There is always a lot to look at.

It could benefit you to wait for a decently-priced S/II. The extra fuel goes a long way, and with the better wing and greater thrust at cruise you'd be talking about going from 225 to 395 TAS instead of 350.

I think this excerpt addresses the main benefits of the S/II's design:

"The higher speeds of the Citation are impressive by themselves. For example, the S/II provides a specific range at normal cruise of 0.364 nm per pound, which is about five percent better than the Citation II’s corresponding value of 0.346 nm per pound. But the S/II achieves its speed and specific-range advantage while lifting a higher gross weight than its predecessor. Thus its improve- ment in maximum productivity is greater than the increase in either speed or specific range.

The Citation S/II is certificated for a ramp weight of 14,900 pounds, 1,400 pounds more than the II, and it has a max takeoff weight of 14,700 pounds. Thus, the S/II achieves its greater speed while carrying more, thereby emphasizing the benefits of Cessna’s aerodynamic and powerplant changes. Furthermore, the S/II can achieve an initial cruise altitude of FL 410 after a takeoff at max gross.

Mainly because the S/II’s flaps extend inboard until they nearly reach the fuselage rather than ending about a foot outboard as in the Citation II, the new aircraft has a stalling speed that is one knot slower than its predecessor’s, despite the S/II’s higher gross weight.
Part of the weight advantage of the S/II is consumed in the new aircraft’s heavier B/CA- equipped basic operating weight — 8,756 pounds, compared with the II’s BOW of 8,035 — but the new Citation has a useful load that exceeds the II’s by a respectable 679 pounds. An operator may choose to use that greater useful load for carrying passengers, or he can take advantage of the S/II’s 5,777-pound-capacity fuel tanks, which hold 805 pounds more than its predecessor."

- http://compair.aviationresearch.com/dat ... age_56.pdf

Of course, in an ideal world there would always be the right airplane for sale at the right time at the right price, but it never seems to work out that way, does it? Whichever decision you make, the S/II and II are great airplanes, so you'll be in good shape no matter what.

In terms of flight planning guides, I would encourage you to pick up a copy of this manual on the II: https://www.esscoaircraft.com/p-30005-c ... guide.aspx One also exists for the S/II although I couldn't find it online.

Good luck!

I'm sure with the enormous economic incentive to stay under 150 hrs/year, one could manage. Keeping a hand/dry lease in a KA of some sort could pay for itself to halve the citation inspection schedule.

Guys, I do have full manuals, but they are at the office. I would plan on ISA +10 or 20C numbers for the southwest, don't know where you are flying. Also, I have never taken a II to FL 430. I found it anemic at 390. Also, I wasn't doing really long flights in the II. You can definitely get to ISA up that high. Ask the gentleman that is demoing to go to 430, you'll pay the gas.

Dave, are you getting your type in the plane or full motion sim? My suggestion would be to get the type in your plane after purchase, then go to recurrent at a full motion sim. The insurance company should be fine with this based on your previous turbine experience. You will really get a higher comfort level with a combination of both.

Planning on doing it in the plane as you suggest. There is a school here the insurance folks will accept and they seem good to work with. They can't do the single pilot checkout. I've found two places that will do that in the plane or I can go to one of the sim providers. I agree, I like both sim time and time in the plane.

This plane seem to be able to go to FL370 with out a step climb according to what I have beginning at 13,100 gross. Of course, we are looking at planes with a 1,000 pound gross weight increase. The fella I'm flying with says is IISP will go right to FL370 and the II won't. Guess I'll pin that down more.

Elliot: with the limited number of SII on the market, we couldn't find one that met our criteria. We'll keep our eyes open. Remaining engine time is important to us and we couldn't find a SII with engine times we liked for anything around what we were willing to pay.
I saw that manual, but wasn't sure what the flight planning manual was and they didn't offer a description. I've got some flight planning information, but it's not complete. Didn't want to purchase something else that wasn't what I needed. I'll get manuals when I formally enroll in training or get a plane.

