As I understand it, (I'm neither a lawyer nor a subject matter expert here), you can have a company that does nothing but own the airplane.

The flight department company trap is when the sole-purpose company both owns AND operates the airplane (and tries to do so under part 91) on behalf of another entity.

As always, get competent and fact-specific advice.

As I understand it, (I'm neither a lawyer nor a subject matter expert here), you can have a company that does nothing but own the airplane.

The flight department company trap is when the sole-purpose company both owns AND operates the airplane (and tries to do so under part 91) on behalf of another entity.

As always, get competent and fact-specific advice.

Josh,

Not quite true. That's talking about a flight department company with paid pilots, etc. which runs afoul of PT91 because they are providing services to another company. What they are describing is a company which just owns the airplane and you sell the company (and its assets). This is quite common and why there are so many Delaware Corporations and other LLCs as the registered owners of airplanes. In my case, I bought my plane and registered it to an LLC of which I am the sole owner. I did pay taxes on the purchase. I can take on a partner by selling him/her half the LLC or sell the plane by selling the entire LLC and then they own the plane and potentially may avoid paying Sales/Use tax on their new plane (lots of variables there). If a sale happened this way, the new owner would then also be able to keep using the maintenance program I elected (and noted as such) in the maintenance logs since technically ownership of the airplane hasn't changed.

The flight department trap is a different animal altogether. I absolutely can (and do) use my LLC-owned plane for business purposes supporting my real job. This does not run afoul of the trap....

Why the 441 is more expensive?

I like the MU-2's but wife vetoed since someone we know sold one to a new owner that killed himself in it shortly thereafter. Try and explain pilot error to the wife!

The Commanders have a lot of models, some with up to 22 bladder tanks, and many airframe AD's. Selecting the right one was too confusing for me, and I was afraid of maintenance support with so many divert models.

All 441's made are basically the same airplane. Just 2 fuel tanks and the same electric pump for main and aux, 2 in each tank. Some of the latest ones had master caution, auto ignition, and some other options, but all add-ons can be added to all airplanes, and I added them to mine. My opinion is the 441 cabin is the most comfortable and flexible of the three. MU-2 cabin is round, limiting shoulder room, 441 is more square. 441 also has large front baggage. The 441 airframe is light, mine is 6330 lbs empty ( almost 1000 lbs lighter than a new C90!) providing almost 4100 lbs useful load. Given the three airplanes use the same engine, once they are temperature limited, the lighter plane will have an advantage. All 441's hold 475 gal fuel, and cruise speeds are around 300 knots from 16,000 to 35000 feet - it does not decrease with high altitude as with many other TP's and I have no idea how Cessan accomplished that! I typically see 300 KTAS on around 450 lbs/hr. At RVSM altitudes fuel burn will drop to maybe 325 lbs/hr. Climb to FL270/280 is typically 15 minutes.
They are easy to fly, are relatively quiet inside, I have passengers saying it is more quiet than my previous 421 and even C90.

Except for SID, not much not to like.

At Christmas I flew mine to Cancun with 9 people, 5hr32 min, 1662 NM at FL270 and had 700 lb reserve! Waiting for RVSM

That is perhaps the biggest knock on the 441, it is a turboprop built to piston twin sturdiness and thus a bit too light for the job sometimes.

The MU2 is the opposite, built too heavy. Somewhere between them is the ideal weight.


441 is a very nice airplane. I didn't buy one due to SIDs (which drive up low utilization ownership costs) and due to initial purchase price (3 times what I paid for my MU2). If the 441 had been the same money, I'd have bought one instead. The main advantage is longer range, especially with RVSM.

Since owning the MU2, I've come to prefer the cabin door and seating arrangement in the MU2 especially when traveling with elderly passengers. The air stair is not that easy for someone who doesn't have good use of their legs. The MU2 is easy, and that has turned out to be significant for my use over the last few years. My elderly parents simply don't travel unless I fly them as the airlines are just not workable any more.

Mike C.

That is perhaps the biggest knock on the 441, it is a turboprop built to piston twin sturdiness and thus a bit too light for the job sometimes.

The MU2 is the opposite, built too heavy. Somewhere between them is the ideal weight.


Mike C.

The SID was a gut bunch to the conquest. Many at the time thought it would all but kill off the model.
How wrong that thinking was. The 441 has rebounded with incredible valuations and are holding strong. Look around, it takes $1.25 million to get one at the high standards most of us owner/operators have.

Incredible airplane.

I seem to recall that Cessna was right onboard with the SID thinking it would both limit their liability and help them sell citations. Did the SID go too far? Is it really necessary? Perhaps it was a little under-engineered and therefore the SID was called for. I really don't know. Probabaly somewhere in between.

That is perhaps the biggest knock on the 441, it is a turboprop built to piston twin sturdiness and thus a bit too light for the job sometimes.

The MU2 is the opposite, built too heavy. Somewhere between them is the ideal weight.


441 is a very nice airplane. I didn't buy one due to SIDs (which drive up low utilization ownership costs) and due to initial purchase price (3 times what I paid for my MU2). If the 441 had been the same money, I'd have bought one instead. The main advantage is longer range, especially with RVSM.

