ProParts is a program that essentially covers the whole airplane including consumables. In the early years ProParts was a good deal. Today, not so much.

Congrats!

What is the hourly (or monthly/yearly) cost for the ProParts program for a Mustang?

What is the hourly (or monthly/yearly) cost for the ProParts program for a Mustang?

Parts $184/hr
engines $154/hr
protech $268/hr

Sorry for being ignorant, but what is protech for? And I assume that the $154/hr for engines is for both?

TIA

Controller: Traffic, 1:00.
Pilot: Can't see them, but I'm all caught up on Stranger Things.

Chip-

Mark, great video! Thanks. Not boring at all to this VFR PA28 pilot. Made me feel like I was mixing it up with the big boys. Love your co-pilot.

Please go ahead and post the information here for the rest of us so that this can become the definitive Citation Mustang thread.

Seems like if you comine pro parts, pro tech and the engine programs, your plane maintenance is 90%+ paid for? Is that right, Mark or Clint?

I would just change the title a little. I would reword it to if you have a jet mission, the Mustang is just about perfect. Might seem like semantics, but as someone who has really looked at getting a Mustang several times through the years....

My take on it, is it really shines when you need to fly far and fast, and can get high. The perfect trip is 750 nm from nice runway to nice runway. On short, low altitude missions which is the norm for an owner pilot, it is not so perfect. If your missions are mixed, like a lot of GA owner pilots, and involve shorter flights, Training flights, hamburger runs, short fields, high, hot, short fields, contaminated runways, it just not the best tool. Is a nice aircraft though. .

really watching...

Not sure that I agree entirely on the re-wording. In some ways, defining the mission by the type of aircraft defeats the purpose of defining the mission and then choosing amongst airframes that fit the mission.

We were originally looking at King Air 90/250 as an upgrade. But was encouraged by the Textron sales gent in the Northeast, to at least consider the M2. I was very reluctant at first. But the more I looked at it, the more it made sense to look at a light jet vs a turbo prop. Turbo props have great advantage for shorter legs, hauling more stuff/people, short runways and contaminated runways. But the light jets do a great job when it comes to speed and getting there if you don't need to haul a lot of stuff or people.

Surprisingly, when looking at cost per nm, the at right around 300nm, about a $0.20 cost advantage C90 vs M2; $0.10 cost advantage KA250 vs M2. At around 600nm, the M2 has a $0.19 cost advantage over the C90 and about a $0.23 cost advantage over the KA250. Please don't hold me to the pennies. The point is that the light jets only have a small cost penalty to the twin turbo props at 300nm and somewhere between 300nm and 600nm, the advantage goes to the small jets. (I know that these are M2 #s and not Mustang #s but again point is that the crossover point may be shorter than one thinks.)

Of course the SETP will have a different cost profile an likely and advantage that carries farther than 300nm. But in comparing twin turbos vs small jets, the crossover point on legs and economics was shorter than I thought.

Some of it does depend on how you are paying for it, who is paying for it, Tax implications, and the timeline. And yes, I was thinking about it from a perspective of a single engine turbo prop. A similar sized single turbo prop is going to run about 1/3 to 1/2 per hour doing an apples to apples comparison. Since all mustangs now are used, you would have to compare used apples.