Lots on here about flying them. I've got a couple thousand hours in the 550 and 560 but that was a few years ago when they were newer and someone else was paying the bills. I wrote it up and it got fixed. What got me thinking was when I started pricing replacement electric windshields for a couple turboprops I was interested in. The Citation 500 series had bleed air screen heat and was super simple. Did not defog well if bringing a coldsoaked airplane down into the swamp but freon air helped with that.

Anyway these things have simple systems and are easy to fly, but the pricing on them tells me they may be pigs to maintain. I know they like fuel and I know the engines are throw aways but that is fairly easy to predict and quantify. What are the items on these things that eat money everytime you turn around?

Yeah, sticker shock. One of the things I am glad about on my plane is I have a plex windshield with fluid deice.


I really like that system even if it is not quite as good as a heated glass. Simple, low cost, light weight.


I will be very interested in this thread to see what you learn since I am potentially buying a legacy Citation soon.

Mike C.

I'm glad you're following, Mike. I know you do your homework and you'll ask some good questions. Are both sides of your MU2 windshield acrylic? I've seen acrylic on the right side but didn't know that was available for both sides.

Yes.


Almost all (*) MU2s prior to 1977 were delivered with plex windshields on both sides with fluid deice. This would be through the M model like mine.

Starting in 1977 and subsequent, all MU2s have glass electrically heated windshields. This would N models and later.

The change corresponds to the MU2 going from a Japanese type certificate (A2PC) to a US one (A10SW), also the change from 3 blade to 4 blade props.

There is an STC to replace the older plex windshields with electric heated ones and you can do one or both sides. Technically, the windshield still requires the fluid deice feature to retain known ice certification. Some older MU2 are so modified. They then suffer the replacement cost of the glass windshield like the newer models.

(*) I think there is only one flying exception, an M model, serial #349SA. It was delivered under A10SW TC and with glass windshields, yet had 3 blade props.

Anyway, back to Citations...

Mike C.

What kind of Citation are you interested in Mike? A C501, C551 or some other variant? If you want the range and speed on the older legacy Citations, the Super SII with the Williams mod has fabulous numbers - although the weeping wing can be a PITA.

What are your mission objectives?

Putting this question first:

I'd like to do west coast business trips non stop, 1650 nm reliable IFR range in 80% winds, while carrying 4 people on those trips. Examples would be:

KEVV - KBFI
KEVV - KHIO
KEVV - KSJC, KHWD
KEVV - KVNY, KBUR

I also would like to fly up to 8 people on shorter trips of up to 1200 nm. I do not foresee substantial international flying.

My present airplane handles 6 people for 1200 nm nicely. I have a few rare occasions when taking more than 6 would be nice, and I have a lot more business on the west coast now days and slogging into the teeth of a strong headwind in the mid 20s is getting old. Yes, 300 knots true airspeed is now slow for me.

Also, needs to be single pilot capable. That may require the single pilot exemption.

Also, has potty for passengers.


The planes in consideration are:

S550, FJ44-3:

Clearly the range performance leader, has 2400 nm IFR range, FL430 ceiling, 400 knot cruise. About $2M to get. If it wasn't for Williams engine programs, I'd probably do this.

S550, JT15-4:

Long range even with the Pratt engine, about 2000 nm IFR, gets a bit wheezy at altitude, still noticeably faster than 550, but a bit slower than the FJ44 one. Relatively inexpensive to get, $700K.

560, JT15-5:

Citation V, bigger, heavier, but stronger Pratt engines, FL450 ceiling. Less range, 1800 nm IFR range, means it fails to do the mission much of the time west bound. Moderate purchase cost, $1.2M or so.

C441, TPE331-10:

Conquest II, has 2200 nm IFR range, 310 knots, FL350 ceiling. Relatively inexpensive, $700-900K. Single pilot, obviously, much lower cost to operate than the Citations. Open to more runways, airports. Noisier, props, not as good pressurization, less comfortable for passengers, slower that the jets.

