I looked long and hard at an SII (aka S550) Citation and had put a Citation V (aka 560) off my list as being "too much". Then I ran some comparison numbers.

I compared the planes at mid cruise weights of 13,000 lbs for the SII and 13,500 lbs for the V. This penalizes the V more than it really is (some SIIs weigh as much as my V). Since the V climbs better, I gave 2000 ft more cruise altitude. I consider these adjustments to be reasonable.

For a high speed altitude, FL350/370, the speed you get versus fuel flow is:

For the same fuel flow, the V is 5 to 8 knots faster. The left end of each curve is LRC (long range cruise) speed, going slower results in less range. The right end of the curve is MCT (max cruise thrust), you can't go any faster.

For a high efficiency altitude, FL410/430, the speed versus fuel flow is basically identical:

The V won't go as slow as the SII, but you really don't want to go slower than 350 KTAS anyway.

After this analysis, I focused on buying a V which was reasonably priced at the time, not so much any more, alas.

The SII, if you can find a good one, is a great bargain in terms of what you get for the price. It is the shorter, less powered version of the V. It has very long range.

The SII, like the II and V, do require a single pilot exemption to fly single pilot. This has requirements not all people will meet (like 500 hours turbine time, can be turboprop). It is not particularly hard to get or maintain, but is some extra overhead. This is what makes the 501 compelling for an entry level jet, it is single pilot to begin with.

Mike C.

Mike C

Problem with the SII is insurance and SP requirements. I looked at them until I realized I needed 500 hours of Jet time.

The extra fuel of the Eagle II has been beneficial and the speed difference has not been a problem.

You yourself showed how you can tanker fuel with larger tanks. And the range is nice.

Sure I wish we had more speed but 370 has been great.

Mike

Is it 500+ hours of jet time or turbine time? I have the turbine time. Mike, what were your requirements for flying the V as a solo pilot?

I am definitely looking at many planes as "too much." Not only do I fly very long legs, I very often have 2 people - sometimes 4. I've carried seven on just two trips. What I really want is a long range Eclipse.

The Williams 501 meets my runway requirements, the II and SII are right on the edge - if not over.

I believe the II has boots and the SII has TKS. Does anyone know of a definitive source for explaining the II - SII differences?

Pre-emptive strike for the Piaggio crowd - the runway numbers don't work for me.

You need 500 hours turbine time, which can be turboprop. My MU2 time counted and what I used for qualifying for it. For someone with no turbine experience, they need to get 500 hours in something first, a 501 would be good for that, or a Meridian, or a King Air, etc.

I hear rumors there may be a change to the whole SPE thing in the future, maybe a CE-500S type rating, which may mean those issue could be reduced in the future. That would be nice and make things a lot more consistent.

I didn't have insurance issues so I'm not sure how that would affect others. My 1600 hours of MU2 time and over 4000 hours total time are likely better than the average transitioning pilot, but even so, I feel like insurance isn't a barrier due to a large number of underwriters in the Citation market (unlike, say, the MU2 market).

My insurance required 50 hours mentoring time. That is a reasonable number, IMO, and about where I felt I was ready. The first solo flight after completing my 50 hours and my SPE course was kind of weird being up in the air in a jet with so many empty seats and no one sitting next to me. Spooky and exhilarating at the same time.

I hardly ever fly the plane solo (nobody else aboard). I've made only 6 such flights since I owned it. One was my first solo just to do it, one was a post maintenance test flight, two were a trip to FlightSafety for training and back, and two were to the avionics shop for maintenance. I've never actually made a trip for some "real" purpose by myself in the plane. I've made 153 total flights, 147 of them with someone aboard, so far, 96% of them. Most was 9 aboard, average is probably in the 3 to 4 range. When you have a jet, people want to fly with you.

Mike C.

You need 500 hours turbine time, which can be turboprop. My MU2 time counted and what I used for qualifying for it. For someone with no turbine experience, they need to get 500 hours in something first, a 501 would be good for that, or a Meridian, or a King Air, etc.

I hear rumors there may be a change to the whole SPE thing in the future, maybe a CE-500S type rating, which may mean those issue could be reduced in the future. That would be nice and make things a lot more consistent.

