I think I recognize that video

It's a Caribbean thing. A few of our more senior guys wear gloves while flying. Our CEO gives every new PIC a pair of pink rubber gloves as a present. And yes, we all make fun of them

???

I think Bombardier has single handedly made the "service network" a cornerstone selling point for cessna. If learjet's support wasn't so poor, they wouldn't notice cessna's is so good (which it is).

Embraer has a service center at IWA, right next to cessna. My first impression tells me it must not be too poor.

Mike,

You were saying that a Legacy vs a CJ is a better deal because of the cap cost. I thought I'd show my numbers when I considered this:

I wasn't considering a 1 or a II, I was looking at a V or an Ultra. So I figured 1.25MM or more for a nice one. So 1/2 the cap cost of the CJ2.

I talked to a number of banks and both can be financed but a newer plane is generally a little cheaper to finance than an older one. I used 5.5% for the legacy and 5% for the CJ2.
CJ2 2.5MM = $10,416/mo
CV = 1.25MM = $5729/mo
So $4686/mo more for the CJ. At $4/gal that's 1171 gallons. At 25 hours/mo that 46 gallons/hour - The delta burn between these airplanes is not quite that much but it is close.

Depreciation is tougher to figure. I get that the legacy plane has to depreciate twice as fast as the CJ2 to create the same $ loss. If/when fuel prices go up, I believe that this will happen.

Maintenance - a newer plane should be cheaper than an older plane. A less complex airplane (CJ) should be cheaper than a more complex airplane. I ball-parked that a CJ2 was $50/hour cheaper but also considerably less risk (cash flow variation) with the parts program. The value of predictable per hour cost gives me more cash to operate our business rather than keeping a reserve for those inevitable $50K surprises of legacy ownership.

Hangar - $150/mo (in SDL) cheaper for a CJ (less square feet)

Insurance - wash (CJ is higher hull value but older planes are more expensive to insure per hull $)

Training - Initial in both is about the same but the legacy requires a $10K SP course. Recurrent in the CJ is 6K, annual SP cert in the legacy is around $10K.

CJ2 is easier to fly than a V. It was designed as a SP airplane out of the box, it has a better AP and better avionics. So my mentor time will be less in the CJ vs the V. (I got typed in both and this WAS THE BIG QUESTION I was working to answer in going through these).

Liquidity - a nice CJ2 is a very liquid for an airplane. I figure 1/2 the time on the market vs a legacy.

Everybody puts different numbers in these equations but for me the numbers swung towards the CJ2 at 250-300hours/year. Below that, the legacy citation was a better deal.

V market is pretty upside down now; a friend just bought a pretty nice one with decent times left for $575. Some super nice ones can be had for $750. The V is a real airplane that can do almost anything a 525 can do for a good capital buy in. After my 501 training period is over in a year or two, that's what I will consider. Fuel cost is about the same as a 501 when you consider the speed .

CJ2 versus Ultra is not quite fair.

CJ2 is smaller, less range, less speed, and one of the older CJ series.

Ultra is larger, more range, more speed, and one of the last legacy Citations to exist.

If you look at cabin size and range, a II compares to a CJ2, a CJ3 compares to an Ultra.


$1.25M for an Ultra is top of market, $2.5M for CJ2 is bottom of market from what I can tell, so maybe a bit of bias there.


That's a guess. I think it is quite easy for a CJ2 to drop $500K in value. It would be quite a change for an Ultra to do that.


This is a common misconception.

The newer plane on the parts program assures you pay full retail on parts from Textron. You end up paying for all the parts you get, the program is just a leveler, not a discount. The maintenance tendency is to replace parts to debug stuff. You tend to take the newer plane to factory service centers. Textron isn't offering the parts program to save you money, they are doing it so they make money.

The older plane not on parts program means you can select much cheaper non factory service and be frugal on where to buy parts, overhaul your own, get used parts, or spend more effort debugging before replacing.

I am absolutely certain someone can maintain a legacy Citation for less than a CJ2 on the parts program taken to the factory service center.


That $50K was sent to Textron on the program payments. You don't have it. All you are doing is letting Textron hold your money instead of you, and they force you to spend it on retail factory parts.

The CJP web site has a lot of traffic on how those program costs have jumped significantly on renewals. As the CJ line ages, Textron wants to get its money.


Because the Ultra is BIGGER. A II would not require more cost.


The quotes I received on a CJ2 ($3M hull) and SII with FJ44 ($1.6M) was exactly the same hull rate. The hull rate for a II ($500K) was higher by 30%. Lower cost hulls do have a higher rate just from being lower hull value.

My quote for SII $1.6M hull was 0.40% hull rate, $6400. I'd expect an Ultra to be similar, maybe 0.45%. Insurance just isn't a big deal for Citations of any kind, so many flying, so few crashing.


This is an advantage to the CJ2. Simcom does the initial SPE for $9K and then it is $4K extra on recurrent. Other places offer SPE for cheaper, but in airplane.