I looked at Eagle II (501 with FJ44 plus added fuel). Nice that it is SP out of the box, no stupid SPE, but I don't think it does the west bound mission reliably. The stock 501 is a non starter, as is 550, 551. None of the 525 series are being considered, too expensive and I am pretty sour on Williams engine programs (especially after talking to Williams recently, more on that later).

In all cases, I either want an airplane with steam gauges (no early "tube" systems, or impossible to upgrade), or something like a G600 installed. The mid to late 90s avionics are a bitch to deal with, so steam gauges seem like a better choice to handle the ADS-B situation.


I've been trying to find an SII owner to ask them about this and have not succeeded. Obviously the planes are still flown and still command decent prices on the used market, so the TKS wing is not seen as completely debilitating.

Personally, I hate boots. I actually kind of like the TKS wing. No boots to treat, or to replace every 15 years or so. Also, very little performance loss with deice turned on (not robbing huge bleed air amounts from the engine). The TKS wing will have better aerodynamics, too.

So I am willing to give the TKS system a chance. I would think it wouldn't be used all that much. My main concern is the reputation for corrosion, but I have yet to validate this with real evidence.

Mike C.

Mike,

I've just a few hours in the SII but a ton of time in the Hawker 800A. A few things to consider about TKS:

*It is an ANTI-ICE system instead of DE-ICE like boots, so it has to be used anytime in potential icing conditions. If following the AFM that is a lot. You can't wait until you encounter ice to use it. One problem we always had in the Hawker was that if you turned it on every time the manual said to, then you would be out of the stuff by the time you actually encountered icing.

*Many smaller fields will not have it to refill so you may have to carry extra with you. It's messy.

*It's messy. It will leave greasy stains in business clothes that dry cleaning will not remove.

*Did I mention that it's messy. Will leave a slippery mess on the hangar floor.

*Oh yeah, and it's messy.

Stewart

I'm really interested in this thread as well. Long day yesterday in the KA. ACT FXE TJBQ TUPJ. I know, first world problems....

I'm going to CJ school at the end of April (MH is joining me!) and leasing a CJ2 for maybe 75 hrs/yr afterwards. I'm looking forward to comparing CJs to the 550 (recently got a type in those as well so I'll fly both for awhile before I make a decision).

Or, you could teach me your business, buy a Lear and I could ride along for comic relief. The potty deal just isn't gonna work in a Lear. But wait, GIIIs are cheap with great creature comfort and a stand up potty that would work well. However, 1159As are maintenance hogs and quite thirty.

Think of the ramp appeal walking down all those steps.

Mike - why do you think the Conquest II would have much lower costs than the Citation? The jets burn more fuel obviously, but otherwise the 500 series seems to have simpler systems than the Conquest...

Robert

Yeah, about 5000 lbs. 1st hour. It isn't cheap to look really cool!

TA is there a zero misplaced or is the first hour 350 gallons per side? 5000/7.1=704 gallons. Oh my beating heart that hurts.

That's accurate. Here's photo of take off power. Engines are burning 8,000 a side and the gauges are max out. As in that's as high as they will read so it may be higher. Second is hourly profile from our fltplan account.

Thanks for the chart and pic. Makes our PT66d look absolutely miserly at ~560lbs.

441 burns half the fuel, engines last twice as long and take half the cost to HSI and OH, tires and brakes last much longer, does not require type rating and SPE training, Citation maintenance programs are pretty intense with $50K/3year major cycles.


After reading the AFM/POM for both, it doesn't feel like the 441 is more complex. For example, 441 has simple brakes, Citation has complex anti skid brakes with emergency backup system. Both have similar environmental controls (the ACM in the Citation is the same as my MU2). The Citation has emergency pressurization which the 441 doesn't have. Both have hydraulic flaps, gear.

So, what systems are more complex in the 441? I literally cannot think of one.

Mike C.