Needing less runway than most jets is another bonus.
Only one engine to maintain, inspect, overhaul, and such is a good thing.
Fits in a regular hangar, that alone is major.
Could be taken into a grass airstrip.
So many wonderful things about it.

I could be wrong here, but I have some memory to this line of thought being a driving reason for Textron to stop making the Mustang. They knew that these pilots would eventually move up to the M2 or CJ3 for more performance/range/etc., and there were enough Mustangs on the used market at some point to satisfy the "step" into the jet world.

Not sure about shorter runway. If I don’t care about engine failure I can take off pretty short in my Citation Eagle II.

I can also land on grass.

Sounds like the VJ has a pretty expensive program cost for its single engine.

Mike

Schrodinger’s Mike?

It doesn't.

SF50 takeoff to 50 ft: 3192 ft.

EA500 takeoff distance to 50 ft: 2433 ft.

My Citation V at gross (3160 ft) beats the SF50 at gross weight. Loaded for the same mission payload and range, I beat it by huge amounts since I am well under gross. And my numbers are WITH an engine failure, the SF50 clearly isn't. Comparing runway numbers isn't apples to apples because of the assumed engine failure for the twin jets.


They made it difficult to maintain with it stuck on top of the fuselage.

There are a myriad of errors and faults that can take out one engine that won't take out two.


With main tires at 105 PSI, this is not going to be routine. The ground had better be VERY hard and dry. Using grass will be a special exception. It wouldn't surprise me if the insurance limitations specify paved runways considering the hull values exceed $3M.

I believe the EA500 is approved for turf runways.

The 500/501 Citations can do that, the rest of the Citations can't normally unless they have the gravel kit.


The people who own them deserve them.

Another comparison, MGTOW, ISA, sea level climb rate:

SF50: 1609 FPM

EA500: 3424 FPM

Both planes weigh the same, the SF50 has MORE total thrust, yet the climb is less than half. It is almost unbelievable how poor it performs.

Mike C.

My understanding is that they are working towards this for the CJ series and not the Mustang. Tat would make a lot more business sense since that would make it easy to cover from the CJ to the CJ3.

But who knows, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. It is hard to tell what Garmin is doing.

The real reason the Mustang stopped is that they can make an M2 for about the same price. The economies of scale for the 525 line are just so much better than the unicorn Mustang. The M2 is a very nice airplane, touching 400 knots, and the Mustang is doggy by comparison. Mustang owners sometime have trouble with parts since basically nothing on their airplanes crosses to anything in the rest of product lineup.

I'm a big guy, 6'2" and I don't find the Citation cockpit uncomfortable. The Mustang has a through the panel yoke, I have a control column, but I don't find that to be an issue. It was something I did worry about and it turned out fine.

I did have my center avionics pedestal removed, and that's a big win for cockpit comfort, especially ingress and egress to the front seats.

Mike C.

Even if you do care about engine failure, the takeoff ground run is about 1000 ft shorter than the book figure. That 1000 ft is due to the engine failure at V1 plus the airborne time from liftoff to 35 ft AGL.

For 501, MGTOW (11,850 lbs), sea level, ISA, book takeoff distance is 2950 ft. That is WITH an engine failure and to 35 ft AGL. The ground run would be under 2000 ft.

Load your plane to the same mission payload and range as the SF50 and you will be even better, likely around 2400 ft with a ground run under 1500 ft.


The supposed benefit of having one engine to reduce maintenance costs is swamped by the $600 per hour maintenance plan that everyone has to be on.

The slow speed of the SF50 means the money per hour maintenance plan is expensive per mile.

Mike C.

Assuming my G Wagon couple are only interested in a new airplane, which airplane should they buy?

Can't be answered Chip without mission, budget, wants and needs.

But since they drive the ugliest SUV on the road, I'd try to talk them into forgetting new and get one of these:

Not sure what you mean by that. The M2, PC24, CJ4, Phenom 300 are all SP and are new/currently being produced. Wait, by owner flown do you mean small? I regularly fly with 8 people so no SETP will work for me except a PC12. Nor would an SF50 (and I was coming from an SR22). The M2 is definitely targeted at owner-flown. Idk if there is a niche for a "new" Mustang. I would think there are some people that only need 6 seats but want jet speeds but Idk if it's enough.

Similar category as the Cirrus Vision Jet: Cessna M2 or Phenom 100EX. Since they are G Wagon people - 100EX. It has ramp presence and appeal.

I think this new 100Ex could really start hurting M2 sales. Now with G3000 and Auto Throttles. They have supposedly addressed the braking gremlins.

$4.995mm entry price. Splits the Cirrus and M2. Though when optioned up it’s probably very similar to an M2.

And nothing screams "Wait, you do Botox too?" like driving up to your 100EX in your G Wagon!

If you had one, you find more uses for the M2. You tend to fit your mission to the plane. People with an M2 make different trips than a person with a 172.


While the takeoff fuel flow is breathtaking, you are there for about 1 minute and then pulling the power way back if you want to stay in the pattern. If you don't, you will VERY shortly be up against Vmo.

I've found that when I go out and do multiple approaches in the V, my average fuel flow is roughly about what cruise fuel flow is at FL410. So it isn't nearly as bad as I had feared.

For reference, my MU2 was not very good at flying at low altitude. The entire engine was operating at speed and in the thick air, that drove up fuel flow relative to cruise. The JT15D and PT6 slow down the gas generator at low power settings which makes the fuel flow at low altitudes more tolerable.

Roughly speaking, your PT6 ratio of average pattern work fuel flow to cruise fuel flow is similar to mine with the JT15D. This is likely to be similar with the Williams engines (SF50, M2, CJ) since they are also twin spool engines.

Mike C.

They are probably best with a NetJets card.

Some folks love the idea of having a jet, but not the reality of it.

The probably never take their G wagon off road, either.

Mike C.

We have different missions. I have a family of 4 and our friends are also families of 4 (one is a family of 5). My mission truly requires 8 seats (have used the 9th three times now in 2 years) plus payload for a few days for all of those people. To your ground vehicle example, a bus is overkill. We are talking 2 more seats than your plane, not 12. It would be more akin to having a large 3-row SUV vs a mid-size sedan or SUV. Yes, it cost more and burns more fuel, but the alternative is to drive a smaller vehicle and then take 2 vehicles when you need more space. Analogy breaks down as none of our friends are pilots so second plane is not an option. The ONLY time I fly solo is back and forth to my 61.58.

I won't meet the minimum hours for an SPE for several years but I could see a 550 or 560 in my future. Maybe Mike C's dream of an CE500S type rating will be realized by then. I assume I would be given it automatically since I already did my type single pilot.