As with all aircraft, it depends on your mission.

A compromise would be a C560 Citation V. You can put the G600/GTN750 package in it. CJ3 performance for $1.5 million. Higher fuel burn but at Jason says...cheap these days. I pay $1.90 in Scottsdale.

Get ready then, if Stan bought it...it could be for sale again any day now.

Glenn

Good point. 290kts on 58gal/hr on a Jetprop 1000. And although a Mustang is a lot more efficient than the earlier Citations, Bruce Byerly does a good comparison against a Citation II: 355kts, at 150gal/hr. That's three times as much fuel to 65kts faster.

http://www.eagle-creek.com/2015/05/twin-commander-market-report-falling-for-the-magic-of-great-legacy-aircraft/

MArk - Agree.... IMO- There has to be a break point when making this step if your concerned about the dollars and cents.... The jump from $400K to 1.5M is different than $400K to 3.5M


Craig - What about the Premier Jet.. I see they are priced for 1M-1.5M these days....

I've run the numbers on a bunch of jets and turboprops. The biggest expense for the jets, particularly later model more expensive versions is capital carrying cost and depreciation. They tend to dwarf everything else and drive the per mile cost up for a lower volume flier. Obviously, like all fixed costs the capital expense gets cheaper per mile the more you fly - but not quite the same with depreciation.

With the older airframes the increased fuel burns and higher maintenance costs tend to come to equilibrium with lower capital and depreciation expense. There's no free lunch.

The other big issue, that doesn't get talked about much is cost of time. Tim points out that there is a 30 minute time difference on a short trip between the MU2 and CJ2+. If you're flying for fun that may not matter. But when you're flying for business, particularly with more than one person, the cost adds up. You can add hours to your day by working longer until you can't. Then that 30 minutes begins to matter. And if the plane is newer, breaks less frequently and is easier to operate that saves time which again, if you're managing the plane yourself saves money (in your time). The more your time is worth the bigger the issue is.

Low fuel cost may be a siren song that causes one to crash against the rocks financially though. Yesterday oil was $33 a barrel. What will it be during the anticipated hold period for the plane? C&D was using $6+ for JetA in their cost pro formas a year ago. That creates a much different cost picture for an old thirsty jet.

I agree, Tony.

Thoughts.

1. Some will get lured into a twin or TP or even a jet based on low fuel prices today, only to . . .

2. Find themselves paying 2 to 3 times as much for fuel in a few years, which . . .

3. Drives them to try to sell when fuel prices are high and no one wants a fuel-hungre twin/TP/jet.

Mark,
What program are you using for that comparison? That's pretty neat how it compares the different leg lengths.

A V could bring a lot of value to the table depending on how much you fly and the price of fuel.

Right now, it's not a bad time to own a jet!

Low fuel cost may be a siren song that causes one to crash against the rocks financially though. Yesterday oil was $33 a barrel. What will it be during the anticipated hold period for the plane? C&D was using $6+ for JetA in their cost pro formas a year ago. That creates a much different cost picture for an old thirsty jet.

Broadly speaking it is 75/gal more per hour. Or 75,000 gal every 1000 hours. $375,000 more in fuel costs at $5 a gallon but two million less in capex.

Worth a thought.

Mark,
What program are you using for that comparison? That's pretty neat how it compares the different leg lengths.

A V could bring a lot of value to the table depending on how much you fly and the price of fuel.

Right now, it's not a bad time to own a jet!

Mark,
What program are you using for that comparison? That's pretty neat how it compares the different leg lengths.

Quick data point fwiw, yesterday in the CJ2 I flew out to Marsh Harbor and back in the 20's (could not get higher), 253 nm as the crow flies. Vfr weather so no delays. Burned 2,250 lbs round trip. That's 1.5 nm per gallon. Just sayin.

Fantastic plane and a joy to fly. The Collins is rock solid but the joke at Flightsafety is that the pilot's job is to act as an interpreter trying to get Collins/Universal/Garmin and even King to play together in that cockpit.

edit: Just saw this: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... uct-lineup

Another data point, I flew to North Caicos in the Commander awhile back. 596nm direct and the return on 2,500 lbs of fuel total.