02 Dec 2025, 20:31 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 07 May 2016, 21:24 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/31/12 Posts: 65 Post Likes: +21
Aircraft: C421B, J3, 604, 450
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd be remiss if I didn't pitch the Phenom 100. It has a roomier cabin plus a flushing head. I did a pretty in-depth comparison of the Mustang, Phenom and M2 and found the all-in cost of the Mustang to be pennies cheaper than the Phenom. With the Phenom you gain speed, room, much more comfortable pilot seat (no center column yoke), and a bathroom for those unexpected needs. And I would be remiss if I didn't look into it some more. I only recently learned (from a broker) that the Phenom ranks very high in customer satisfaction and reliability. It appears to come at a 500k cost over the Mustang. We'll have to run that analysis this week. I initially discounted the brand as I've seen lots of broken down Legacies and 300's on the ramp/hangar in the past. Phenom must've upped their customer support. Wish I could say the same for Bombardier which has been atrocious, slow, overpriced and did I mention slow...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 07 May 2016, 22:07 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 03/04/13 Posts: 2795 Post Likes: +1413 Location: Little Rock, Ar
Aircraft: A36 C560 C551 C560XL
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Please educate me more on ProParts. What other maintenance do you pay for outside of ProParts and PowerAdvantage? It seems like a not to exceed fixed fee maintenance program?
Proparts is a not to exceed under very limited conditions if you go to the end of your contract and don't renew. Few do that. If you sell the plane before the end of your contract and have a negative balance then you owe Cessna money. If you enroll in Proparts study the contract carefully under different scenarios if you have a positive or negative balance. Also note that you will be paying retail parts prices. Parts are I often available at discounts from other vendors.
So true Allen. ProParts prices from CPD seems to run 15-20% higher than open mkt pricing. It's convenient, but it's not necessarily a bargain.
Robert Tanner
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 07 May 2016, 22:12 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5193 Post Likes: +3038 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd be remiss if I didn't pitch the Phenom 100. It has a roomier cabin plus a flushing head. I did a pretty in-depth comparison of the Mustang, Phenom and M2 and found the all-in cost of the Mustang to be pennies cheaper than the Phenom. With the Phenom you gain speed, room, much more comfortable pilot seat (no center column yoke), and a bathroom for those unexpected needs. And I would be remiss if I didn't look into it some more. I only recently learned (from a broker) that the Phenom ranks very high in customer satisfaction and reliability. It appears to come at a 500k cost over the Mustang. We'll have to run that analysis this week. I initially discounted the brand as I've seen lots of broken down Legacies and 300's on the ramp/hangar in the past. Phenom must've upped their customer support. Wish I could say the same for Bombardier which has been atrocious, slow, overpriced and did I mention slow...
The Phenom 100 is not a good short runway plane. Look into the brake issues it has had. And verify the actual speed, range, and payload. Don't just go by the marketing specs. I don't think Phenom is as accurate as Cessna is in their specmanship.
_________________ Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 07:41 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5248 Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Will a Mustang go 700NM non stop with a good headwind? That's the issue with the small jets and why they lose value from new so quickly. On short hops speed doesn't make much difference.
There was an event at an airport 250NM away last weekend. An Astra and I were holding short at the same time with the same destination. We landed at the same time.
Unless the jet you're buying has the same endurance as the KA200 I don't think you'll see any benefit. "Jet" and "short hops" doesn't go together.
That said, the Mustang is an amazing value. But if I had a KA200 I wouldn't "add a Mustang for short hops". It doesn't make sense.
I'd sell the KA200 and buy a CJ3 and just use it for everything. Whole different DOC. And no doubt the mustang would do 700 with one passenger into a headwind. But I get what you're saying. The mustang looks like it would be a great entry plane. What gets me is I don't think it would do Miami to New York. Chances are, living on the east coast, this would be a bread and butter flight for charters and jets.
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 07:49 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Whole different DOC. And no doubt the mustang would do 700 with one passenger into a headwind. But I get what you're saying. The mustang looks like it would be a great entry plane. What gets me is I don't think it would do Miami to New York. Chances are, living on the east coast, this would be a bread and butter flight for charters and jets. What's the DOC for having 2 airplanes instead of 1? A Phenom 100 won't do NY to Miami.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 07:58 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5248 Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Whole different DOC. And no doubt the mustang would do 700 with one passenger into a headwind. But I get what you're saying. The mustang looks like it would be a great entry plane. What gets me is I don't think it would do Miami to New York. Chances are, living on the east coast, this would be a bread and butter flight for charters and jets. What's the DOC for having 2 airplanes instead of 1? A Phenom 100 won't do NY to Miami.
