People would gladly buy a 1990 Meridian to save money. But they can't, because they didn't make them back then.

The point has probably been made here, however the V is a fuel pig, Mike admits it. Last year when gas was $10/gal at various airports, even higher, the 560 would cost over $2000/hr to operate just in fuel. The Meridian would still be in the $400s.

I agree comparing an old airframe such as a V to a modern plane such as the M500 or M600 isn't really fair. There's a reason the legacy citations cost what they do (often under $1M), and there is a market and demand for that, but not for everyone.

-The Citation Jet Exchange

It is an artificial requirement they be the same age. Also, a 560 is way more capable than a Meridian, not even in the same class, as far as range and payload.

Right now, a Citation 501 is potentially 35-50% the cost of a Meridian and a more on point comparison, though the 501 is also far more capable payload and cabin space wise.

The 501 is low priced because it isn't used for charter or corporate work, so generally only sold to individuals. The 560 is still a front line charter or corporate aircraft. I know because I get inquiries from those folks to sell my plane to them all the time, like nearly every day.

My flights yesterday:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N61 ... /KEHR/KBIV
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N61 ... /KBIV/KEHR

1600 lbs each way, a touch over 1 hour, 5 people. Peak cruise speed was ~420 KTAS.

A 300 nm leg length is the inflection point for jets. Shorter doesn't save much time over a turboprop and uses a lot of fuel. Longer and the slower speed of the turboprop starts to manifest itself and the efficiency of the jet up high comes into play.

Even so, it is way more cost effective to fly the jet on shorter trips than have both a turboprop and a jet.

If buying fuel causes you distress, don't buy a jet. Economically, however, buying lots of fuel may still work out due to other factors such as hull value related costs.

Mike C.

It isn't as bad as I had feared, actually.

Most charter/corporate guys fly the V in the mid 30s at max thrust where fuel burn is ridiculous and speeds are high. That's why some of them say the V is a 1200 nm range plane. This is what gives the V the reputation as a fuel pig, the pilots aren't paying the bills.

I fly in the low 40s and back off power a bit. Then my fuel flows are not as distressing and the range significantly improves to 1800 nm potentially. Cruise is about 1100 pph, 165 gph, 410 KTAS, at FL400/410.

Lately I've come to understand my V doesn't burn much more fuel than a 501 on any given trip, say less than 10% more. This is due to higher speed, higher altitude, more efficient wing, and more efficient engines than the 501.

I also have much larger tanks which allows me to do more fuel cost optimization. For example, next week I am flying to KIAG Niagara Falls, NY. Fuel there is like $7. Ouch. Since my tanks are large enough, I will buy my fuel locally (about $4.80), fly to KIAG, not buy fuel, and fly home. It did cost slightly bit more to carry the extra weight, but that's very small compared to the fuel cost savings. A 501 doesn't have the tanks to do this, I don't think. So some of the 10% extra fuel I burn over a 501 is balanced by cheaper fuel strategies enabled by bigger tanks.

The newer CJs are more efficient than my plane, but only about 15% for something like a CJ3 which is sort of roughly comparable. It isn't as big a ratio as I had initially thought. I'm still ahead of the CJ3 money wise since I don't pay the Williams engine tax (close to $400/hour for two engines).

Mike C.

JET-A at one of my regular airports is currently listing at $8.00 a gallon, at the other regular airport it's $8.12 a gallon

Even the nicest 501 or 560 would be a really bad idea with these numbers

Yes, but who pays list? With my discounts, only one of my top 20 regular airports is over $7 right now. Most are near $5 and I paid less than $4 on a recent trip.

Yes, but who pays list? With my discounts, only one of my top 20 regular airports is over $7 right now. Most are near $5 and I paid less than $4 on a recent trip.

I just updated my logbook to calculate the point-to-point distance for each of my flights. Turns out my median leg length in the B200 (excluding maintenance and training flights) is 440 nm. 68% of my flights have been over 300 nm.

I could trade my B200 for an Eagle II and have a little cash left over. It would pay the delta in fuel bills & engine programs for a few years, but not for the entire span of my ownership.

Food for thought.

Which airports exactly?


Agreed, but let me see what the real price is, not the list price. I hardly ever pay list price unless it is already very good.

One airport in the US has a list price under $4, KOWP Sand Springs, OK, at $3.79. Would make a nice fuel stop on a cross country trip. There are about 100 airports with list prices under $5.

More than half of CAA airports (about 150 of 270 total) are under $5 and there are a few under $4. CAA gets most of my business. Sometimes the difference is dramatic. At KSAT San Antonio TX, the CAA discount is over $6 less than retail. Not a typo! CAA average discount is around $1.50 from list.

