Absolutely! But it's worth considering scenarios because your hangar may be better off containing something that suits your mission. I think jets are cool too. But I have three constraints:
- T hangar
- Short runway
- Frequent trip is 150nm

So... life is a set of compromises. I'm happy with mine.

You drive whatever is in your garage. You fly whatever is in your hangar.

Landed abut 2 hrs ago at MYEH.

Beautiful sunset, kids went for a swim. .....

What is all that stuff on the ground

Twin prices are still going down; even with cheap gas. So you are saying it will get worse?

Tim

Life is short. Fly a jet.

Craig - nice pic in aopa!

Thread drift but you touched on something somewhere around page 3. Investors. I wonder how many BT'ers have investors to answer to.

I don't for lots of reasons but one is I don't want to work to justify an airplane. I get PE guys sending spam every week and ignore them. I figure they'd do the math on the KA and it would be gone, then I'd be quickly behind it cause I ain't gonna ride the airlines nor listen to somebody thinking about short term returns instead of the long game.

Smarter guys than me are able to convince their board that a jet is a good idea, I prefer to be the only one I have to convince.

In other words "run what you brung"

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.

Anybody understand why sales of the CJ2+ fell off so far that Cessna just dropped it from production?

George

Sure, it's a fixed expense, but it's diluted over a lot more utilization. Consider the following

Oldjet Loudmaster 5000
$750k purchase price
$2000/hr DOC


Flashynew Whisperjet X
$4million purchase
$800/hr DOC

Same useful load, same speed. Assume it costs 10% of hull value/yr between taxes, depreciation, insurance, etc.

50 hours/year
Old - $75K + $100k = $175K
New - $400K + 40K = $440K

500 hours/year
Old - $75K + $1mm = 1.1 million
New - $400K + 400K = 800K

For high utilization, it makes sense to "buy" DOC efficiency. For low utilization, capex dominates

Charles- I understand your point completely. Having a plane is a great Time saver we all love.

I would just look at cash is king. If i have 500k wrapped up in a plane with zero loan , then the 500k is not giving me a monetary return. If I have a loan then the not is costing me. So owning a plane has it's expense.

In my career, I've flown multi - Billionaires that prob own the jet out right or have a very low interest rate but a billionaire could care 1 bit.

You have to look at the evolution of the 525 series. There was a time when the product family was CJ -> CJ2 -> CJ3. With the CJ1 being the entry turbojet. Then Cessna improved the CJ1 to be the CJ1+, and the CJ2 to be the CJ2+ and put the 510 Mustang as the bottom entry jet.

Cessna needed to respond to the Phenom 100 against the CJ1+ and the Phenom 300 against the CJ3. They did that by improving the CJ1+ into the M2 with a Garmin 3000 cockpit. They also improved the aerodynamics of the airframe for the M2 to go 400 kts at FL410. Now the M2 was the same speed as the CJ2+, but less range, for $2MM less.

The CJ3 was upgraded to the CJ3+ with a Garmin 3000 cockpit. So between the M2 and the CJ3+ the CJ2+ has lost much of its differentiated product niche. They all go around 400kts and the main difference is cabin size, payload, and range.

The current Cessna new turbojet product line is Mustang -> M2 -> CJ3+ -> CJ4. Garmin cockpits in the Mustang, M2 & CJ3+. You have to guess there will soon be a CJ4+ with a G5000 cockpit announced.

Cessna still offers their CJ2+ Alpine Edition which will upgrade a used CJ2+ to the CJ3+ G3000 cockpit, systems, and interior. You can do that for under $5MM aircraft cost + upgrade and save around $1.5MM over a new CJ3+.

So the CJ2+ lost its product relevance with the M2 and the CJ2+ Alpine Edition products.

Cessna just discontinued the CJ2+.

Cessna just discontinued the CJ2+.

I meant officially.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna-Ceases-Production-Of-CJ2-Jet-225489-1.html