I wasn't talking two planes though I think that's what you're implying. I was comparing the mustang to the CJ3. Personally I think the 100 will do NY to Miami, but maybe not vice versa.
The threads drifting of course. They mentioned 5-700 mile trips, light loads, short runways. And not afraid of stops. The mustang looks ideal. The phenom brake issue? Maybe not.
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 08:31 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/07/11 Posts: 859 Post Likes: +484 Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd be remiss if I didn't pitch the Phenom 100. It has a roomier cabin plus a flushing head. I did a pretty in-depth comparison of the Mustang, Phenom and M2 and found the all-in cost of the Mustang to be pennies cheaper than the Phenom. With the Phenom you gain speed, room, much more comfortable pilot seat (no center column yoke), and a bathroom for those unexpected needs. Your analysis would be interesting to see. Seconded!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 08:47 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: And not afraid of stops. . That totally negates taking the jet over the KA200.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 09:12 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8730 Post Likes: +9457 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Unless the jet you're buying has the same endurance as the KA200 I don't think you'll see any benefit. "Jet" and "short hops" doesn't go together.
That said, the Mustang is an amazing value. But if I had a KA200 I wouldn't "add a Mustang for short hops". It doesn't make sense.
Short hops is in the eye of the beholder. For me short hop means 250 NM and because I fly a Cirrus 500 miles is medium. 700 is a long day. It's interesting to look at cycles compared to hours on the Mustang. They appear to average about 1 cycle every 1.1-1.5 hours. If you fly a Mustang, even occasionally, 500-1000 miles you'll have cycle times averaging more than that. So, short hops and jets may not go together but that's what the Mustang seems to be used for. Why? It would be interesting for someone who has operated both a KA 200 and Mustang, or a KA 90 and Mustang to compare their DOC's on similar short trips.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 09:21 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Short hops is in the eye of the beholder. For me short hop means 250 NM and because I fly a Cirrus 500 miles is medium. 700 is a long day.
It's interesting to look at cycles compared to hours on the Mustang. They appear to average about 1 cycle every 1.1-1.5 hours. If you fly a Mustang, even occasionally, 500-1000 miles you'll have cycle times averaging more than that. So, short hops and jets may not go together but that's what the Mustang seems to be used for.
Why?
It would be interesting for someone who has operated both a KA 200 and Mustang, or a KA 90 and Mustang to compare their DOC's on similar short trips. The speed difference between a KA200 v. Mustang isn't as great as an SR22 v. Mustang. That said, a 250NM flight there still ins't a huge difference between taking the Mustang vs. the SR22. People don't buy the Mustang "for short hops". They buy the Mustang because it's a lot of bang of the buck at $1.5MM. Then they just use it for what they use it for. If you already have a KA200 then you're not buying a Mustang because "that's just the plane that's in your price range". I share a hangar with a guy that has a Lear 35 and a brand new SR22 (non pilot). He should sell both and go buy a CJ of some kind and run it for everything.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 09:21 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5248 Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: And not afraid of stops. . For MeThat totally negates taking the jet over the KA200.
FIFY
A jet is a jet. A TP is a TP. Apples and oranges.
Personally, priced the way they are, and fairly cheap to fly, just following this thread has ME looking at one. Noted that they are entry level, and many move up to something like the CJ3 that's so much more capable. YMMV.
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 09:31 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A jet is a jet. A TP is a TP. Apples and oranges.
You're going ZERO mph sitting at the FBO filling up with gas. The smallest jet I'd buy is a CJ2+. It's the first moving up that gives you range and speed. All jets are NOT apples. Comparing jets is apples and oranges.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 09:35 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5248 Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A jet is a jet. A TP is a TP. Apples and oranges.
You're going ZERO mph sitting at the FBO filling up with gas. The smallest jet I'd buy is a CJ2+. It's the first moving up that gives you range and speed. All jets are NOT apples. Comparing jets is apples and oranges.
I hear yah. Different strokes for different folks. CJ2, M2, CJ3 = more capital outlay, and a faster (literally) learning curve. You'd be moving from 270 to 400: me 180 to 400.
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Adding Citation Mustang to flight department Posted: 08 May 2016, 09:37 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:  I hear yah. Different strokes for different folks. CJ2, M2, CJ3 = more capital outlay, and a faster (literally) learning curve. You'd be moving from 270 to 400: me 180 to 400. It's not "different strokes for different folks". The market mimics what I'm saying. Selling the KA200 and not buying the Mustang gives you plenty of money for a nice Citation or CJ.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|