public companies whose shareholders increasingly scrutinize the use of corporate aircraft. The Global 7500 triggered strong responses, first from Gulfstream, then Dassault. Gulfstream’s own four-section cabin jet, the G700, is due for deliveries in 2023. It features enhanced, higher bypass-ratio Rolls-Royce Pearl 700 engines [aka BR700- 730B2-14 turbofans], improved wing aerodynamics and the Symmetry flight deck carried over from the G-VII G400/G500/ G600 series. Gulfstream advertises a 7,500-nm maximum range, but Foulkrod believes it will be closer to 8,000 nm. Dassault was late to this party when it announced the 7,500-nm-range, four-section cabin Falcon 10X in mid-2021, so it needed a distinctive selling advantage: this would be the biggest, purpose-built business jet yet announced. “It’s a totally different creature,” says Epstein, who toured the Falcon 10X cabin mock-up at NBAA last year. “It reminds me of the first time I sat in a Boeing 787.” Falcon 10X represents a radical departure for Dassault from earlier Falcon Jet designs. It’s designed from the outset to cruise as fast as the best from Bombardier and Gulfstream. Its cabin is nearly 8 in. wider and 2 in. taller than any purpose- built business jet in production, plus it will have the largest window area. Dassault is crafting the first composite wing for a large-cabin business aircraft, borrowing extensively from its military aircraft designs. Similar to its Mach 2-class Rafale, Falcon 10X will have a single thrust lever for both engines, automatic loss-of-control recovery system, and a HUD that will function as its pri- mary flight display. Dahlfors notes that Falcons have always appealed to buyers with strong engineering interests. The Falcon 10X capitalizes on that strength to the maximum. The model is on track for late-2025 deliveries. Vincent concedes that the Falcon 10X will cost Bombardier some Global 7500 sales. But the Gulfstream G700 “will hold its own” against Falcon 10X because of its performance advantage, fuel efficiency and brand loyalty. Gulfstream thus retains its gold medal position, with Dassault in line to take silver and Bombardier winning the bronze. One reason for this ranking is product support. Bombardier is still late in beefing up its aftermarket business. Support stimulates sales, as demonstrated by both Dassault and Gulfstream. Even so, Gulfstream is hedging its bets by holding to its 2022 pricing, while Bombardier and Dassault have bumped up retail prices for 2023. The largest purpose-built business aircraft from Canada, France and the U.S., however, remain too small to meet the needs of some VIP/head-of-state air wings, air charter opera- tors and a few ultra-high net worth individuals. These buyers are willing to spend $80-$200 million, or more, on highly mod- ified jetliners, customized with bespoke cabins, long-range fuel tanks and elaborate communications systems. Comlux, in AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 17 18 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA Indianapolis, for instance, recently delivered its first ACJ220 to Dubai-based Five, a luxury hotel group, which will use the aircraft to fly its most elite guests between their homes and its hotel properties. The $90-million ACJ220 airborne penthouse completed for Five has 786 ft. 2 of floor space, accommodating 16 travel- ers in six seating sections, including an 8-place dining area, private stateroom with full king-size bed, en-suite bath with shower and galley worthy of a three-star Michelin restaurant. Comlux now has a second ACJ220 in the works. Need more room? Airbus Corporate Jets offers the $115-million ACJ320neo with up to 6,000 nm of range and the slightly smaller $105-million ACJ319neo that can fly 6,750 nm, as shown in this year’s Purchase Planning Handbook. The ultimate French flying palace is the ACJ350, a veritable airborne Versailles with more than 3,300 ft. 2 of floor space and range up to 11,000 nm. Boeing Business Jets slowly is rebuilding its biz-liner order book now that the 737 MAX is back in production after being grounded for two years due to MCAS malfunctions. Boeing Business Jets delivered a single 737-8 MAX BBJ and another 787-9 MAX BBJ in 2022. (The certification of Boeing 737-7 MAX continues to be postponed in the aftermath of the MCAS debacle.) When the BBJ enters service, it should offer a slight range advantage over the Airbus ACJ319neo due to its lower empty weight, plus it’s priced $6 million less, according to our estimates. While the business aircraft industry is propelled upward by record order backlogs, it faces tough challenges from increasingly vocal environmental activists who point to the disproportionate carbon footprint of private aircraft. While private jets account for just 0.2% of carbon emissions, they are a favorite target of activists because their carbon foot- print per passenger is several times larger than for commer- cial airliners. The aviation community is embracing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) as the best near-term solution for reducing its carbon footprint. But the transition from fossil fuel to SAF is moving forward at a “glacial pace,” says Vincent. SAF production tripled to 79 million gal. in 2022, according to the International Air Transport Association. But annual jet fuel consumption now exceeds 27 billion gal., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, so fossil fuel still accounts for 99.99% of the total. Shortages of pilot training slots at Part 142 simulator train- ing centers pose another challenge for business aircraft oper- ators. OEMs have reserved all but a few seats for new-aircraft customers, plus some of their