Thanks for your thoughts. Seems there's always, faster, more better, longer range for more money; it just seems to be a matter of how much

That's what we're thinking, but we haven't looked into it enough to be comfortable we can use it here in the Dallas area yet. Looks like a local approval thing, but don't know.

Attached is performance information from Sierra. Note the LRC profile that they suggest on page 6. Basically they suggest step climbs, stopping the climb when the climb rate is down to 500fpm, leveling off and flying at an AOA of .35, reducing power to maintain the AOA of .35 (which is the aircraft best L/D ratio), climbing another 4000' when you have the reserve power to do it based on the power reduction, and repeat until at max altitude and maintain cruise at .35 AOA.

I have heard folks talk of using this profile for long range overwater flights.

From reading around it does look like the II is challenged to get up to FL430. That leaves you down with higher winds and ISA affecting performance.

Richard Bacon in Golden CO should be the guy doing the Low Utilization Inspection Program. I have heard of a few owners who used him and they all sound happy with what he setup.

Highlights of the program: Phase 1-4 goes to 36 months, Phase 5 goes to 72 months, and it gives you more flexibility and control with some of the other inspections. MAJOR savings if you are a low utilization owner. The phase extension are only calendar and not usage. Therefore the extension of the phase one through four still does not eliminate the 300 hour restriction. Therefore to gain the extension of the phase 1 - 4 to three years instead of two, your flying would have to average only 100 hours a year. If you fly 150 hours a year, you gain no benefit on the phase 1 - 4. Even so, the phase 5 extension up to 6 years would still be valuable.

Low Utilization, Individual Inspection Programs for Citations 500/501, 550/551 and S550:

Advantages:
Significantly reduces operating costs
Extends the expensive Phase 5 inspection calendar deadline from every 3 years to every 6 years
Extends the 1, 2, 3 & 4 Phase inspections calendar deadlines from every 2 years to every 3 years
FAA 91.409(f)(4) Inspection Program
Organizes inspections, creating a more logical, efficient, cost effective Inspection Program
Less down time
The owner or his designee is the program manager.
The Individual Inspection Program is for your one aircraft, not the whole fleet.
Freezes your inspection program, making your program not vulnerable to additional inappropriate inspections.
Continued CESCOM tracking

Requirements:
Less than 150 hours per year anticipated usage
Hangared
Pass a non-invasive corrosion inspection


I know of a Citation I in Abilene, TX that got approval to be on it. Would that be in the same FSDO as you?

Yes, I have a LOA from Tampa FSDO to him approving a plane in Florida.
The letter we have says the 5a is normal schedule, but the b and c. can be extended as your post suggests. I'll give him a call, but no, that wouldn't be in our area. I'll ask him what it would take to get a Dallas approval, if there is a transfer cost or what the cost is to get an LOA on a plane not currently approved. Some of these can be pretty expensive as you know. If reasonable, and doable here, it sounds like a great fit for us.
I hate to post that letter without his approval and the owner's permission, but you have the essence of it.

Thanks for that long range cruise profile. I'll keep it.

I understand his cost to be $12,500 plus expenses to get a plane onto his program.

The Abilene plane got approval from the Lubbock, TX FSDO.

Thanks! That seems reasonable. I'll try to contact him and inquire.

Dave,

This is fun to follow you along.

Interesting how all the SIIs currently on controller have no ask price listed

http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?manu=CESSNA&mdltxt=CITATION+SII

Dave,

You're correct about limited market. It is a real problem for serious buyers like yourself. If you ever want scans out of the S/II's flight planning guide, let me know.

Dave,
Enjoying your progression and quest-thank you for letting us ride along!
Have you considered the Cessna Bravo?
A PDF of a 1997 analysis (wish we could still get jet A for the price shown) compair.aviationresearch.com/database_files/TheImage_38.pdf
James

Allen, when you are the sole pilot in your jet, are you wearing the O2 mask all the time at the higher levels?