Can someone explain the differences between the Encore and the CJ4. Seems as though the Encore can do everything the CJ4 can do (or 95% it) for less then half the cost. Are the 535A Pratts more problematic than the FJ44’s? Is one cheaper to maintain?

I’m not intimately familiar with the Encore, but own and operate/fly a CJ4. The thing to me that you don’t get on the CJ4, or any CJ for that matter is Thrust Reverse. Depending on how often that is meaningful to you should be a consideration in your decision making if stopping on contaminated runways will be routine. The fadec CJ’s stop well on wet runways due to the lower idle thrust enabled by the fadec. The non fadec CJ’s use thrust attenuators to redirect idle thrust, but nothing stops well on icy runways. Reverse definitely helps with that initial deployment to slow down.

Performance wise it appears the Encore was a good performer during its time, but the CJ4 will perform with more enthusiasm. I came back to southern Wisconsin a few days ago from Palm Beach. I had myself and 7 adults onboard with overnight bags and took off with 5300lbs of fuel. Temps at FL400 were consistently between ISA+5 to ISA+16. The CJ4 was still able to accelerate to .74 and when the temps were closer to +5 it would go .76. I don’t think the Encore will do that. Is that important? Probably not unless you’re consistently going long range. In the CJ4 I can reliably go 1600-2000nm depending on winds and destination weather with 6 people on board. The flexibility of the CJ4 has been a pleasant part of the ownership experience. The cost of operation is in the upper end of light jet direct operating costs. I plan 1600-1800 per hour depending on trip length and price of fuel. I suspect the Encore fuel burn is similar to a CJ4. My perspective is the CJ3 may be a better comparison to the Encore. I could be wrong.

I’m sure Chip can be more enlightening.

Brent

I manage and fly 8 citations, but I haven't flown the CJ4 (only one of the 525s I don't have direct experience with) so I will not pretend to be an expert, but I am experienced in the general citation line.

General thoughts:

1. The CJ4 is single pilot from the start, you'll need a single pilot exemption on the Encore. That said, I don't know many operators that fly that CJ4 SP either because they choose or insurance requires it.

2. The CJ4 has proline 21 over the antiquated Honeywell Primus package. BOTH are incredibly expensive to fix and they break more often than Garmin IMO. I'd choose PL21 over the Primus for detail and capability.

3. The CJ4 is a mostly clean sheet design (2008 introduction of the highly refined CJ4) of a clean sheet design (1993 525 clean sheet launch) vs a model that has been introduced and altered since 1970.

4. You have a higher MMO at .77 in the CJ4 vs .755 in the Encore and a Vmo of 305 vs 292

5. The published range is higher on the CJ4

6. The CJ4 seems to average around 1200pph, trickle down closer to 1000pph at higher alts vs a little higher on the Encore. My one flight in the ultra was averaging 1400pph at FL400/410.

Ultimately you get a newer aircraft, cleaner design that's still being produced and you'll likely save a little fuel, go a little further and faster, and at an apples to apples shop you'll probably save money in maintenance on the CJ4.

Are these worth the extra capital cost? That is and has been the $64,000 question.

The CJ4 is an absolute sweetheart to fly. Ref not much higher than a Baron. Definitely designed as a single pilot, low workload airplane. If I had the money, I’d get one.

The Encore+ seems to be the one to get. Slightly better than Ultra performance, better payload range vs cj4 and PL21. Most of that ones I have looked at were high time old fractional birds. They can have single point too. I spoke with a few people that ran them, only ‘advantage’ I could see to CJ4 was single pilot out of the box and slightly more range. The speed difference between the two is insignificant on even the longest flights. I was told most fractional that flew the + did not run them on programs so I assume overhauls are doable.

If I was going to get a jet, the Encore+ seemed like the best option. Little more cost than cj2 and p300 performance. I also like the cabin much more than cj4. Inches matter!

Good pirep: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... res-encore

Encore+ is Proline 21.

Encore (non plus) and Ultra are Primus 1000. The potential future availability of a Garmin autopilot would open them up to full Garmin panel upgrades. Garmin says this is on the roadmap, but not imminent yet. Garmin seems pathologically unable to understand the revenue this autopilot STC would open up, but hopefully they get going on this.

I have a full Garmin panel in my V, with the original SPZ 500 autopilot. Avionics maintenance has been close to zero, and would be inexpensive if it would occur. I spend less than $1K per year for database for all of it, PL21 is major $$$ for that.

A full Garmin upgrade for the CJ4 seems unlikely.


With problems that go with that. Ask CJ4 owners about windshield related corrosion issues. CJ4 differs from the CJ family in the windshield, door, and wing design, but otherwise is mostly a 525 airplane.


Encore+ book fuel flow at mid weight, FL410, ISA, max thrust is 1088 pph. If they were burring 1400 pph, there is something wrong so I suspect your observation isn't trustworthy. Maybe you took your data at a lower altitude?