You can get legacy airplanes with G600, GTN, etc. so this is addressable. I don't think the effort to fly either one is an issue.


If you assign any value to the Ultra being larger, faster, longer range, then it is the better deal all around. If you want SP out of the box, newer, less fuel, then the CJ2 is for you.

Mike C.

Cabin size may be comparable, but CJ2 performance blows away the II. Not a fair compariison either. Go fly a II and an Ultra and see what you think.

The II is a dog :D

What does the performance look like on the 560 (specifically V) series? Pretty compelling given where these things are trading.

Ultra and CJ2 range is the same (see jet advisors website)
The ultra is 20 kts faster (burning 65 GPH more)
Ultra has 11 seats, my CJ2 has 10
Ultra has expensive ACM and inverters, CJ does not

You can maintain either of them in little shops or big shops but if you compare big shop CJ to big shop ultra maintenance, CJ will be cheaper.

The citation II doesn’t compare to a CJ2

$2.5MM is average selling price for a clean CJ2 with Garmin 530's or 750's with WAAS.

You can find range values all over the map from various sites like that. So many assumptions behind them that they aren't often apples to apples.

Using the actual Cessna manuals, FL450, ISA, no wind, MGTOW for each plane, 800 lbs reserve in the CJ2, 1000 lbs reserve in the Ultra:

Ultra MCT: 1650 nm
Ultra LRC: 1740 nm

CJ2 MCT: 1450 nm
CJ2 LRC: 1470 nm

200 to 270 nm more range for the Ultra.


You are bit over on the fuel flow difference.

FL450, mid cruise weight (half planned fuel burned), ISA:

Ultra MCT: 393 KTAS, 961 PPH
Ultra LRC: 378 KTAS, 894 PPH

CJ2 MCT: 379 KTAS, 676 PPH
CJ2 LRC: 357 KTAS, 620 PPH

At MCT, the Ultra is 285 PPH more, 43 GPH more.

At LRC, the Ultra is 274 PPH more, 41 GPH more.

If you fly the same speed, Ultra at LRC, CJ2 at MCT, then the Ultra is 218 PPH more, 33 GPH more. At the same speed, the Ultra goes 290 nm farther, or you can carry more payload on the same length mission, or operate lighter and enjoy faster speeds and less runway usage.


Ultra is certified for up to 13 seats (2 crew, 11 passengers).

CJ2 is certified for up to 10 seats (2 crew, 8 passengers).


Having owned an ACM and two inverters for 10+ years, they are not a major maintenance problem. The inverters haven't failed (and I think they are original with the plane, ~43 years old). The ACM core is working fine, but I have had a sensor or two fail in the control system. ACM and inverters are not major cost centers. I've spent more on tires than the ACM.


No, probably not. But then an Ultra doesn't compare to a CJ2. So it is an imperfect comparison. My point is that the Ultra is pretty much THE top "legacy" Citation out there, and the CJ2 is clearly not THE top 525 series airplane.

Mike C.

Sounds like avionics you'd find in many legacy Citations.

Mike C.

I don't think John is arguing that it is. He just listed for us his thinking about the choices and why he made the one he did.

The data you present is interesting and valuable. Your experience with some of the equipment John was concerned about is one data point which is useful but there are others and perhaps those were the ones that concerned him in his analysis.

From my perspective the most important thing John said about his decision matrix was his feeling that the CJ2 would be easier for him to operate single pilot. He has very humbly stated, in any number of threads, his feelings about his capabilities as a currently non professional pilot who flies as an adjunct to his business not as a primary vocation. That conservative approach from someone who I think we would all recognize as an accomplished pilot is well worth noting. The original point of the thread was Mark's comments about the relative ease of flying a 525 compared to the 500 series. This from another accomplished pilot with a lot of 500 experience.

As one reads dozens and dozens of threads debating the relative merits of old(er) vs. new(er) it's clear that each of us comes to the discussion with preconceived preferences that may or may not align with the data in the strictest sense. Some people have a natural affinity for older, and prefer lower capital costs while others are happy to pay more for more modern equipment. And it is not a simple matter to express the complex reasoning that often goes into the selection of one product or another. It is a simpler matter to pick apart piecemeal the limited points of the whole typically made.

I like to analyze the relative costs and performance of airplanes myself as I contemplate the next move. But when staring for hours at data from competing choices where one attribute is countered by another the decision on data alone becomes frustrating and even a bit paralyzing. My wife's useful question after a lot of spreadsheet's is always "what do you want"? In the choice of airplane, which is an incredible luxury (yes and tool too) which we are fortunate to be able to own, her question is perhaps the most important. I suspect that it is one that John didn't list but did factor into his decision process.

Your research with some of the equipment John was concerned about is one data point which is useful but there are others and perhaps those were the ones that concerned him in his analysis.

Sounds like avionics you'd find in many legacy Citations.

Mike C.