Both Martin and I operate our own P300 so ask away, but I have no experience with the CJ4. I have sat in one a few times and the cabin feels small although it is only minimally less wide.

I would point out that I am replying to Martin's bit of nonsense here while IN my Mustang. Which I can do. Because I have on board WiFi. Which Martin can't do in his fancy 300.

And the primary reason that I'm so much slower than Martin's 300 is the extra $4,000,000 that I carry around in the baggage compartment. It's a considerable drag on performance!

Help me out here, where is the M2 so different from the 100 that the two are not fairly apples to apples? Always happy to learn...

I would point out that I am replying to Martin's bit of nonsense here while IN my Mustang. Which I can do. Because I have on board WiFi. Which Martin can't do in his fancy 300.

And the primary reason that I'm so much slower than Martin's 300 is the extra $4,000,000 that I carry around in the baggage compartment. It's a considerable drag on performance!

Quit surfing the net and watch where you're going!

The M2 is quite a bit more in terms of abilities than a P100. Faster, farther, heated wing, hauls more, seats more, etc... Look at it this way:

Mustang <----> Phenom 100 <-------------------> M2 <-------------------------------------->CJ3+

Both Martin and I operate our own P300 so ask away, but I have no experience with the CJ4. I have sat in one a few times and the cabin feels small although it is only minimally less wide.

I have always considered the Mustang and Phenom 100 competitors, having said that you could probably make a case that the 100EV is a competitor to the M2.

Both have their advantages, Textron has defiantly dominated the market from a service standpoint, but other than that it's all trade-offs.

MTOW 18,387 lbs
Zero Fuel 14,220 lbs
Full Fuel 5,310 lbs
Empty weight 11,454 lbs

If ISA+10, you need to be down to 16,800 lbs by the TOC. It would take you 28 min to get there and burn 718 lbs, so the takeoff weight could be 17,518 lbs. That gives you 6,064 lbs to play with between payload and fuel.

If you need max fuel and max payload you would have to stop a FL430...



Payload with FULL fuel is 1733 lbs. That's 9 x 180 lbs people with no luggage! The zero fuel weight is 14,220 lbs (so max 2766 lbs of payload, not sure where that would fit), which would still give you 4100+ lbs for fuel.

The EJOA.aero forum is pretty dead (but the annual conventions are great). However, there are several active Facebook groups (https://www.facebook.com/groups/187917278387944/ has over 600 members) that have a lot of professional pilots with high engagement. The average P300 pilot works for a fractional and is not going to spend $250 to join a type club.

Marcus hit it right on.

My BEW is 11,366 and I have the max weight increase Marcus has listed in his numbers as well. The older Phenom 300's are lighter birds, they have significantly improved the interior over the years at the expense of around 200-300 lbs. I think Embraer's demo 300E I saw had a full fuel payload of 1200. Keep in my Embraer does not provision for a pilot in their BEW number like Textron does.

And since Bryan is lurking here he can attest to I loaded up my 300 with a bunch of his guys and I was around 100 lbs under zero fuel weight. That is a number I never thought I would need look up.

No sir! We do not sell airplanes.

We only represent buyers. It doesn't matter to me if our clients buy a Mustang, an M2... a M600, TBM, a CJ-whatever, an XLS... a Lear 75, a Hawker, a Challenger... or a King Air.

I'm often accused of all of my post being advertising, and I guess they are in a way... but the reality is we maintain a full load of clients so I'm not out trolling for business, I start these post so that people can find them and learn from them.

For about 15 years I was on the sales side, sold older Lears and Citations... I hated the Mustang because I didn't understand it. I always thought "why not just buy a Citation II... it's cheaper and does more" when you flip to the buyers side and start to understand the entire ownership experience your mindset shifts and you begin to appreciate airplanes that were designed for more than go fast, carry a load.

From my perspective, I would say the M2 and HondaJet Elite are competitive with each other. The P100 range is consistent with the Mustang, Eclipse (and the Cirrus jet) but the ability to go 1500 nm does set the M2 and HondaJet Elite apart in my opinion. But my opinion is certainly not as informed as Chip’s and others in this thread. It’s just that when I look at my missions, I wouldn’t get a jet with an 1150 nm range because I would be on the edge of the range all the time. But would consider a jet with 1400-1500 nm range. So at least for my missions, that is a distinction that makes a difference.

Hence the reason Chip titled the thread the way he did.

Getting back to Chip's premise in his initial post, let me add another Mustang owner's perspective.

