Flew a B model for 3 years, now fly a C model for last 2 years. With careful operation and “ if it needs it, do it” knowledgeable mx, it fits my mission profile perfectly. Like everything else, you usually get what you pay for. Good luck

Per hour? No way.

A legacy citation is going to burn $500/hour just in fuel alone. I could likely operate a Mustang as cheaply per mile as the 421, but you'd have to totally ignore capital costs to make that math work.

I figure I could operate a 441 around $1,000/hr which puts me pretty close to the 421 per mile cost due to the speed delta and that's the way I'm leaning now (but I admit to changing my mind frequently). One of my main missions is Dallas to upstate NY and the range of the 441 makes that possible.

Robert

Per hour? No way.
A legacy citation is going to burn $500/hour just in fuel alone.

Would be nice if that's what it really does. Everything I've seen says ~150 at altitude.

I can’t make the math work for a Jet over my 421C based on trips of 500NM or less and 100 hours per year.

I have 1700 hours on Factory New engines that run perfect. I have never had to cancel a flight for MX or had an AOG situation in that time.

I am replacing my 1700 hour engines with factory engines this spring. My total hourly operating expense is about 550 per hour.

Your total hourly expense will depend on the CONDITION of the plane when you bought it , HOW WELL you maintain it and the number of hours you fly it per year.

If you fly a lot of trips 500 NM or less below 18,000 feet the “turbine” costs will increase.

Below 18,000 you can avoid ATC when it’s convenient.

Don't use list prices for AvGas either. I definitely do NOT pay list prices at Addison!

I also think your JT15 numbers are low on burn and high on speed. 145gph and 330 is more like it from what I understand.

Trust me, I've looked at the JT15 501s and they are tempting. However, the 441 - due to the range and payload space - is a better fit for me.

The Sierra converted 501s are also very interesting, but you end up with the Williams engine issue (only one overhauler) and a frankenstein airplane. I am unclear on the status of Sierra and the new company's support for legacy 501 conversions, and that scares me when plunking down $1mm in capital.

No immediate plans to trade up, but it's potentially on the horizon.

Robert

Would be nice if that's what it really does. Everything I've seen says ~150 at altitude.

How do others get that deal and what do you pay?


550 numbers are better than that, and the 501 has to be lower fuel flow than the 550.


On the plus side, you pay for the program and your engines are taken care of, unlike fixing a cracked case on a GTSIO-520.

You also get a electronic engine control which makes engine operation easy, safe, and you can always get max performance without worrying about going over the limit.


I don't think there are many unique parts involved, but this is something to research.

Mike C.

An SR22 owner could say the same thing over a 421. Your usage and trip lengths just aren't really compelling even for a 421.

In some cases, your missions are well defined and won't change, but in most cases, given a faster, more capable airplane, you tend to use it on longer missions. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be flying 200 nm missions that a Cessna 172 could handle.

Mike C.

You can’t just look at cruise fuel burn. First hour fuel burn in a turbojet is always greater then subsequent hours. Descent fuel burn can be greater depending on how far out ATC starts you down.

My understanding is that a JT 501 can expect a block burn of somewhere around 165 GPH, depending, especially on short trips of a couple-few hundred nm.

An SR22 owner could say the same thing over a 421. Your usage and trip lengths just aren't really compelling even for a 421.

In some cases, your missions are well defined and won't change, but in most cases, given a faster, more capable airplane, you tend to use it on longer missions. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be flying 200 nm missions that a Cessna 172 could handle.

Mike C.

Truth. In the first year of owning my 425 I flew it about 33% more miles than the highest utilization year for my twin commander. Next month I'm taking the 425 on a 2800nm round trip to Mexico, something I would have never considered in the commander. My per mile cost in the 425 is the same as the twin commander, although some of that is due to the dramatically cheaper (smaller) hangar required for the 425.

What Commander did you have?

500B with Merlyn TIO540 (320 HP) conversion. Awesome airplane.