If you're up for some light reading, check out the FAA's FSB report on the SF50. Some weird stuff--apparently slips to a landing can cause stick shaker/stick pusher activation?

How does this relate to the SF50 discussion? Or are you confused about your $3 savings in the other thread. Which does involve a conversation about single pilot operations?

How does this relate to the SF50 discussion? Or are you confused about your $3 savings in the other thread. Which does involve a conversation about single pilot operations?

Motorcycles are dangerous.

Except that Pilatus is building a twin jet.

My research tends to indicate this isn't true, there isn't much difference of comparable airplanes, say CJ3 versus 560, or CJ versus 501. The workhorse of the legacy fleet, the 550, is out there flying everyday on trips where cost is an issue, and doing it well.

This is the sort of thing some says to justify spending a lot more on a newer airplane.

Mike C.

When Pilatus went to market with the PC12 they weren't even focused on the corporate executive travel, they were focused on improving the cargo hauling (Caravan) and medical transport missions. They surprised themselves, now most of the PC12's mission is competing against the king air for the corporate market.

You have to give it to Cirrus. They have brought a new certified design to market. Not an easy feat. How many other have gone to market with a totally new design without going bankrupt? Let the market sort this out as it usually does.

The legacy airplanes aren't any more complex. In fact, the avionics on the 525 series can be quite complex and expensive to maintain, particularly early generation EFIS systems.

The legacy airplanes have a much larger supply of used and surplus parts out there, plus a lot of shops that work on it. The newer airplanes tend to have less third party parts sources and tend to be maintained only at official service centers.

The legacy airplanes have few unknown issues. The newer airplanes sometimes have "new" issues.

I have developed this view from reading posts on the Citation Jet Pilots forum. The legacy airplanes and the 525 series don't seem all that different in what trouble people have.


More capital tied up, more downside risk.


That's too simplistic. Seems more true for other types (like Lears, Sabres, etc) than Citations, IMO.

Mike C.

I recall the early ads very specifically targeting King Airs and business/personal use.

Example from the very early years:


If the Chinese had not bought Cirrus, they might have ended up bankrupt. They did run out of money on the SF50 project and stopped it.

A twin would have been faster, simpler, cheaper to design and certify.

Mike C.

Mike, with all respect we are comparing your research with my direct experience.

The legacy airplanes are more complicated, a lot more complicated. The legacy aircraft are more time consuming to inspect and maintain.

Yes, you can poor boy them, I've sourced a lot of used parts over the years.

I'm not saying you should buy a CJ... you should buy a Citation V. But, let's be careful not to mislead someone who could buy and operate a newer airplane for the overall cost of an old one.

As far as Citations being cheap because they are expensive to operate, this is true of the Bravo, the Citation III, VI and VII and to a lesser degree the II and V.

Even more so for Hawker 800's, Challenger 600's and the like.

Just a tip, call a few shops and ask them about the cost.

I actually had a shop we use run me reports of exactly what they had charged the owners to maintain two separate aircraft to give me a real world of that particular model.

Last week I was on a conference call with a mechanic and a shop manager, the mechanic said "I love CJ's, they are so easy to work on!"

The manager said "I hate CJ's, I can't make any money on them!"

And a whole lot more expensive to build.

Use your vast experience and explain exactly where they are more complicated. Give details.

Mike C.

And a whole lot more expensive to build.