The extra cost of capital trumps all those slight advantages, if they exist at all. Depreciation will be a bigger issue for the CJ4 than the Encore+.

I'm fairly certain the Encore+ will be cheaper to maintain since it ties into the 500 series ecosystem with better options. The PW500 series does have two options for overhaul, Pratt and StandardAero, FJ44 has only one, Williams. Not clear that makes a huge difference, though.

The TRs open up options the CJ4 will never have, such as operating from ice covered runways.

Having a lower hull value will make insurance easier and cheaper. Also save on taxes.

Mike C.

TRs will let you stop on icy runways.

For sea level, ISA, max landing weight, landing distance:

For Encore+:

Dry: 2770 ft
Wet: 3320 ft
Snow: 3200 ft
Ice: 4950 ft

For CJ4:

Dry: 2940 ft
Wet: 4050 ft
Snow: 4470 ft
Ice: 16,000 ft

You need a Space Shuttle runway to land on ice in the CJ4.

Whether this matters is mission dependent, of course. It mattered to me recently when I departed on an ice covered 5500 ft runway for a business trip, something the CJ4 could not have done. I regularly land without using brakes which makes my brakes and tires last a lot longer than they would on a CJ4.

Mike C.

Mike,

My flight was in an ultra, not Encore/Encore+. Upon further investigation they are different engines.

I wouldn't depart any aircraft on a truly ice covered runway, snow I'm comfortable with TRs or no TRs as long as it's wide and long enough.

Corey

Ultra at mid weight, FL410, ISA, MCT is 1186 pph from the manual. The 1400 pph number just doesn't compute unless there is something wrong with the engines or the pilot is going past MCT. That's very expensive on an Ultra since the HT blades are much $$$.


You would have been stuck at my home airport for a week. If you want a $12M airplane which strands you for a week, I guess a CJ4 is okay.

It was absolutely no issue for me to depart on ice. The key is that it is frozen solid all the way through and you don't punch the tires through the ice and create shards. Snow is good, unless there are pockets where it isn't compacted well, which can be hard to determined. If you hit one of those, it can introduce a yaw as the wheel plows deep into it.

I am extremely happy with having TRs and would be VERY reluctant to give those up. This is why the Encore remained in production so long despite the CJ series existing, there is a place for TR equipped airplanes. In my case, I had brake trouble early on in my ownership (bad pressure switch) which led to 9 landings without brakes. The warning switch was also broken so these happened as a surprise. With TRs, no issue, without them, I'd probably have been off the end of the runway on the first one. Now fixed, but the value of TRs was made clear to me right away.

Mike C.

No experience in the CJ, but I fly an Encore with fresh engines and the partial JetTech panel(pair of 750's). Its a solid .74 bird with similar fuel flows in the 1,200pph range at typical cruise altitudes. If the promised Garmin upgrades happen, that will turn the airframe into very desirable alternative to the CJ4.

It will probably gain 300+ lbs useful load, too, and be somewhat more tail heavy, which will improve speeds a bit.

My V Garmin upgrade dropped 380 lbs. I do have to carry ballast in the nose when I am lightly loaded, but it goes away with increasing cabin loading. When I get a Garmin AP, I will drop another 100 lbs easily as well.

I don't understand why Garmin is not unlocking $100M+ in revenue by getting an AP for these aircraft. It should be a high priority, but it sure doesn't seem to be.

Mike C.

They are both excellent options in their own right.

It really comes down to how you operate it that makes the decision, we can have a 10 minute conversation about how you are going to use it / who will fly it / what's most important and I can tell you which way to go.

Feel free to give me a call if you want to talk through it.

It will probably gain 300+ lbs useful load, too, and be somewhat more tail heavy, which will improve speeds a bit.

My V Garmin upgrade dropped 380 lbs. I do have to carry ballast in the nose when I am lightly loaded, but it goes away with increasing cabin loading. When I get a Garmin AP, I will drop another 100 lbs easily as well.

I don't understand why Garmin is not unlocking $100M+ in revenue by getting an AP for these aircraft. It should be a high priority, but it sure doesn't seem to be.

Mike C.

Hmm, there's more to this story. What can you share?

I was approached to provide my airplane for testing the STEC 5000. There was some implausible story about a plane getting stuck in New Orleans or some nonsense. Anyway, not having use of my plane for that long made me unexcited about the option.


Your are rolling the dice with Genesys in that case for how well it works and integrates.

The STEC 500 won't integrate fully with the Garmin panels, so you still need annunciators and such. All things being equal, I'd rather have the Garmin AP so that I know it integrates very well with the panels and navigators.


How is VNAV? Will it track a SID/STAR altitude profiles automatically?

I will be curious what is on the list of things the GFC 600 does that the STEC 5000 doesn't, and vice versa.

Mike C.