Here’s a couple of interior photos that show both more clearance between the seats and more distance between the sidewalls.

These are the types of improvements that may not impress the guy flying and buying, but they do impress the ladies who are accustomed to finer things in the transportation sector.

I once told a broker trying to convince my client to buy an older Pilatus, that he wasn’t competing with a King Air, he was competing with BMW!

A few years later Pilatus announced a new interior designed by BMW.

I haven’t flown long distances in the CJ3+, they seem very comfortable to sit on, but I suspect that is more the type of foam used than anything else, and obviously that could be identical.

I do think the CJ3+ seats have a better ergonomic design, I have serious back issues and the support / shape of a seat is as important as the padding / comfort.

I will say that the overall experience for both pilot and passengers is much better in the CJ3+ and for that matter the M2 and even the Mustang than the Citation V / Ultra. These little interior refinements add up. The Gxxx panel and absence of the center console is a game changer. In my opinion, the Mustang has a more comfortable cockpit than any Citation.

I’ll share some more photos for comparison.

Maybe someone who has been a passenger on a longer trip in both aircraft can chime in with some real world experience.

Ironically I would have been riding from Phoenix to Lafayette in that CJ3+ about now, but we found a better opportunity in a Phenom 300E partnership.

Most M2 right seats are limited to how far back they can go, it can be quite uncomfortable. The left seat is much better, and I'm told there is a mod to allow more room in the right. You can remove the chart holder and should get one more click back at least

Looks about the same to me except the CJ3 has narrower seats. Sidewall thickness appears identical.

"Im very impressed by your slimmed down sidewalls" said the lady who was accustomed to finer things in the transportation sector. What? Hardly.

I have been in a Mustang, a Citation V and a CJ3...Mustang cockpit is easier to get in but the space available seat comfort is better in the V or CJ3. In the cabin the Mustang is much smaller, V and CJ3 have negligible difference. The design of seats has had multiple options and styles over the years...from wide and puffy to slim and contoured. A wider seat will be more comfortable to sit in and allow less room in the isle vs a narrower seat obviously. Pics of my Ultra attached...do my sidewalls seem excessively wide? It feels very roomy and as someone noted, the seats move inboard for more space and headroom once seated.

Its a shame that in a effort to win on any point possible the discussion has devolved into petty items like trying to prove this point.

Tony, I’ve been waiting for the “Challenger 350 is better than the CJ3+” argument to get raised. Maybe when we hit page 58 of this thread?

How did the CJ3+ enter as a Turboprop in this long winding thread? Only on BeechTalk….

I have a more specific question, and it probably fits here instead of starting a new thread.

How would a legacy king air compare to a legacy citation? I understand the citation is 100 kts faster, but an old king air 90, and a 500/501 can be had for roughly the same money. Given the calendar items on the king air, I suspect they would be very close in operational cost. KA is probably roomier.

Can someone confirm or deny this?

I have a more specific question, that probably belongs here instead of another thread.

How does a legacy king 90 compare to a legacy citation (500/501)? Given the calendar items on the king air, my sense is that they are operationally fairly close. I understand that the citation is 100 kn faster, but the cost is about the same.

I am not discounting Mike’s 560 success, but I think that most people doing the math between a turboprop and a citation are looking at entry-level citations.

The fuel burn is what will get you. For a low utilization operator, a CE500 on a LUMP program may be cheaper to maintain (maybe), but every time I do the math the fuel burn kills any advantage.

The King Air is definitely roomier than a 500, especially so for tall people. However, the Citation has a little baggage advantage since you have the nose and the tail storage (unpressurized). However, I can put a surprising amount of cargo in the rear of a 90...

In addition, the current lack of a modern autopilot in the 500 fleet is a bit of a challenge, although the SPZ500 is a fine AP.

Just for bona fides, I own an E90 but do contract work in the 500 series. I have often flight planned trips in my KA vs a Citation and just can't justify it at the moment.

Robert

I would agree the fuel burn on a legacy citation is more than a KA. All things being equal I think flying higher, faster, above weather, and safer is worth an extra cost. It's not as much more as people think.

Mike

Well, that's the problem - All things aren't equal! For example, in your case you have significantly more capital tied up in your plane than I do.

I like the Citations a lot, but the "it just costs a little more" logic gets us into a Gulfstream pretty quickly...

Robert

This is wrong. I've flown both and know this.

I've suffered 150 knot headwinds in the MU2 flying to Seattle. In fact, this was pretty common in the winter months to see well over 100 knots and sometimes that requires *two* fuel stops to get there.

You can't fly lower, there are rocks plus it will be extremely bumpy and uncomfortable so you will have to slow down. The fuel consumption per mile doesn't actually get better lower until the winds exceed 100 knots at altitude.

If you are in flat land and facing 100+ knot headwinds in the winter, you will find icing in the lower levels if it isn't clear. Flying higher gets you out of icing.

The net effect is that the fly lower tactic doesn't work in a fairly large part of the country or during winter headwinds in weather.

The jet tactic for headwinds is to fly faster to where they matter less, not to fly lower. 400+ knots makes the winds a lot less impactful.


Yesterday I did a flight where the turboprop would suffer greatly and the jet does not.

The weather was widespread and tops were FL370-390. The airliners were getting beat up in the mid 30s, most can't get to the the 40s, and they were deviating all over the place. A turboprop would have been beat up and faced icing issues as well, and would have flown most of the route in some form of precip.

Winds at FL400 were 250 at 110 knots. Net about 70 knots headwind for me, but that was still 320 knots ground speed. Not a big deal.

Winds at FL250 (when we descended) were actually faster, 240 at 125 knots. You had to get significantly under 10,000 ft to get meaningfully lower winds, and that put you in icing and precip.

Not all trips are like this of course, but this particular case was dramatically better in the jet versus the turboprop. It turned what would have been a nearly 4 hour, IMC, icing, turbulent flight into one that was a bit over 2 hours, mostly smooth, on top in the jet. If you swap a King Air 90 for my MU2, you might as well just stay another day than travel in such conditions.

And this didn't even involve terrain issues like you find out west.

Mike C.

Anyone that fly's to Seattle SHOULD get headwinds.

Generally true, though perhaps not always for any given flight.

My example flight above in strong headwinds used 438 gallons. I bet a King Air 200 would use as much if not more, and it would be a much worse experience being in the precip and turbulence than on top in the sunshine and mostly smooth air.

You fly more in headwinds than you do in tailwinds. What that means is the faster airplane is better at fuel usage than it appears because it cuts through the wind much better.

My MU2: 290 KTAS at 70 GPH at FL280: 4.14 nm/gal

My C560V: 400 KTAS at 165 GPH at FL400: 2.43 nm/gal

A KA200 (estimate): 265 KTAS at 100 GPH at FL280: 2.65 nm/gal

It is pretty close, it won't take that much headwind to for the jet to be about the same.

Mike C.

Or... P180 makes the trip at FL400 in 2+29 on 1375lbs fuel... at least right now.

Dunno yesterday's headwinds for you precisely, but today shows very strong winds from the west (which is roughly what I noticed yesterday qualitatively).

Some turboprops aren't so bad.