The folks I work for (if you can call it that) want something faster than the chartered Ka-200 they'v been using with a total indifference to cabin size. They're showing a lot of interest in the Mustang and as I know absolutely nothing about the plane I thought I may find some mustang owners on here to share operating experience. I'm mostly involved in the Piston and Large cabin world so my experience with VLJ's is nil. I'm interested in how crewing it single pilot with a safety pilot from time to time has worked out for folks.

Here's our mission:

1-3pax
500-700 nm trips with occasional 1000nm (fuel stop OK)
short strips
low maintenance and management demand as I'll be maneging the operation remotely.

Rob

Customers that I have owning and operating just seem to love them.

Paging Clint Newell...

Best resource I've found is CJP:

https://citationjetpilots.com/

Does cost $300/year, but it appears to be the preeminent Citation owner's group.


I'd guess this is most evident on a 700 nm trip into winter headwinds. The KA200 bucking those winds in the mid 20s can easily be down to sub 200 knot ground speeds. Painful.

Could you charter a jet instead? Must be options for that nearby.


Speed, short range, 3 pax sounds like a Beech Premier to me. About the same price as a Mustang, but 100+ knots faster.

Mike C.

Get a fast TP, king air 300/350, commander, conquest, unless they need the cool factor of a jet.

Speed, short range, 3 pax sounds like a Beech Premier to me. About the same price as a Mustang, but 100+ knots faster.

Mike C.[/quote]


Will be flying way too much to charter, lots of last minute trips to smaller fields to visit customers and factories.

The idea of a Premier just came to me as you wrote that. A friend has one for sale here in the Northeast and is sending me DOC and performance numbers. I believe their attraction to the Mustang is its efficiency, especially when flying 300-350 hours/year. Will make an interesting comparison. Will have to research parts availability for the Premier however. My experience with Hawker Beech on our 800A was terrible. This is for a manufacturing company so they require a very high dispatch rate.

Short fields might prove limiting.

Too slow, burns too much gas...

Define short field.

Contaminated runways? All Part 91?

The cruise speed on the mustang is only 30kts faster.

OEI Climb gradient is much better with TP.

Range is better with a TP.

Fuel burn is less with most TP.

Can use shorter field particularly relevant when field is wet or contaminated.

I think the mustang is a awesome looking machine. I just don't think it pencils out against a fast TP.

Yes on contaminated but also yes on hot and or high altitude airports.

These are more important than length but I would call 3000 ft short.

Mountainous TO are particularly limiting.

The mustang seems to struggle when it get hot or high or both.

All the VLJs have stopping issues when compare to a TP.

For me you need to spend about 3 million on a jet to make it better than a TP.

Something like a CJ2 and up. Legacy jets are an option for some people.

Excellent, this means high utilization.


How small is "small"?

What region of the country?

How often will you have to deal with ice/snow runways?

Pro hired pilot, day pilot, or owner/operator flown?

Single pilot a requirement?


Some info here on DOC, shops, inspection programs, etc:

search.php?keywords=premier&terms=all&submit=Search


Don't forget to convert hours to miles and compare cost by the mission/mile. The Premier will cost more per hour, but per mile may not be all that different.

TBM is faster than a KA200 by a lot. That is probably the least fuel used for a true business airplane. I would be reluctant to depend on a single engine personally, even though it is turbine.

There are a lot of choices in short range jets for not much money. Might consider an older Citation and use a bit more fuel to balance the far cheaper acquisition costs.

Mike C.

Talking 3500' for a short field, most are at least 4000'. Obviously short fields would require dry conditions and shorter flight durations. Getting close to the manufacturing has been a problem in our 604.

Don't forget to convert hours to miles and compare cost by the mission/mile. The Premier will cost more per hour, but per mile may not be all that different.




Ran a couple scenarios on the back of a napkin, Premier is definitely a bit more per nm. 500nm trip in the Mustang comes to $2268 vs. $2665 in the Premier. Speaking strictly DOC here.

Robert,

I've owned and flown a Mustang for the past year. It's a great airplane for the mission you've outlined. I've put 150 hours on mine, and it's been a great experience from all perspectives. As an example, I flew it with two passengers from my home base in Oregon (KRBG) to Hilton Head (KHXD) with a fuel stop in Kansas (KGCK). It takes two stops coming back on the westerly return. So, I've been around the country in it enough to know its capabilities.

For a 700nm trip you'll average about 2:15 and around 1,200 lbs. of fuel. You'll typically use a 600-800lb reserve depending on where you're going. With 2,000 lbs. of fuel, I have 1,350 available for total payload (including the pilot). So, fill all six seats, add 150 for cargo, and you're good to go. Max zero fuel weight is 6,750, so my max payload is 1,370 (including the pilot). A 1,000nm trip is going to average about 3:20 and around 1,800 lbs. of fuel. That's going to be a full fuel flight. With full fuel, I have 770 available for total payload (including the pilot).

Regarding cruise performance, I typically use FL380 to FL410 depending on temps for the mission you've outlined. If it's ISA+ I'll use FL380 or FL390. If it's ISA to ISA- I'll use FL400 or FL410. Cruise speeds at those altitudes will range from 320-350 KTAS, depending on conditions. Cruise fuel burns average around 500 pph. My first hour burn is usually right at 600 lbs., and each hour thereafter is 500. If you get stepped down early, your last hour will be higher. It happens a lot in Southern California, for example.

Takeoff and landing performance is good. You typically only need 3,000 feet. Published balanced field takeoff length at sea level, ISA, and MGTOW is 3,110. Landing in 3,000 feet is not a problem. You just have to be on your numbers like any jet. I've been into Catalina Island (1,602' MSL), which is 3,000 X 75, and it wasn't that difficult even at 8,000 lbs. OEI performance is decent as well. At MGTOW, single-engine climb rate is about 800 fpm.

With the G1000 system, flying single pilot is very straight forward. With the 3-screen set-up, flying as a crew works very well also. I went into the Mustang from a Bonanza, and I'm very comfortable flying solo, which is about 1/3 of the time. The automation is good, and the pilot workload is reasonable.

The operating economics are very good for a jet. My direct operating costs are running right at $800/hr. Your fixed cost will vary depending on what you do for training, hangar, insurance, and subscriptions. I hope this gives you some insight to the Mustang. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Is $400 worth saving, say, 30-40 minutes round trip in the Premier?

I also wonder what DOC numbers you used. You are in the range where plane to plane, shop to shop variations matter. Are you using realistic fuel prices, ones that reflect contract fuel?

Don't forget that you do most of your flying in headwinds. Put a 100 knot headwind on both planes and run the numbers again. 700nm in a 100 knot headwind in a Mustang is not so much fun.

I'm not pushing the Premier, but there are a lot of COST advantages to speed. It cuts through wind better, and on the fringes, will save an overnight hotel in some cases over a Mustang. The Mustang is just so slow, barely more than turboprop speed, so if your customer wants speed, that ain't it.

Mike C.