Can you figure out why people buying a $3 million asset don't want to leave it parked outside in the rain? At the airport 2 miles from me, the waiting list for a 40' hangar is 2 years; for a larger hangar, it's 7 years. Building is not an option. The next closest airport has a similar waiting list and is at least 45 minutes away, which would negate any time savings of having a faster airplane.

I am in the camp, hangar size is dictating future move up aircraft based on wingspan. At my airport if you want to have over a 40' wingspan aircraft, it will cost your $1mm to buy a hangar to fit it. That's a lot of AMU's. If I look at a Cirrus Jet vs. an M350. A nicely used M350 with a hangar to fit it, could cost the same or more than a used Vision Jet and hangar.

Love the design of the DA50, but I think they are going to have a very limited market in the US based in part on hangar size requirements.

Mike C is always talking about capital cost in and a hangar is part of that decision.

Yes, and because of range. 50 gallon tanks just don't cut it here. And it's slow.

Hey Chip!

In what ways would a Mustang II have been better than an M2? I figured the M2 was a pretty well refined airplane--hard to improve.

Or course--Pratt engines would be nice.

Lack of parts commonality with the 525 line meant a Mustang is more expensive to make than an CJ1/M2. Lack of type rating commonality of the Mustang provide a bit more barrier to upgrading to larger airplanes, not so with the M2.

The M2 runs circles around the Mustang, performance wise.

Some Mustang features are making it into the 525 line, for example, the Mustang cabin door evolved to be the CJ4 door.


The Mustang II is perfect because it doesn't exist. Once it did, the M2 is probably still the better airplane.

Mike C.

Real world 748

Outside from that your funeral brah

Which nobody made.

The M2 runs circles around the Mustang. And it costs less to build. And it shares a type rating. It wins and is being sold today, the Mustang is not.

There are a lot of gratuitous changes to the Mustang that add cost for no benefit, one being the ever so slightly swept wing which does nothing aerodynamically but makes building the plane harder. The other are the cabin windows being the shape they are. These concessions to "style" are against improving cost and performance. Just being newer doesn't make things better.

Mike C.

If I have $1M (either for cap reduction or pay cash) - M600/M500 (again Cap Cost Reduction)
We've looked at Eclipse, seems like very economical, etc. However, worried about eco system.

If I have $2M, I would buy a Mustang. (Cap Cost reduction and $'s for Op Ex to start)
If I'm spending $4M, I would buy an M2 (Same theory)

If I had the cap cost to buy a TBM960, I'd be tempted to go with that instead of the M2/Mustang, however, a light jet seems so much safer. (Yes, Charles I know the stats!).

For me, absolutely want Garmin/Gamrin(ized) at almost all other factors. We fly a lot of single pilot and want to fly North/South a night, regularly.

I have spoken to a lot of smart people about SETP's, etc. Mission is FL/KEVV KEHR. KVRB-KGYY or KVRB-KISP.

Just tons of options and for me mostly good ones.

So the Best Light Jet is....whatever one I can afford to acquire and use as a Single Pilot and enjoy the heck out of it.

I invested less than $1M.

It is Garminized.

I fly it single pilot.

I go 400 knots.

I can use short runways.

My low capital cost easily makes up for my extra fuel burn over other choices.

My maintenance costs have been very reasonable. Insurance and hangar also.

I can carry up to 9 people. I have done quite a number of flights with 6 or more, including 8 and 9 at times.

Where am I falling short of your goals?

Mike C.

I invested less than $1M.

It is Garminized.

I fly it single pilot.

I go 400 knots.

I can use short runways.

My low capital cost easily makes up for my extra fuel burn over other choices.

My maintenance costs have been very reasonable. Insurance and hangar also.

I can carry up to 9 people. I have done quite a number of flights with 6 or more, including 8 and 9 at times.

Where am I falling short of your goals?

Mike C.

You’re into your V for less than $1,000,000 with a full Garmin panel?? If so you timed that purchase perfectly and got a great deal in the panel upgrade. Congrats. Nowhere near the numbers someone is paying today. Probably double it.

Chip-

I think we may be seeing the Ciholas shuffle there!

No, you can't.

But give it a few years, I expect the V to come down again in time. The increased sales of new aircraft will start to displaced the older ones in charter/corporate use and the V will be among the first to become more affordable again since it is at the market edge. Encores, not so much.

You can do what I did with II or SII now, or even 1SP. Not as good performance wise, but still fine airplanes.

Even if it takes you $2M to get a Garminized V, it still beats many of those choices listed above, certainly a $4M M2. The cost of capital for that alone is $100-150K more per year than a $2M V.

Mike C.

I haven't kept up with the Citation model designations, but I flew a 501 for awhile in the early 80's , and if I was to buy a jet today, that's what I would buy if I could afford it and found a really clean one.

The company I flew for had a Lear 35 and a 501, and we could get the 501 into and out of fields that we couldn't with the Lear 35.

Our common trips were taking the boss home from Houston to Wichita Falls on Fridays. Sometimes we took the Lear, and sometimes the 501. They burned the same trip fuel, but the Lear was .2 of an hour quicker, which would make no difference to me. The 501 was much easier handling.