own used-aircraft customers. Many business aircraft operators are feeling the pinch. Finally, ESG [Environmental, Social and Governance] advocates will continue to pressure public companies to recognize “stakeholder capitalism” and to promote the value of “non-financial performance.” For many, this means corpo- rate aircraft increasingly will become targets for activists, not only for their perceived excessive carbon footprint, but because they’re used primarily by top management rather than rank-and-file employees. Several studies conducted by NBAA indicate that companies that use business aircraft outperform non-users, at least financially. But such statistics are discounted by activists who promote “non-financial per- formance” as an important goal. For 2023, public companies that operate business aircraft thus face more potential challenges than at any time in the past. Privately owned businesses and ultra-high net worth individuals feel much less heat from critics, and they’re much less susceptible to potential economic upheaval caused by a new round of stagflation. So for now, the combination of record order backlogs and a shift in marketing focus away from public corporations and toward private jet buyers is sustaining the strength of the business jet industry. BCA Dassault’s Falcon 6X is scheduled to enter service this year. DASSAULT CastleCookeAviation.com No stop x No stop Fuel  Ground Handling  Catering  Hangar Storage  Customs PHNL - Honolulu, HI KVNY - Van Nuys, CA 818-988-8385 808-548-2948 Visit us at EBACE 2023 in Booth N72! 20 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA For an aircraft to be listed in the Purchase Planning Handbook, a production-conforming article must have flown by June 1 of this year. The dimensions, weights and per- formance characteristics of each model listed are representative of the current- production aircraft being built or for which a type certificate application has been filed. The Basic Operating Weights are representative of actual production turboprop and turbofan air- craft delivered to retail customers, or manufacturers’ estimates for aircraft that have yet to enter service. The take- off field length distances are based on Maximum Take- off Weight unless oth- erwise indicated in the tables. Please note that “all data prelimi- nary” in the remarks section indicates that actual aircraft weight, dimension and performance numbers may vary considerably after the model is cer- tified and delivery of completed air- craft begins. Manufacturer, Model and Type Designation There are three rows at the top of each column for a specific aircraft: The man- ufacturer’s name, abbreviated in some cases; the commercial model name; and the type certificate data sheet model designation. BCA Equipped Price Price estimates are first-quarter, cur- rent-year dollars for the next avail- able delivery. Some aircraft have long lead times, thus the actual price for future- year deliveries will be higher than our published price. Also note that manufacturers may adjust prices with- out notification. ▶ Piston-powered aircraft—Computed retail price with at least the level of equipment specified in the “BCA Required Equipment List.” ▶ Turbine-powered aircraft—Average price of ten of the last 12 commercial deliveries, if available. The aircraft serial numbers aren’t necessarily con- secutive because of variations in com- pletion time and because some aircraft may be configured for non-commercial, special missions. Characteristics ▶ Seating Capacity: Crew + Typical Executive Seating/Maximum Seating by certification—For example, 2 + 8/19 indicates that the aircraft requires two pilots, there are eight seats in the typical executive configuration and the aircraft is certified for up 19 passenger seats. A four-place single-engine air- craft is shown as 1 + 3/3, indicating that one pilot is required and there are three other seats available for passengers. We require two pilots for all FAR Part 25 transport-category certified turbo- fan airplanes. A single pilot is required for all FAR Part 23 normal catego- ryaircraft, including Level 4 turbine airplanes up to 19 occupants/19,000 lb. certified maximum takeoff weight, except where otherwise noted. Four crewmembers are specified for Ultra- Long-Range (ULR) aircraft—three pilots and one flight attendant. Each occupant of a turbine-powered aircraft is assumed to weigh 200 lb., thus allowing for stowed luggage and carry-on items. In the case of piston- engine airplanes, we assume each occupant weighs 170 lb. There is no 30-lb. luggage allowance for piston- engine airplanes. ▶ Wing Loading—MTOW divided by total wing area How to Use the Airplane Charts Purchase Planning Handbook PIERRE ALBOUY/AFP/GETTY IMAGES AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 21 takeoff-rated thrust at a much higher tha n sta nda rd a mbient tempera- ture), typically provide substantially improved high-density altitude take- off and climb, and high-altitude cruise performance. ▶ Inspection Inter val is the longest scheduled hourly major maintenance interval for the engine, either “t” for TBO or “c” for compressor-zone inspec- tion. OC is shown only for engines that have “on- condition” repair or replace parts maintenance. Weights (lb.) Weight categories are listed as appro- priate to each class of aircraft. ▶ Max Ramp—Maximum ramp weight for taxi. ▶ Ma x Take of f—Ma x imum ta keoff weight as determined by structural limits. ▶ Ma x Landing—Maximum landing weight as determined by structural limits. ▶ Z e r o - F u e l — M a x i mu m z ero -f uel weight (MZFW), shown by “c,” indicat- ing the certified MZFW, or “b,” a BCA- computed weight based on