Everest contract fuel is under $5 for about 200 airports.

Another factor is that contract fuel pricing often has tiers and if you reach 200, 300 or 500 gallons, as I often do, the price drops further.

There are ways to deal with high fuel prices such as contract fuel programs, tankering, shopping around, and even direct negotiation. Every now and then you will be paying a high price for fuel, but you can minimize those occurrences.

If you are flying to KASE Aspen, CO every weekend, then you are going to be paying a lot for fuel. But then, you are flying to Aspen, so you can't be a low budget operator.

Mike C.

It's called captive pricing, they're charging for the geography of the airport and on one end the monopoly of being the only FBO, neither offer CAA, and the contract fuel rates are only a few dimes cheaper

You have a jet usage profile. Your median is probably higher than mine.

The typical usage averages out to about 1 hour per landing for jets, or about 300 nm or so. You fly longer distances than the average jet does.


Which means way more of your miles/hours are on trips over 300 nm, maybe 80%? Normalizing by miles/hours is a better metric than per leg since that tells you where you spend most of your time.


What happens if you invest the delta during that time? Tying up money has a cost to it.

If 1500 nm range works for you, consider the Stallion instead of the Eagle II. Faster (near 400 knots) and thus more efficient. It is effectively not that much less range than the Eagle II when considering a headwind situation when range is most challenged.

Mike C.

I used to be based at an airport where fuel was expensive.

I bought fuel there sparingly by tankering in fuel from my remote destination. Where you normally expect around 50% of the your fuel to be bought at home base, I think I was around 15%. Having longer range tanks helps.

Even now with cheaper fuel at my home base, I look at the potential to load up away from home. It happens a few times a year.

It rarely pays, particularly in a jet, to make an elective stop for cheaper fuel.

Mike C.

Good advice.

87% of my miles flown are on legs over 300 nm.
50% of my miles flown are on legs over 780 nm.
33% of my miles flown are on legs over 1000 nm.

EDIT: These numbers are from flight legs, not trips. Westbound 1400 nm trips are generally broken up into two legs, so the numbers PER TRIP (and not per leg) are even higher.

I was looking at the Eagle instead of the Stallion because then I'd often make the westbound trip nonstop. "Not much less range" is 400 nm, and it lies right across my typical long range leg length. I'd save more time (and money) by skipping the fuel stop than I would by going faster. The Stallion XR works, but those seem to be exceedingly rare.

The Eagle II also has a higher ZFW payload, which is small for the other planes (1000 lbs or so - that's just 5 adults in a 7 seat plane.) I wrote my number of passengers in a notes field in my logbook, but I don't have it in a searchable field - yet. I may do that this weekend.

The published range for the Stallion is 1,581 VFR, which I assume means 1,300 or so at normal cruise IFR instead of LRC VFR.

More food for thought.

Some of the math in this table is wrong (look at the weights section) but it's all I have to work with.

That's screaming "jet".


Only in still air.

Throw in a 100 knot headwind, not that uncommon, and the advantage shrinks.

I would also view Sierra's numbers with a bit of skepticism. I believe the Eagle II penalty is larger than indicated. My comparison test flights indicated as such.


Agreed, to a point. If buying a bigger plane skips the fuel stop, but then costs you more elsewhere, nothing saved.

Sometimes I wonder if I would have been better in a Stallion and just accepted a fuel stop to/from the west coast.


I don't think any exist, it was a theoretical thing using the "Branson" tank STC which is no longer available and not supported. I think I only ever saw one Citation with the Branson tank and it was a stock 501. I've also only seen one "Eagle" 501 (extra fuel, stock engines) so that is quite rare, too.


This is probably a Cessna SB or STC, not something special Sierra did. I would not assume the stock 501 can't have the same ZFW.

I found SB500-34-23 that ups ZFW to 10,500 lbs and SB500-34-15 that ups it to 9,500 lbs. So there seems to be a path to increase ZFW on the stock airplane. These mods seem to be mostly about airspeed limit changes, no structural changes (which is similar to my V ZFW increase, just a change in Vmo).

Here's a thought:

Citation SII.

It has super long range, the next generation wing, but with lower power engines. It has TKS versus boots, but otherwise is basically a shorter version of a Citation V. They are market dogs because people don't like the low power and TKS system. But there are those who really like the TKS system.

The plane will go a very long way at probably less fuel flow per mile than a 501.

Mike C.

9,500 ZFW is common on 501s. Mine has it. Same for the higher gross weight mod that they show for the Sierra models but not stock. It would be interesting to see the hot/high numbers for the Sierra planes at >11,850. As I mentioned earlier, those numbers are ugly for a stock 501 but you really need to be humping a lot of payload and need full fuel to get into those weights.