I posted some of this before since I DO have mine for sale. viewtopic.php?f=43&t=176571

I bought the Mustang five years ago, having flown only single engine pistons since I was 16. My plan was to fly it for three years, since I didn't really have a mission for it except that wanted to try flying a jet. I'm selling it after five years because I'm just not using it enough. I think there are quite a few Baron owners out there who should stop talking about it and try flying one, whether or not it is the one I'm selling. Its been a great experience.

Overall Cessna did a great job of designing the Mustang for the owner pilot, and still does a great job of supporting it. Unfortunately I think they under-marketed it or they would still be selling them, and the TBM sales guys would be having a tougher time.

A summary of my experience:

There is a good discussion of operating cost above. I've maintained it at the Textron Service Center and am on all programs. Parts and Labor programs are basically a way of spreading costs of over the year so they are predictable. My labor and parts programs costs are fairly close to what total maintenance charges have been.

Acquisition cost for a Mustang like mine is similar to a late model Baron and a lot less than an equivalent vintage TBM. Capital cost is a big part of total cost of ownership, so if it is a personal plane with no depreciation write off, this makes a big difference.

My dispatch rate has been about 99%. On the three occasions I was AOG, the mobile service unit got me going again with 24 hours.

The plane is comfortable. I think the cockpit is easier to get into (and occasionally stretch out in) than an M2 or CJ3+. You step around rather than over the center console. I regularly carry 4 family members, a service dog, 10 duffel bags, and a wheelchair. My family for the most part does not like to fly, and the lack or vibration and the ability to top most weather makes a big difference.

Whether the mission is long or short I've never had to cancel a trip because of weather. The ability to climb through icing layers at 180 (with an increased RAT) and get to 410 has enabled several trips I would have hesitated to do in a prop. And there is a lot of performance margin for single engine operations if I'm not in the mountains.

I usually have to stop on the way down to Florida from KBED (and usually nonstop back), but most of those flights are with passengers who don't want to use the potty on board, and I can almost always get fuel for less than $4 on the stop (probably less now). I don't make many trips to the west coast.

My A36 had tip tanks and increased gross weight, and fully loaded there were not a lot of airports I would take it into that I would not land the Mustang.

I've done the majority of my training in the plane, and have had some really good instructors. The type rating does mean more training days than a prop, but there are more flexible options than FlightSafety. And it definitely improved my ability to fly safely in any aircraft.

Citation Jet Pilots Association is a great community and has put a lot of emphasis on safety training over the past couple of years. The annual and regional events are great fun and Textron often sponsors well known country music stars to play at them

If I look at this list and compare total cost of ownership vs other planes discussed in this thread, I fully support Chip's premise that the Mustang is "darned near perfect" at least for my mission.

[quote="Bill Stevenson"]
Overall Cessna did a great job of designing the Mustang for the owner pilot, and still does a great job of supporting it. Unfortunately I think they under-marketed it or they would still be selling them, and the TBM sales guys would be having a tougher time.


Thanks for your input Bill!

I have a different take on why Mustang production ceased, bear in mind that Textron also quit building the CJ1+ and CJ2+... the CJ1+ was replaced years later with the M2 and the 2+ (probably the most popular 525 ever built) has basically been replaced by the CJ3+

I do wish Textron would build an M3, a direct replacement for the 2+ but it would fall into the dreaded $5-$6M price point. The reality is that someone who can afford a $6 million airplane, can afford an $8 million airplane, so why not buy the 3+

Textron has both new and used aircraft inventory to consider in their overall plan.I think they quit building the Mustang because they produced enough airplanes to meet the market that existed for that aircraft. Now they are producing the move up aircraft, the Citation M2. If the Mustang is a great airplane, the M2 is an awesome airplane! If Textron had overproduced the Mustang, the pre-owned values would suffer, and it would make it much more difficult for those owners to move up to the new M2.

My issue with the Phenom 100 is that Embraer seems to be competing with itself, we’ve had a couple of clients that ended up disenchanted with that airframe because the one they wanted (100EV) was out of their budget. I think Embraer should have discontinued the P100, and came out with the Phenom 200. Then once they had built a sustainable number of aircraft, and allowed the P100 to settle in, they could’ve come out with the P100EV.

On the surface what Textron does seems misguided, but when you look at the big picture and really study it, they are doing a brilliant job with marketing.

I do not have any inside information on this, but I will not be one bit surprised if you see a new 510 come out in the next couple of years.