MTOW minus the weight of fuel required to fly 1.5 hr. at high-speed cruise. Max ramp, max takeoff and max landing weights may be the same for light aircraft that may only have a cer- tified Max Takeoff weight. ▶ EOW/BOW—Empty Operating Weight is shown for piston-powered aircraft. Basic Operating Weight, which essen- tially is EOW plus required flight crew, is shown for turbine-powered air- planes. EOW is based on the factory standard weight, plus items specified in the BCA Required Equipment List, less fuel and oil. BOW, in contrast, is based on the average EOW weight of the last ten commercial deliveries, plus 200 lb. for each required crew member. We require four 200-lb. crewmembers, three flight crew and one cabin atten- dant, for ultra-long range aircraft. to the aft-most bulkhead of the cabin pressure vessel. The aft-most point of the gross inte- rior length is defined by the rear side of a baggage compartment that is acces- sible to passengers in flight or the aft pressure bulkhead. The overall length is reduced by the length of any perma- nent mounted system or structure that is installed in the fuselage ahead of the aft bulkhead. Interior height is measured at the center of the cross-section. It may be based on an aisle that is dropped sev- eral inches below the main cabin floor that supports the passenger seats. Some aircraft have dropped aisles of varying depths, resulting in less avail- able interior height in certain sections of the cabin, such as the floor sections below the passenger seats. Two width dimensions are shown for multi-engine turbine airplanes—one at the widest part of the cabin and the other at floor level. The dimensions, however, are not completely indicative of the usable space in a specific aircraft because of individual variances in inte- rior furnishings. Power ▶ Number of engines, if greater than one, and the abbreviated name of the manufacturer: CFMI—CFM Inter- national, Cont—Teledyne Continen- tal, GE, GE Honda, Hon—Honeywell Aerospace, IAE—International Aero Engines, Lyc—Textron Lycoming, PW—Pratt & Whitney, PWC—Pratt & Whitney Canada, RR- Rolls-Royce, Wms Intl—Williams International ▶ Output—Takeoff-rated horsepower for propeller driven aircraft or pounds thrust for turbofan aircraft. If an engine is flat-rated, enabling it to pro- duce takeoff-rated output at a higher than ISA (standard day) ambient temperature, the flat-rating limit is shown as ISA+XX°C. Highly flat-rated engines, (i.e., engines that can produce ▶ Power Loading—MTOW divided by total rated horsepower or total rated thrust ▶ FAR Part 36 Certified Noise Levels—Fly- over noise in A-weighted decibels (dBA) for small and turboprop aircraft. For turbofan-powered aircraft, we provide EPNdB (effective perceived noise lev- els) for lateral, flyover and approach. Dimensions ▶ E xternal Length, Height and Span dimensions are provided for use in determining hangar and/or tie-down space requirements. ▶ Internal Length, Height and Width are based on a completed interior, includ- ing insulation, upholstery, carpet, car- pet padding and fixtures. Note well: These dimensions are not based upon metal-to-metal or composite airframe gross interior measurements, unless noted by the airframe manufacturer. They must reflect the actual net dimen- sions with all soft goods installed. BCA reserves the right to verify interior dimensions with on-site inspections. As shown in the Cabin Interior Dimensions illustration, for small air- craft other than “cabin-class” models, the length is measured from the forward bulkhead ahead of the rudder pedals to the back of the rearmost passenger seat in its normal, upright position. For so-called cabin-class and larger aircraft, we provide the net length of the cabin that may be occupied by pas- sengers. It’s measured from the aft side of the forward cabin divider to an aft point defined by the rear of the cabin floor capable of supporting passenger seats, the rear wall of an aft galley or lavatory, an auxiliary pressure bulk- head or the front wall of the pressur- ized baggage compartment. Some aircraft have the same net and overall interior length because the manufac- turer offers at least one interior con- figuration with the aft-most passenger seat located next to the front wall of the aft luggage compartment. For large aircraft, we show three interior lengths: (1) Main Seating Length, the prime section of the cabin occupied by passengers not includ- ing the galley, full-width lavatory[ies] or internal, inf light accessible bag- gage compartment; (2) Net Interior Length, main seating length plus galley, lavatory[ies] and inflight accessible baggage compartment[s]; and (3) Gross Interior Length, the overall length of the passenger cabin, measured from the aft side of the forward cabin divider 22 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA Purchase Planning Handbook There is no requirement to add in the weight of cabin stores, but some manufacturers choose to include galley stores and passenger supplies as part of the BOW build-up. Life vest, life rafts and appropriate deep-water survival equipment are included in the weight build-up of the 80,000-lb.