I didn't have insurance issues so I'm not sure how that would affect others. My 1600 hours of MU2 time and over 4000 hours total time are likely better than the average transitioning pilot, but even so, I feel like insurance isn't a barrier due to a large number of underwriters in the Citation market (unlike, say, the MU2 market).

My insurance required 50 hours mentoring time. That is a reasonable number, IMO, and about where I felt I was ready. The first solo flight after completing my 50 hours and my SPE course was kind of weird being up in the air in a jet with so many empty seats and no one sitting next to me. Spooky and exhilarating at the same time.

I hardly ever fly the plane solo (nobody else aboard). I've made only 6 such flights since I owned it. One was my first solo just to do it, one was a post maintenance test flight, two were a trip to FlightSafety for training and back, and two were to the avionics shop for maintenance. I've never actually made a trip for some "real" purpose by myself in the plane. I've made 153 total flights, 147 of them with someone aboard, so far, 96% of them. Most was 9 aboard, average is probably in the 3 to 4 range. When you have a jet, people want to fly with you.

Mike C.

The real problem with "If you can afford ____, you can afford ____" is that there's always a 10% step-up in the world of aviation.

You can use that logic to work your way from a 152 to a Citation X if you don't stop it at a ceiling along the way. At some point you just have to say "This is all I need, and this is all I'm going to spend." Once you do that, the correct solution becomes much more obvious.

You received some bad counsel if someone told you that insurance would require 500 hrs of jet time to be insured SP in a likely 40 year old SII? Or are you referring to FAR's for applying for the SPE?

like Mike C said it may be turbine time of 500 hours. Which for me is the same as I never went to the Turbo prop and was skipping that step. So the 500 hours was going to be a big hurdle for me. Thats why I stopped looking at SII.

I was told by a couple insurance guys and my online research at the time. I didn't have any turbine. I able to get 501sp insurance with Type rating and 30 hours of mentor.

Mike

Turbine.

SPE pilot qualifications:

ATP or commercial rating.

1000 hours total, 50 hours night, 75 hours instrument, 40 hours actual instrument, 500 hours as PIC or SIC or both in turbine powered airplanes.

I've attached the FlightSafety SPE document which gives all the details.


Maintain 61.58 + SPE currency. Every 12 months (with +/- 1 grace month). SPE used to not recognize the grace month, now it does.

Typically, for the sim schools, the 61.58 + SPE course is 1 day longer and costs a bit more than the crew 61.58. For the in airplane training, which I have yet to do, the SPE course is little to no extra time and a bit more money.


That's a unicorn. When you get the fuel to go further, more seats come along.


The Williams 501 doesn't have officially improved runway numbers as I understand it, so I don't think it legally can do better than stock. We all know it will do better, of course.

Runway length at KSAF is not an issue for the SII. The issue is max weight due to assured takeoff gradient gear down. Here are the numbers for flap 7 (better) with anti ice off:

On a 30 C day (average July high), you will be down to 14,000 lbs, or about 4,700 lbs fuel if all the reduction is in fuel. You will need about 6000 ft runway length for takeoff and you have 8366 ft.

Note that the weight limit comes from an extremely narrow event. You have to have an engine failure above V1 (about 98 KIAS), and then before you get about 100 ft high (where you can easily retract the gear and get enough climb). This is literally seconds of exposure. If you are at 14,000 lbs, then you will have enough climb gradient to do this in that bad zone per the book. If your engine fails before V1, you stop. If it fails above 100 ft AGL, retract the gear and you will climb out better than the minimum gradient.

There is probably not a single pilot who has ever experienced this event outside of deliberate testing, just to put this into perspective.


II has -4 engines, SII has -4B engines. Rated the same 2500 lbs thrust, but the -4B engines make more power at altitude due to changing some limits. For example, -4 N1 limit is 104%, -4B is 106%, which helps at high altitudes.

II has electrical heated wing inboard, boots rest of wing and tail, boot on fin. SII has TKS on wing (inboards operate with engine anti ice separately), and tail but NOT on the fin (no deice on the fin, just like the V).

