How in the world do you make it cost that much?

That's incredible.


The big savings is maintenance management, not wrench turning.

"Mike, you have a crack in your right hand lower TR bucket on a stiffener angle"

This could be a repair that costs between $2K and $150K depending on how you manage it, shop policies, your resources, and your timing.

Investigated a field patch repair. Decided the labor and risk was too high. It already had a field repair applied, so that didn't work last time (before my ownership).

Investigated replacing the cracked angle. Long lead time for the angle, but not very expensive. Would be maybe 15 hours labor, so about $2K all in. Lead time was main issue, it was potentially months.

Searched for and found used TR buckets (at least 5 out there). Ended up buying one from Yingling for $5K (wanted $10K originally, but price matched another salvage yard). Bolt on fix that was 2.6 hours labor for R&R. Total fix was $5.4K with some new hardware I bought.

Total time I invested was about 3 hours. I didn't touch the airplane at all.

Of my four TR buckets, all are original with the airplane and have never been off until this crack was found. That's 10,000 hours, so this is a rare event.

I shudder to think what would happen at a factory service center. Maybe they let me buy a used bucket? Maybe not. Or they source one and charge me a bucket of money (ha!) for it.

Another example: I notice my right hydraulic pump was getting weak. I'd see flickers of "HYD FLOW LOW" on that side. Did a ground run to time various hydraulic actions using one engine at a time and the right side took 50% longer. Yup, that probably needs to be looked at.

Textron solution: new different pump with adaptor kit. Total installed cost $37K.

My solution: found identical pump at salvage, $200 (not a typo). Total fix cost with labor and materials: $1800.

Again, I did not touch the airplane for this fix.

Your management involvement and your shop policies have a HUGE impact on your maintenance budget. My shop lets me be very involved in the decisions, lets me buy parts, and is okay with using salvage parts (assuming they are airworthy).

The Citation scared me as being very costly to maintain, but it is actually not bad at all. First, things don't break. Second, when they do, they are usually easily fixed. Third, there is a huge ecosystem of component shops and salvage yards to draw from. Fourth, the long inspection intervals under LUMP are a HUGE cost reducer from not only having fewer inspections, but causing less wear and tear from taking things apart.

I spend as much time helping other Citation owners diagnose their problems as I do on my own plane.

Mike C.

It gets worse. I recall a time we had a big reliability issue on a new engine introduction with water pumps. Warranty replacements of the water pumps shot up massively. On the other side of town the spare parts people saw a huge amount of that part number being "sold" so they doubled the price because of high "demand". Which then served to double our warranty "expense" in the product group. All the while customers are seeing the amount of $$$ on the warranty claims spiking and thinking to themselves, can i afford to keep this thing after the warranty period runs out ?

Interesting thread. I went from Comanche to Aztec to Mirage to Citation 551 with no problem. Spent a fortune maintaining Aztec and Mirage. 1400 hrs when made the jump to jets. Like M Ciholas noted, engine out non event compared to twin prop. In fact the first takeoff I ever made in the Citation was a V1 cut. Complete non event. Another point: I spent a lot of time loitering in ice country in the Mirage (a very capable machine for sure). I now look down on those lower flight levels and don't miss them. I'm much happier flying kids/grandkids in the jet. I am spending their inheritance but having a ball doing it.

I agree with John. The safety of the jet is a game changer. My path way A36 to a 421 at 250 hours then to a 501 at 450 hours total time. My first takeoff was also a V1 cut which was a non issue. The 501 is a dramatically easier airplane to fly and understand then the 421. I always felt like I was buying time before I had an engine out in the 421. I don’t have that feeling in the 501.

Being transparent, if I could afford a new turboprop like a TBM or a M600/700, I probably would have bought one but the cost of entry of those airplanes made them a nonstarter for me. The legacy citations are cheap to own and maintain with amazing performance and safety.