-plus, ultra- long-range aircraft. ▶ Ma x P ay load —Zero -F uel weight (ZFW)minus EOW or BOW, as appro- priate. For piston-engine airplanes, Max Payload frequently is a computed value because it is based on the BCA (“b”) computed maximum ZFW. ▶ Max Fuel—Usable fuel weight based on 6.0 lb. per U.S. gallon for avgas or 6.7 lb. per U.S. gallon for jet fuel. Fuel capacity includes optional, auxiliary and long-range tanks, unless oth- erwise noted. ▶ Available Payload With Max Fuel — Max Ramp weight minus the tanks-full weight, not to exceed Zero-Fuel weight minus EOW or BOW. ▶ Available Fuel With Max Payload—Max Ramp weight minus Zero-Fuel weight, not to exceed maximum fuel capacity. Limits BCA lists V speeds and other limits as appropriate to the class of aircraft. These are the abbreviations used on the charts: ▶ Vne—Never-exceed speed (red line for piston-engine airplanes) ▶ Vno—Normal operating speed (top of the green arc for piston-engine air- planes) ▶ Vmo —Maximum operating speed (red line for turbine-powered air- planes) ▶ Mmo —Maximum operating Mach number (red line turbofan-powered airplanes and a few turboprop air- planes) ▶ FL/Vmo—Transition altitude at which Vmo equals Mmo (large turboprop and turbofan aircraft) ▶ Va—Maneuvering speed (except for certain large turboprop and all turbo- fan aircraft) ▶ Vd e c —Accelerate/stop decision speed (multi-engine piston and light multi-engine turboprop airplanes) ▶ Vmca—Minimum control airspeed while airborne (multi-engine piston and light multi-engine turboprop air- planes) ▶ Vso—Maximum stalling speed, land- i ng con f ig u ration (si ngle - eng i ne airplanes) ▶ Vx—Best angle-of-climb speed (sin- gle-engine airplanes) ▶ Vxse—Best angle-of-climb speed, one-engine inoperative (multi-engine piston and multi-engine turboprop air- planes under 12,500 lb.) ▶ Vy—Best rate-of-climb speed (single- engine airplanes) ▶ Vyse—Best rate-of-climb speed, one- engine inoperative (multi-engine piston and multi-engine turboprop airplanes under 12,500 lb.) ▶ V2—Takeoff safety speed (large tur- boprops and turbofan airplanes) ▶ Vref—Reference landing approach speed (large turboprops and turbo- fan airplanes, four passengers, NBAA IFR reserves; eight passengers for ULR aircraft) ▶ PSI—Cabin-pressure differential (all pressurized airplanes) Airport Performance Approved Flight Manual takeoff run- way performance is shown for sea- level, standard day and for 5,000-ft. elevation/25C (77F) day, density alti- tude. All-engine takeoff distance (TO) is shown for single- and multi-engine piston, and turboprop airplanes with an MTOW of less than 12,500 lb. Take- off distances and speeds assume Maxi- mum Takeoff Weight, unless otherwise noted, such as when takeoff weight is limited because of density altitude. ▶ Accelerate/Stop distance (A/S) is shown for small multi-engine piston and small turboprop airplanes. Take- off field length (TOFL), the greater of the one-engine inoperative (OEI) takeoff distance or the accelerate/ stop distance, is shown for FAR Part 23 Commuter Category/Level 4 and FAR Part 25 aircraft. If the acceler- ate/stop and accelerate/stop distances are equal, the TOFL is the balanced field length. ▶ Landing Distance (LD) is shown for FAR Part 23 Commuter Category/ Level 4 and FAR Part 25 Transport Category aircraft. The landing weight is EOW plus 3 passengers or BOW plus 4 passengers, as applicable. Fuel reserves on landing are based on 100- nm NBAA IFR reserves for Part 23 air- craft and 200-nm NBAA IFR reserves for FAR 25 aircraft. We assume that 80,000+ lb. ULR aircraft will have eight passengers on board. ▶ V2 and Vref speeds are useful for ref- erence when comparing the TOFL and LD numbers because they provide an indication of potential minimum-length runway performance when low RCR (runway condition report) or runway gradient is a factor. BCA lists two additional numbers for large turboprop- and turbofan- powered aircraft. First, we published the Mission Weight, which is the lower of: (1) the actual takeoff weight with four passengers (eight passengers for ULR aircraft) and full fuel when departing from a 5,000-ft./25C air- port, or (2) the maximum allowable takeoff weight when departing with the same passenger load and at the same density altitude. For two-engine aircraft, the mission weight when departing from a 5,000-ft., ISA+20C airport may be less than the MTOW because of FAR Part 25 second- segment, one-engine-inoperative, climb performance requirements. Aircraft with highly flat-rated engines are less likely to have a Mission Weight that is performance-limited when departing from hot-and-high airports. We publish the NBAA IFR range for the 5,000-ft. elevation, ISA+20C depar- ture, assuming a transition into stan- dard-day, ISA flight conditions after takeoff. For purposes of computing NBAA IFR range, the aircraft is flown at the long-range cruise speed shown in the “Cruise” block or at the same speed as shown in the “Range” block. Mis- sions assume four passengers and full tanks, unless otherwise noted. Thus, some aircraft, not weight-limited when departing such hot-and-high airports, actually have longer ranges than when departing sea-level facilities because they start their climbs 5,000 ft. higher on their way up to initial cruise altitude. Climb The all-engine time-to-climb provides an indication of overall climb perfor- mance, especially if the aircraft has an all-engine service ceiling well above our sample top-of-climb altitudes. We provide the all-engine time-to-climb to one of three specific altitudes, based on type of aircraft departing at MTOW from a sea-level, standard-day airport: (1) FL 100 (10,000 ft.) for normally aspi- rated, single- and multi-engine piston aircraft, plus pressurized single-engine piston aircraft and unpressurized tur- boprop aircraft; (2) FL 250 for pressur- ized single- and multi-engine turboprop aircraft; or (3) FL 370 for turbofan- powered aircraft. The data is published as time-to-climb in minutes/climb alti- tude. For example, if a non-pressurized twin-engine piston aircraft can depart from a sea-level airport at MTOW and climb to 10,000 ft. in 8 min., the time to climb is expressed as 8/FL 100. AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 