What's the best airplane to buy? The one you like best that fits your budget. That's all. Some people pick other planes apart. It won't do this, it won't do that, it only goes this fast, it only goes that far, it only seats this many, it only goes so high, etc. But, who cares? Whatever is the best airplane for you is cool by me. Don't need 31 pages to justify it.

[quote="Jon Carlson”]Because most people are sheep. Eager to follow the herd[/quote]

Alternatively, others might not have the desire to own 40 year old airframe, expect it to be “turn the key and go” reliable, only to be let down...especially if the majority of use is for business.

I’m still pretty sweet on the Mustangs. Looks like a lot of plane for the money and fairly predictable ownership experience...provided the range and payload fit your mission. Conquest II is a great plane, but the fleet is starting to get up there in hours...I’d be scared of some overreaching AD. We chartered a Conquest II before we got the Pilatus, it will admit it was a pretty sweet ride.

Mike, interesting report.

I know you keep dismissing the 400LS because it has big bore TPE's that cost more than small blocks. But compared to a Williams - per your own investigations - that added cost of the -14 is a pi** in the Nile. There must be something else you don't like about the 400LS that darkens your view on it. It pretty much has everything you want.

Engine reserves.

For me, 42 year old airplane, I turn the key, it goes, used mostly for business. I have never failed in 9 years and 1200 hours to make my business appointments for ANY reason, weather and mechanical included.

Age and reliability are not as connected as you might think. Some pretty new airplanes are down a lot and some old ones keep on trucking.


Case in point, there's a common problem with getting heat to the cockpit on Mustangs from some unreliable vanes and controllers in the heating system.

The Mustang PW615F engines are having burner can and #3 bearing problems.

Another example: Eclipse being altitude limited due to PW610F engine problems, carbon build up.


I fear ADs on new planes more than old well understood ones.


Thanks for that micro review!

Mike C.

Engine reserves.

I don't think the cost of the TPE331-14 is a cheap as you think. TBO is only 3000 hours, for example, and OH is roughly $600K/side. That's $400/hour reserve, ouch, and that doesn't include HSI or the massive DR props. Williams only wants $300/hour and the Citation goes further in that hour.


My impression is that it is smaller inside and noisier than a 441. It just feels like a brutish airplane with an imbalance between the power and the airframe.

I didn't see any really stellar examples for sale on controller.com.

Mike C.

That sounds extremely, insanely high, to be honest. But possible. Where are these numbers from?

Shop that did an OH on a 400LS. About 3 years ago. Included R&R, and all the "while you are in there" stuff. Basically an invoice more than the hull value.

Note that the big block PT6 (PT6A-6x series) also is very expensive to overhaul. A Cheyenne III with PT6A-61 came in at $525K/each for overhaul. This was 4 years ago.

When you get into the more than 1200 thermodynamic HP class, they costs go way up. If I am going to spend that kind of money, it better not have a prop.

Mike C.

But maybe it's worth $600K being able to do this deck angle (check at 0:55)?

[youtube]http://youtu.be/g6lwlBYStk8[/youtube]

You need both engines for that, $1.2M.

Mike C.

Nice write up on the SII Mike. thanks.

+1

The “whine” is a legacy Citation given, I actually assumed it would be better with Williams power.

I’ve flown in a lot of 550’s and 560’s over the years... Citation experts often argue that this isn’t the case, but to me the 560 is a better built, more reliable airplane. It may just be the year models, the newest 550 I’ve been in was a 1988... and the oldest V was a 1989...

Of the legacy Citations the SII is my least favorite.

My unsolicited 2 cents, get the Conquest or a Citation V...

Wish I had known you were coming to SDL, we were here.

This seemed more than expected. My passengers had been in other Citations before and found them more tolerable. THis is starting to sound like something that potentially afflicts the Seirra conversions in particular.


The V is an SII with stretched fuselage, classic deice setup, and stronger engines. Otherwise the planes are basically identical.

Your impression was probably set when Vs were much younger than SIIs, thus you were mostly measuring newness, not some intrinsic change in real reliability through design. Given the age of the planes now, the reliability will be more serial number dependent than model, IMO.


I have to decide if the substantial increase in cost for a V is worth it. I may be better off, say, to buy a Conquest II, invest my left over money, and then later buy a CJ3.


Sorry, I should have warned you I was coming.

Mike C.

for the CJ3... hard to beat.