Since owning the MU2, I've come to prefer the cabin door and seating arrangement in the MU2 especially when traveling with elderly passengers. The air stair is not that easy for someone who doesn't have good use of their legs. The MU2 is easy, and that has turned out to be significant for my use over the last few years. My elderly parents simply don't travel unless I fly them as the airlines are just not workable any more.

Mike C.

Read about the 441 tail controversy when it first came out. Nasty business that grounded the fleet not once, but TWICE. This was a direct result of using a tail good enough for a piston airplane on a turboprop.

To a lesser degree, this is true of other parts of the airplane. The 441 is just more delicate than an MU2 and a King Air. For example, the entry door robustness. The benefit is that it is lighter.

Mike C.

Yes, but before the SIDs it was $1.5M typically. So there was a hit of some value and the cost of doing the SID. If someone didn't do the SID, their market value plummeted. No SID adds value to an airplane, you can only hope to recover back to it or nearly so.


Concur. I would have bought one but for the price.


Yes, it did. From what I hear, the SID has caused more problems than it has detected and solved. The post SID squawks are worse than those going in and take a bit of time to recover from.

The worst thing the SID did was provide a blue print for how manufacturers can make significant regulation through the maintenance program for turboprop twins. This allows an end run around the AD/NPRM process with no checks or balances.

Mike C.

There is no insistence except in your imagination. Every airplane has pluses and minuses and whether that is better or worse depends on what you value more or less.

The 441 is a great airplane. 4 things my MU2 is better at is being cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, stronger built, and easy passenger access. The 441 is better at being more "conventional", longer range, higher altitude, and probably a few other things not evident to me.


True, that means more of the market favors what the 441 offers versus the MU2. That saved me money. :-) I was less enthused about the MU2 before I bought it, but now after 7+ years, I am very happy I went that way. I'm sure if I bought a 441, I would be happy, too.


It is basically a 400 series piston twin airframe with turboprop engines. Some of the wing design is similar with early Citations but it isn't the "same" wing exactly.


In the "flies cargo" category, nothing compares to the MU2 for service history.

The 441 rarely flew cargo, the piston powered 402 and 404 did, and they got wore out doing it. Put a 15,000 hour 402 next to a 15,000 hour MU2. That will tell you something about sturdiness. Then go find a 30,000 hour MU2 and there are no 402s to compare with.

Mike C.

A third of the 441 fleet operates in Autralia, a continent almost exactly the size of the USA. I understand the reason they are so popular is they can go cross country nonstop, and more importantly go from the coast to the diddle of the country, and back, without refueling. So, roughly 1/3rd of the 441's are pulling transportation duties in Australia

I agree the MU-2 is stout. The same friend that sold the MU-2 to the person that killed himself in it told me a sort of how he landed it in a really bad winds and the touchdown was so hard it "almost knocked his filling fillings out"! He claimed the landing gear was made for a carrier! But again, if every part of the airplane is overbuilt, it will add weight, and the wing needs to be larger, stronger, bigger engine, carry more fuel, seems like a circle.... Every part needs to be strong enough, but not overbuilt. If the King Airs are so "overbuilt" how come they have crack inspections and mandatory wing braces on some?

The commonality of parts between the 441 and the piston twins was a positive for me: cabin doors, baggage doors, interior parts, etc, it just makes parts sourcing easier, and also incorporates well proven parts - no reason to "reinvent the wheel" every time. BTW, this was also the philosophy driving the Lockheed Skunk Works team.

Max, what is your longest leg to date in the 441?

SCOTTSDALE KSDL to Cancun MMUN this last Christmas with 9 people onboard. It was 1662 NM as flown, first half with a tailwind and second half into a headwind 5 hr32 minutes at FL 270, left a 700 lb reserve, burnt 2450 lbs. currently waiting on RVSM equipment approval for dual G600 and STEC-2100 A/P installation, then I still need to do the airframe approval. Fuel burn will drop from about 450lbs/hr to maybe around 325 lbs/hr, speed still around 300 KTAS.

The extra range and altitude capability are compelling in this use case.


The MU2 was inspired by the F-104J Starfighter which Mitsubishi was building under license around 1960. Many of the MU2 systems have resemblance to the F-104 as a result, and the landing gear shows the DNA from that. The F-104 was never carrier qualified, so that's not quite true. I can attest, ahem, that the landing gear is very stout!

The F-104 heritage explains why the MU2 is heavy and had military style systems.


Correct. The MU2 is about 500-700 pounds heavier than it could be realistically. But the wing is much smaller on a MU2 which helps reduce weight and improve the strength. This is the consequence of the full span flaps and spoilers.

The downside is lost useful load (3670 lbs for me, 1220 lbs full fuel) or range (1200 nm for me with reserves). The upside is a plane that will likely never have fatigue issues.


King Airs are from piston heritage, Queen Airs. They are not particularly overbuilt, IMO.


Unfortunately, Cessna took that a bit too far and the planes lost their tails early on.

Common parts is good as long as they can do the job. 1300 HP, FL350, 300 knots, and 6.3 PSI cabin is a LOT different than a 421 or 404 and the parts have to be up to the task.

Mike C.