23 3/ FAR Part 23 aircraft are limited to a maximum cruise altitude at which cabin altitude can be maintained at 10,000 ft. or below. For FAR Part 23 Category C and FAR Part 25 aircraft, the maximum cabin altitude for com- puting cruise performance is 8,000 ft. To conserve space, we use Flight Levels (FL) for all cruise altitudes, which is appropriate considering that we assume standard-day ambi- ent temperature and pressure condi- tions. Cruise performance is subject to BCA’s verification. Range BCA shows various paper missions for each aircraft that illustrate range- versus-payload tradeoffs, runway and cruise performance, plus fuel effi- ciency. Similar to the cruise profile cal- culations, limits the maximum altitude to 12,000 ft. for normally aspirated, non-pressurized CAR3/FAR Part 23 aircraft, 25,000 ft. for non-pressurized turbocharged or turbine airplanes with supplemental oxygen, 10,000-ft. cabin altitude for pressurized CAR 3/FAR Part 23 airplanes and 8,000-ft. cabin altitude for FAR Part 23 Category C or FAR Part 25 aircraft. ▶ Seats-Full Range (Single-Engine Piston Airplanes)—Based on typical executive configuration with all seats filled with 170-lb. occupants, with maximum avail- able fuel less 45-min. IFR fuel reserves. We use the lower of seats full or maxi- mum payload. ▶ Tanks-Full Range (Single-Engine Piston Airplanes)—Based on one 170-lb. pilot, Ultra-long-range aircraft carry eight passengers for purposes of computing cruise performance. Assume 170 lb. for each occupant of a piston-engine air- plane and 200 lb. for each occupant of a turbine-powered aircraft. ▶ Long Range—True airspeed (TAS), fuel flow in lb./hour, (FL) flight-level cruise altitude and specific range for long-range cruise by the manufacturer. ▶ Recommended (Piston-Engine Air- planes) True Air Speed (TAS), fuel flow in lb./hour, (FL) flight-level cruise altitude and specific range for normal cruise performance specified by the manufacturer. ▶ High Speed—True Air Speed (TAS), fuel flow in lb./hour, (FL) flight-level cruise altitude and specific range for shorter-range, high-speed perfor- mance specified by the manufacturer. Speed, fuel flow, specific range and altitude in each category are based on one mid-weight cruise point and these data reflect standard-day conditions. They are not an average for the overall mission and they are not representa- tive of the above standard-day temper- atures at cruise altitudes commonly encountered in everyday operations. BCA imposes a 12,000-ft. maximum cabin altitude requirement on CAR3/ FAR Part 23 normally aspirated air- craft. Non-pressurized, turbine-pow- ered or turbocharged piston-engine airplanes are limited to FL 250, pro- viding they are fitted with supplemen- tal oxygen systems having sufficient capacity for all occupants for the dura- tion of the mission. Pressurized CAR We also publish the initial all-engine climb feet-per-nautical mile gradient, plus initial engine-out climb rate and gradient, for single- and multi-engine piston and turboprops with MTOWs of 12,500 lb. or less. The one-engine-inoperative (OEI) climb rate for multi-engine aircraft at MTOW is derived from the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). OEI climb rate and gradient is based on landing gear retracted and wing flaps in the take- off configuration used to compute the published takeoff distance. The climb gradient for such aircraft is obtained by dividing the product of the climb rate (fpm) in the Airplane Flight Manual times 60 by the Vy or Vyse climb speed, as appropriate. The OEI climb gradients we show for FAR Part 23 Level 4 and FAR Part 25 Transport Category aircraft are the second-segment net climb per- formance numbers published in the AFMs. Please note: the AFM net sec- ond-segment climb performance num- bers are adjusted downward by 0.8% to compensate for variations in pilot technique and ambient conditions. The OEI climb gradient is computed at the same flap configuration used to calculate the takeoff field length. Ceilings (ft.) ▶ Maximum Certificated Altitude—Maxi- mum allowable operating altitude deter- mined by airworthiness authorities. ▶ All-Engine Service Ceiling—Maximum altitude at which at least a 100-fpm rate of climb can be attained, assuming the aircraft departed a sea-level, standard- day airport at MTOW and climbed directly to altitude. ▶ OEI (Engine-Out) Service Ceiling—Max- imum altitude at which a 50-fpm rate of climb can be attained, assuming the aircraft departed a sea-level, standard- day airport at MTOW and climbed directly to altitude. ▶ Sea-Level Cabin (SLC) Altitude—Maxi- mum cruise altitude at which a 14.7 psia, sea-level cabin altitude can be maintained in a pressurized airplane. Note: Some aircraft equipped with digital pressurization systems have altitude-proportionate cabin pres- surization systems that limit the sea- level cabin altitude to relatively low cruise altitudes. Cruise Cruise performance is computed using EOW with four occupants or BOW with four passengers and one-half fuel load. 24 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA piston-engine airplanes. If an airplane cannot complete a specific fixed-dis- tance mission with the appropriate pay- load, BCA shows a reduction of payload in the remarks section or marks the fields NP (Not Possible) at our option. Runway performance is obtained from the Approved Airplane Flight Manual. Takeoff distance is listed for single-engine airplanes; accelerate/ stop distance is listed for piston-twins and light turboprops; and takeoff field length, which often corresponds to bal- anced field length, is used for FAR Part 23 Category C and FAR Part 25 large Transport Category