II has electric flaps, SII has hydraulic flaps. There are ardent fans of each type who hate the other kind.

II has old 500 series wing with straight taper and single panel flaps. SII has newer wing with double taper (higher aspect ratio, more efficient) and split panel flaps. The new wing allows the SII to be slower *and* faster than the II.

II has 0, 15, and 40 degree flaps with takeoff data for 0 and 15. SII has 0, 7, 20, and 35 degree flaps with takeoff data for 7 and 20.

II is 13,300 lbs max takeoff (can be raised by STC/SB some), SII is 15,100 lbs max takeoff. II is 12,700 lbs max landing, SII is 14,400 lbs.

II is 52.2 ft wingspan, 47.25 ft long, 15.0 ft tall. SII is 52.5 ft wingspan, 47.2 ft long, 15.0 ft high. Basically the same size.

II has 742 gallons fuel capacity, SII has 862 gallons fuel capacity.

The SII out performs the II across the board. Takeoff in less runway, land in less runway, climb better, fly faster.

An SII where someone has Garminized it to take out weight and lightened up other things as appropriate would be a great airplane.

The concerns about an SII is the TKS system and being a bit underpowered. If you can tolerate those two things, then it can work for you.

Mike C.

501s are bought and sold fairly often for this very reason. It is the perfect entry level jet. Not too costly to buy, not too costly to insure, enough capability to be worth it.

Then as a pilot progresses in time and other needs, they sell it to get something else. More range, speed, payload, etc.

If a piston pilot says they want to fly jets, and they lack the 500 hours turbine time for the SPE, and they want to avoid the CJ price points, the 501 is the thing.

The 501 is like a mid 1970s Cessna 172. A great first plane before you sell it and buy a 182RG, Bonanza, etc.

Mike C.

For whatever it’s worth, I’m hearing the same thing and from a source I’d consider more than a rumor. No idea if/when it will actually happen however.

It’s frustrating that right now I can hop in anything in the 500 line (550, Ultra, Encore, whatever) and fly it single pilot with my SPE, but legally I can’t fly a 501 single pilot because my certificate still says “SIC required” (took my initial checkride in a 550).

Apparently my only option is to take a checkride in an actual 501/551…

Robert

I am in the same situation but there is an easy solution, or so I have been told.

I got my initial CE-500 type rating as crew and my license came with "SIC required".

I later did my 61.58 + SPE course, so I had my single pilot exemption, but my license still says "SIC required".

After doing a lot of asking and research, the answer is to take your license and your SPE paperwork to your local FSDO and they will do the magic to get the "SIC required" part removed. It is just a paperwork exercise once you show you have passed the SPE course. Your instructor can't do it, however, only the FSDO.

Caveat: I've not actually done this yet for me due to my FSDO being in Indianapolis, but I intend to in the near future.

Now that being said, you actually can't just "jump in" any CE-500 plane and go fly, you have to at least take the differences course for each one that you have not trained in before. That's usually minor, like a 2 hour course, that you can do online for not much money.

I'm presently legal in a Citation II (the sim I used) and a V (had differences course).

This has the differences matrix starting on page 17:

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... _Draft.pdf

It isn't clear to me if differences training was a one time event or had to be done yearly. The MU2 program was one time, you did it once and good for all time. Flightsafety does it every year for the CE-500. I've never found a definitive rule that indicates which is proper.

Mike C.

Yup, I followed the same path and research and was shot down in flames by my (DFW) FSDO.

"You need a checkride in a 501/551" was the answer. However, when I kept pressing I received a response which basically said "have patience, there will be a CE500(S) rating soon and if you have an SPE you'll get it automatically" [highly paraphrased, so don't shoot the messenger if that's not what happens!]

Robert

I know that's what you've heard, but I'll bet a gallon of Jet-A it won't work that easily in practice.

I will follow up on this and see if I can get something more official.


I have heard the same thing through a very different source.

I remain hopeful, but cautious not to get too excited about it.

If a reasonable CE-500S option comes to pass, that will be great news and will increase the value of the legacy Citation fleet for owner operators.

Mike C.