Recently went through the same process which started at about my 550 hour mark. Had turbo commanders, MU-2, older citations, vision Jet, and eclipse on the list. I had access to a vision Jet so I out about 70 hours on that before not liking the idea of the mandatory Jetstream program. I really liked the commander and MU-2's and wouldn't fault anyone for getting one. I ended up meeting someone with an eclipse and I was instantly hooked. That little plane which I call my Honda Civic of the skies is fast and efficient. At FL410 burning about 40 gph is not a bad way to travel. Some of the parts are expensive but the company as a whole has outstanding support which is saying a lot from a company that was in bankruptcy twice. There's also a solid knowledgeable community at EJOPA. My mission is Michigan to the Florida Keys. I make one stop in Perry Georgia (cheapest CAA fuel you'll find and great people) and make it the rest of the way no problem. I burn about 300 gallons per trip one way which isn't bad. The citation fuel burn is kind of insane for a small jet with an anemic climb rate. Honestly the eclipse's downfall if you want to call it one is the avionics. It's got a learning curve to them, I personally don't mind them but if you worship at the alter of Garmin you might not care for the Avio system. Good luck with your investigation. I'm 200 hours into my ownership of the eclipse in 6 months and wouldn't trade it for anything (else in my budget range lol).

Depends on which one you buy. The Citation owners pay more for fuel, but save money elsewhere. Are you on a engine program for the PW610F?

The Eclipse, as a concept, is awesome but the execution stunk. A high tech approach was misapplied in ways that cripple it. The so called "future proof" avionics turned out to be just that, having no future. I was really annoyed with Eclipse as they fumbled this glorious idea with lots of bad decisions that cost them money and time. If they had sold the plane with steam gauges, it would have worked and now could be upgraded to Garmin. But no, they had to be "integrated", which in aviation means "quickly obsolete and unupgradable".

Some Citation owners have similar problems, like the Ultra, Encore, Bravo folks with Honeywell Primus 1000 screens. Too integrated to be removed presently, though Garmin and Genesys have plans to fix that.

Sometimes the old steam gauge airplanes end up being the most modern, like mine panel with TXi screens.

Mike C.

Depends on which one you buy. The Citation owners pay more for fuel, but save money elsewhere. Are you on a engine program for the PW610F?

The Eclipse, as a concept, is awesome but the execution stunk. A high tech approach was misapplied in ways that cripple it. The so called "future proof" avionics turned out to be just that, having no future. I was really annoyed with Eclipse as they fumbled this glorious idea with lots of bad decisions that cost them money and time. If they had sold the plane with steam gauges, it would have worked and now could be upgraded to Garmin. But no, they had to be "integrated", which in aviation means "quickly obsolete and unupgradable".

Some Citation owners have similar problems, like the Ultra, Encore, Bravo folks with Honeywell Primus 1000 screens. Too integrated to be removed presently, though Garmin and Genesys have plans to fix that.

Sometimes the old steam gauge airplanes end up being the most modern, like mine panel with TXi screens.

Mike C.

$700 per hour for both? That's a lot! That's more than half my total operating cost per hour!

Over a 3500 hour TBO period, that's $2.45M. You are renting the plane from Pratt. They feel no market pressure to make the engine program cost effective, and the Eclipse will be the only PW610F application ever.

There are articles from 20 years ago saying the engine overhaul price would be $150K per side. Like all Eclipse claims during that time, it was delusional. Now people are seeing that for HSI.


I bet my V could do your mission mix for less cost per mile than your Eclipse, all costs included, despite it being almost 3 times heavier. Your primary trip, MI to FL, would be non stop in my V which saves time, a cycle, and relatively some fuel. I don't know what your capex was, but if higher, there is an on going cost of money difference, too.

You feel the price sting on parts and engine program. I feel it at the pump. But my cheaper parts, cheaper engine strategy, and LUMP inspection program make my plane quite inexpensive to own. I'm also fairly secure my OEM is not going away and have a huge ecosystem to draw resources from.

Mike C.