aircraft. Flight Time (takeoff-to-touchdown, or weight-off-wheels, time) is shown for turbine airplanes. Some piston engine manufacturers also include taxi time, resulting in a chock-to-chock, Block Time measurement. Fuel Used, though, is the actual block fuel-burn for each type of aircraft, but it does not include fuel reserves. The cruise alti- tude shown is that which is specified by the manufacturer for fixed-distance mission. ▶ 200 nm—(Piston-engine airplanes) ▶ 500 nm—(Piston-engine airplanes) ▶ 300 nm—(Turbine-engine airplanes, except ultra-long-range) ▶ 600 nm—(Turbine-engine airplanes, except ultra-long-range) ▶ 1 , 0 0 0 n m — (A l l t u rbi ne - en g i ne airplanes) ▶ 3,000 nm—(Ultra-long-range tur- bine-engine airplanes) ▶ 6,000 nm—(Ultra-long-range tur- bine-engine airplanes) Remarks In this section, BCA generally includes the base price, if it is available or ap- plicable; the certification basis and year; and any notes about estimations, limitations or qualifications regarding specifications, performance or price. All prices are in 2023 dollars, FOB at a U.S. delivery point, unless otherwise noted. The certification basis includes the regulation under which the airplane was originally type certified, the year in which it was originally certified and, if applicable, subsequent years during which the airplane was re-certified. General The following abbreviations are used throughout the tables: “NA” means not available; “—” indicates the informa- tion is not applicable; and “NP” signi- fies that specific performance is not possible. BCA (Multi-engine Turbine Airplanes)—Based on BOW plus four 200-lb. passengers and the lesser of full fuel or maximum available fuel up to Maximum Ramp Weight. Ultra-long-range aircraft must have eight passengers on board. ▶ Ferry (Multi-engine Turbine Airplanes)— Based on BOW, required crew and full fuel, arriving at destination with NBAA IFR fuel reserves. We allow 2,000-ft.-increment step climbs above the initial cruise altitude to improve specific range performance. The altitude shown in the range sec- tion is the highest cruise altitude for the trip—not the initial cruise or mid- mission altitude. The range profiles are in nautical miles, and the average speed is com- puted by dividing that distance by the total flight time or weight-off-wheels time en route. The Fuel Used or Trip Fuel includes the fuel consumed for start, taxi, takeoff, cruise, descent and landing approach, but not after-landing taxi or reserves. The Specific Range is obtained by dividing the distance flown by the total fuel burn. The Altitude is the highest cruise altitude achieved on the specific mission profile shown. Missions Various paper missions are computed to illustrate the r unway require - ments, speeds, fuel burns and spe- cific range, plus cruise altitudes. The mission ranges are chosen to be rep- resentative for the aircraft category. All fixed-distance missions are flown with four passengers on board, except for ultra-long-range airplanes which have eight passengers on board. The pilot is counted as a passenger on board full fuel less 45-min. IFR fuel reserves. ▶ Maximum Fuel With Available Payload (Single-Engine Turboprops)—Based on BOW, plus full fuel and the maximum available payload up to maximum ramp weight. Range is based on arriv- ing at destination with NBAA IFR fuel reserves, but only a 100-mi. alternate is required. ▶ Ferry (CAR 3/FAR Part 23 Category A and B)—Based on one 170-lb. pilot, maximum fuel less 45-min. IFR fuel reserves. Please note: None of the missions for piston-engine aircraft include fuel for diverting to an alternate. However, sin- gle-engine turboprops are required to have NBAA IFR fuel reserves, but only a 100-mi. alternate is required. N BA A IFR range format cruise profiles, having a 200-mi. alternate, are used for FAR Part 25 Transport Category turbine-powered aircraft. In the case of FAR Part 23 turboprops, including those certified in the Catego- ries B and C, and FAR Part 23 turbo- fan aircraft, only a 100-mi. alternate is needed. The difference in alternate requirements should be kept in mind when comparing range performance of various classes of aircraft. ▶ Available Fuel With Max Payload (Multi- engine Turbine Airplanes)—Based on air- craft loaded to Maximum Zero-Fuel Weight with maximum available fuel up to Maximum Ramp Weight, less NBAA IFR fuel reserves at destination. ▶ Available Payload With Max Fuel (Multi- engine Turbine Airplanes)—Based on BOW plus full fuel and maximum avail- able payload up to Maximum Ramp Weight. Range based on NBAA IFR reserves at destination. ▶ Full/Max Fuel With Four Passengers Purchase Planning Handbook 2 0 2 3 B U S I N E S S A I R P L A N E S SINGLE-ENGINE PISTONS NORMALLY ASPIRATED Manufacturer Cirrus Design Textron Aviation Cirrus Design Textron Aviation Model SR20 Cessna Skylane CE-182T SR22 Beechcraft Bonanza G36 G36 BCA Equipped Price $579,000 $603,000 $772,900 $999,000 Character- istics Seating 1+3/4 1+3/3 1+3/4 1+4/5 Wing Loading 21.7 17.8 23.5 20.2 Power Loading 14.65 13.48 11.61 12.68 Noise (dBA) 83.4 77.7 83.7 TBD External Dimensions (ft.) Length 26.0 29.0 26.0 27.5 Height 8.9 9.3 8.9 8.6 Span 38.3 36.0 38.3 33.5 Internal Dimensions (ft.) Length 8.0 7.2 8.0 12.6 Height 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.2 Width 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Power Engine Lyc IO-390-C3B6 Lyc IO-540-AB1A5 Cont IO-550-N Cont IO-550-B Output (hp) 215 230 310 300 Inspection Interval 2,000t 2,000t 2,000t 1,900t Weights (lb.) Max Ramp 3,160 3,110 3,610 3,860 Max Takeoff 3,150 3,100 3,600 3,805 Max Landing 3,150 2,950 3,600 3,805 Zero Fuel 3,043b 2,986b 3,400c 3,665b EOW 2,122 2,000 2,272 2,605 Max Payload 921 986 1,128 1,060 Useful Load 1,038 1,110 1,338 1,255 Max Baggage 130 200 130 670 Max Fuel 336 522 552 444 Available Payload w/Max Fuel 702 588 786 811 Available Fuel w/Max Payload 117 124 210 195 Limits Vne 201 175 205 203 Vno 164 140 176 165 Va 133 110 140 139 Airport Perfor- mance TO (SL elev./ISA temp.) 2,530 1,514 1,756 1,913 TO (5,000-ft. elev.@25C) 4,305 2,708 3,016 TBD Vso 62 49 64 59 V x 81 65 88 84 V y 88 80 108 100 Climb Time to Climb (min.)/Altitude 20/FL 100 15/FL 100 11/FL 100 TBD/FL 100 Initial Gradient (ft./nm) 540 694 775 TBD Ceiling (ft.) Service 17,500 18,100 17,500 18,500 Cruise Long Range TAS 135 125 160 160 Fuel Flow 53 61 68 71 Altitude FL 080 FL 100 FL 080 80 Specific Range 2.547 2.049 2.353 2.254 Recommended TAS 145 135 171 167 Fuel Flow 61 69 92 86 Altitude FL 080 FL 100 FL 080 80 Specific Range 2.377 1.957 1.859 1.942 High Speed TAS 152 144 180 174 Fuel Flow 71 76 107 93 Altitude FL 080 FL 060 FL 080 FL 080 Specific Range 2.141 1.895 1.682 1.865 Ranges Seats Full Nautical Miles 672 723 1,118 217 Average Speed 135 130 162 153 Fuel Used 275 379 492 115 Specific Range/Altitude 2.444/FL 080 1.908/FL 120 2.272/FL 080 1.887/FL 040 Tanks Full Nautical Miles 672 912 1,118 860 Average Speed 135 131 162 159 Fuel Used 275 471 492 403 Specific Range/Altitude 2.444/FL 080 1.936/FL 120 2.272/FL 080 2.134/FL 080 Missions (4 occupants) 200 nm Runway 1,685 1,249 1,303 1,665 Block Time 1+26 1+37 1+09 1+11 Fuel Used 112 123 127 130 Specific Range/Altitude 1.786/FL 080 1.626/FL 120 1.575/FL 080 1.538/FL 060 500 nm Runway 1,685 1,402 1,519 1,858 Block Time 3+30 3+52 2+49 2+54 Fuel Used 245 269 305 304 Specific Range/Altitude 2.041/FL 080 1.859/120 1.639/FL 080 1.645/FL 060 Remarks Suggested Base Price $579,000 $603,000 $772,900 $999,000 Certification Basis FAR 23, 2000 Includes Garmin Perspective+ avionics. FAR 23, 1996/2001 A23-6 Garmin G1000 NXi with GFC 700 autopilot. FAR 23, 2000 includes Garmin Perspective+ avionics. CAR 3, 1956/69/83/2005 A/C system standard; Garmin G1000 NXi. AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 25 2 0 2 3 B U S I N E S S A I R P L A N E S SINGLE-ENGINE PISTONS TURBOCHARGED Manufacturer Textron Aviation Textron Aviation Cirrus Design Model Turbo Skylane CE-T182T Turbo Stationair HD CE-T206H SR22T BCA Equipped Price $653,000 $835,000 $887,900 Character- istics Seating 1+3/3 1+5/5 1+3/4 Wing Loading 17.8 21.8 23.5 Power Loading 13.19 12.22 11.43 Noise (dBA) 75.4 82.6 80.3 External Dimensions (ft.) Length 29.0 28.3 26.0 Height 9.3 9.3 8.9 Span 36.0 36.0 38.3 Internal Dimensions (ft.) Length 7.2 9.3 8.0 Height 4.0 4.1 4.1 Width 3.5 3.7 4.1 Power Engine Lyc TIO-540-AK1A Lyc TIO-540-AJ1A Cont TSIO-550-K Output (hp) 235 310 315 Inspection Interval 2,000t 2,000t 2,000t Weights (lb.) Max Ramp 3,112 3,806 3,610 Max Takeoff 3,100 3,789 3,600 Max Landing 2,950 3,600 3,600 Zero Fuel 2,953b 3,615b 3,400c EOW 2,114 2,365 2,354 Max Payload 839 1,250 1,046 Useful Load 998 1,441 1,256 Max Baggage 200 180 130 Max Fuel 522 522 552 Available Payload w/Max Fuel 476 919 704 Available Fuel w/Max Payload 159 191 210 Limits Vne 175 182 205 Vno 140 149 176 Va 110 125 140 Airport Perfor- mance TO (SL elev./ISA Temp.) 1,385 1,970 1,517 TO (5,000-ft. elev.@25C) 1,928 2,845 2,268 Vso 50 59 64 V x 64 70 88 V y 84 88 103 Climb Time to Climb (min.)/Altitude 10/FL 100 12/FL 100 7/FL 100 Initial Gradient (ft./nm) 743 724 782 Ceilings (ft.) Certificated 20,000 26,000 25,000 Service 20,000 26,000 25,000 Cruise Long Range TAS 132 137 171 Fuel Flow 62 85 76 Altitude FL 200 FL 240 FL 250 Specific Range 2.129 1.612 2.250 Recommended TAS 152 155 201 Fuel Flow 77 99 98 Altitude FL 200 FL 240 FL 250 Specific Range 1.974 1.574 2.051 High Speed TAS 165 164 213 Fuel Flow 98 116 110 Altitude FL 200 FL 200 FL 250 Specific Range 1.684 1.410 1.936 Ranges Seats Full Nautical Miles 520 465 1,021 Average Speed 134 137 171 Fuel Used 291 358 486 Specific Range/Altitude 1.787/FL 200 1.299/FL 200 2.101/FL 250 Tanks Full Nautical Miles 915 608 1,021 Average Speed 134 138 171 Fuel Used 476 430 486 Specific Range/Altitude 1.922/FL 200 1.414/FL 240 2.101/FL 250 Missions (4 occupants) 200 nm Runway 1,385 1,420 1,405 Block Time 1+24 1+23 1+08 Fuel Used 144 163 197 Specific Range/Altitude 1.389/FL 120 1.227/FL 150 1.015/FL 100 500 nm Runway 1,385 1,626 1,699 Block Time 3+14 3+22 2+28 Fuel Used 319 386 360 Specific Range/Altitude 1.567/FL 200 1.295/FL 240 1.389/FL 180 Remarks Suggested Base Price $653,000 $835,000 $887,900 Certification Basis FAR 23, 2006 Garmin G1000 NXi with GFC700 autopilot standard. FAR 23, 1998 Garmin G1000 NXi with GFC700 autopilot standard. FAR 23, 2010 Includes Garmin Perspective+ avionics. SINGLE-ENGINE PISTONS PRESSURIZED Manufacturer Piper Aircraft Model M350 PA-46-350P BCA Equipped Price $1,695,200 Character- istics Seating 1+4/5 Wing Loading 24.8 Power Loading 12.40 Noise (dBA) 81.0 External Dimensions (ft.) Length 28.9 Height 11.3 Span 43.0 Internal Dimensions (ft.) Length 12.4 Height 3.9 Width 4.2 Power Engine Lyc TIO-540-AE2A Output (hp) 350 Inspection Interval 2,000t Weights (lb.) Max Ramp 4,358 Max Takeoff 4,340 Max Landing 4,123 Zero Fuel 4,123c EOW 3,146 Max Payload 977 Useful Load 1,212 Max Baggage 200 Max Fuel 720 Available Payload w/Max Fuel 492 Available Fuel w/Max Payload 235 Limits Vne 198 Vno 168 Va 133 PsI 5.5 Airport Performance TO (SL elev./ISA temp.) 2,090 TO (5,000-ft. elev.@25C) 2,977 Vso 58 V x 81 V y 110 Climb Time to Climb (min.)/Altitude 8/FL 100 Initial Gradient (ft./nm) 703 Ceilings (ft.) Certificated 25,000 Service 25,000 Sea-Level Cabin 12,300 Cruise Long Range TAS 156 Fuel Flow 66 Altitude FL 250 Specific Range 2.364 Recommended TAS 203 Fuel Flow 108 Altitude FL 250 Specific Range 1.880 High Speed TAS 213 Fuel Flow 120 Altitude FL 250 Specific Range 1.775 Ranges Seats Full Nautical Miles 535 Average Speed 138 Fuel Used 312 Specific Range/Altitude 1.715/FL 120 Tanks Full Nautical Miles 1,343 Average Speed 159 Fuel Used 670 Specific Range/Altitude 2.004/FL 250 Missions (4 occupants) 200 nm Runway 2,090 Block Time 1+06 Fuel Used 167 Specific Range/Altitude 1.198/FL 200 500 nm Runway 2,090 Block Time 2+31 Fuel Used 350 Specific Range/Altitude 1.429/FL 250 Remarks Suggested Base Price $1,382,189 Certification Basis FAR 23, 1983/88 Garmin G1000 NXi with GFC 700 autopilot; pressur- ized and A/C. 26 Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 AviationWeek.com/BCA 2 0 2 3 B U S I N E S S A I R P L A N E S MULTIENGINE PISTONS NORMALLY ASPIRATED Manufacturer Vulcanair SpA Vulcanair SpA Textron Aviation Model P.68C Victor P.68R Beech Baron G58 G58 BCA Equipped Price $1,250,000* $1,500,000* $1,599,000 Character- istics Seating 1+5/6 1+5/6 1+4/5 Wing Loading 22.9 22.7 27.6 Power Loading 11.49 11.37 9.17 Noise (dBA) 74.7 78.8 77.6 External Dimensions (ft.) Length 31.3 31.3 29.8 Height 11.2 11.2 9.8 Span 39.4 39.4 37.8 Internal Dimensions (ft.) Length 10.6 10.6 12.6 Height 3.9 3.9 4.2 Width 3.8 3.8 3.5 Power Engines 2 Lyc IO-360-A1B6 2 Lyc IO-360-A1B6 2 Cont IO-550-C Output (hp each) 200 200 300 Inspection Interval 2,000t 2,000t 1,900t Weights (lb.) Max Ramp 4,630 4,548 5,524 Max Takeoff 4,594 4,548 5,500 Max Landing 4,365 4,321 5,400 Zero Fuel 4,167c 4,374b 5,210b EOW 3,153 3,197 3,965 Max Payload 1,014 1,177 1,245 Useful Load 1,477 1,351 1,559 Max Fuel 1,063 1,063 1,164 Available Payload w/Max Fuel 415 289 395 Available Fuel w/Max Payload 463 174 314 Limits Vne 194 197 223 Vno 154 157 195 Va 132 127 156 Airport Performance TO (SL elev./ISA Temp.) 1,312 1,260 2,345 TO (5,000-ft. elev.@25C) 4,000 4,000 4,144 A/S (SL elev./ISA) 2,150 1,410 3,009 A/S (5,000-ft. elev.@25C) 2,950 2,370 4,335 Vmca 60 60 84 Vdec 70 70 85 V xse 82 82 100 V yse 88 88 101 Climb Time to Climb (min.)/Altitude 12/FL 100 12/FL 100 10/FL 100 Initial Engine-Out Rate (fpm) 217 217 390 Initial All-Engine Gradient (ft./nm) 1,100 920 988 Initial Engine-Out Gradient (ft./nm) 147 147 232 Ceilings (ft.) Certificated — — — All-Engine Service 18,000 20,000 20,688 Engine-Out Service 5,000 5,650 7,284 Cruise Long Range TAS 144 144 185 Fuel Flow 94 94 144 Altitude FL 080 FL 080 FL 080 Specific Range 1.532 1.532 1.285 Recommended TAS 155 155 192 Fuel Flow 108 108 174 Altitude FL 080 FL 080 FL 080 Specific Range 1.435 1.435 1.103 High Speed TAS 162 162 200 Fuel Flow 116 116 193 Altitude FL 080 FL 080 FL 080 Specific Range 1.397 1.397 1.035 Ranges Max Payload Nautical Miles 300 300 250 Average Speed 140 140 174 Trip Fuel 315 315 231 Specific Range/Altitude 0.952/FL 080 0.952/FL 080 1.082/FL 040 Ferry Nautical Miles 1,000 1,000 1,480 Average Speed 145 145 180 Trip Fuel 975 975 1,081 Specific Range/Altitude 1.026/FL 080 1.026/FL 080 1.369/FL 120 Missions (4 occu- pants) 200 nm Runway 1,450 1,450 2,861 Block Time 1+28 1+28 1+02 Fuel Used 140 140 226 Specific Range/Altitude 1.429/FL 080 1.429/FL 080 0.885/FL 060 500 nm Runway 1,500 1,500 2,940 Block Time 3+25 3+25 2+31 Fuel Used 375 375 531 Specific Range/Altitude 1.333/FL 080 1.333/FL 080 0.942/FL 060 Remarks Suggested Base Price $1,176,115 $1,205,000 $1,599,000 Certification Basis FAR 23, 1976/80 Garmin G1000 NXi with GFC700 autopilot. *BCA estimated price. EASA 23, 2009 Garmin G1000 NXi with GFC700 autopilot. *BCA estimated price. CAR 3 1957/69/ 83/2005 A/C system standard; Garmin G1000 NXi; Max payload mission flown with six occupants. MULTIENGINE PISTONS TURBOCHARGED Manufacturer Vulcanair SpA Model P.68C TC BCA Equipped Price $1,550,000* Character- istics Seating 1+5/5 Wing Loading 20.7 Power Loading 10.94 Noise (dBA) 74.7 External Dimensions (ft.) Length 31.3 Height 11.2 Span 39.4 Internal Dimensions (ft.) Length 10.6 Height 3.9 Width 3.8 Power Engines 2 Lyc TIO-360-C1A6D Output (hp each) 210 Inspection Interval 2,000t Weights (lb.) Max Ramp 4,630 Max Takeoff 4,594 Max Landing 4,365 Zero Fuel 4,140b EOW 3,197 Max Payload 943 Useful Load 1,433 Max Fuel 1,062 Available Payload w/Max Fuel 371 Available Fuel w/Max Payload 490 Limits Vne 194 Vno 154 Va 132 Airport Perfor- mance TO (SL elev./ISA temp.) 1,260 TO (5,000-ft. elev.@25C) 2,200 A/S (SL elev./ISA) 1,800 A/S (5,000-ft. elev.@25C) 2,400 Vmca 66 Vdec NA V xse 78 V yse 88 Climb Time to Climb (min.)/Altitude 10/FL 100 Initial Engine-Out Rate (fpm) 240 Initial All-Engine Gradient (ft./nm) 1,400 Initial Engine-Out Gradient (ft./nm) NA Ceilings (ft.) Certificated 20,000 All-Engine Service 20,000 Engine-Out Service 10,000 Cruise Long Range TAS 144 Fuel Flow 104 Altitude FL 080 Specific Range 1.385 Recommended TAS 155 Fuel Flow 125 Altitude FL 080 Specific Range 1.240 High Speed TAS 162 Fuel Flow 150 Altitude FL 080 Specific Range 1.080 Range Ferry Nautical Miles 1,100 Average Speed 145 Trip Fuel 960 Specific Range/Altitude 1.146/FL 080 Missions (4 occupants) 200 nm Runway NA Block Time 1+28 Fuel Used 260 Specific Range/Altitude 0.769/FL 080 500 nm Runway NA Block Time 3+25 Fuel Used 485 Specific Range/Altitude 1.031/FL 080 Remarks Suggested Base Price $1,315,000 Certification Basis FAR 23, 1982 Garmin G1000 NXi. BCA estimated data. *BCA estimated price. AviationWeek.com/BCA Business & Commercial Aviation | Q2 2023 27 2 0 2 3 B U S I N E S S A I R P L A N E S SINGLE-ENGINE TURBOPROPS Manufacturer Textron Aviation Textron Aviation Piper Aircraft Daher Daher Piper Aircraft Model Cessna Caravan CE-208 Grand Caravan EX CE-208B M500 PA-46-500TP Kodiak 100 Kodiak 100 Series III Kodiak 20