BeechTalk - BT - Adding Citation Mustang to flight department

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 09:41

Username Protected wrote:

I hear yah. Different strokes for different folks. CJ2, M2, CJ3 = more capital outlay, and a faster (literally) learning curve. You'd be moving from 270 to 400: me 180 to 400.

It's not "different strokes for different folks". The market mimics what I'm saying.

Selling the KA200 and not buying the Mustang gives you plenty of money for a nice Citation or CJ.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 09:41

Username Protected wrote:

It's interesting to look at cycles compared to hours on the Mustang. They appear to average about 1 cycle every 1.1-1.5 hours. If you fly a Mustang, even occasionally, 500-1000 miles you'll have cycle times averaging more than that. So, short hops and jets may not go together but that's what the Mustang seems to be used for.

Why?

Because 'if you have a hammer you see lots of nails'. People who own a jet don't say 'today I am just going from Atlanta to Destin, let's charter a king-air'. They get in the jet and go where they want to go.

I pointed out somewhere in the SF50 thread how many jets do 'short hops' (based on flightaware data). It was rationalized away with explanations as logical as 'people who fly longer legs are probably blocked on flightaware' ;-)

Lots of business is regional, 500nm - 700nm is not an uncommon profile. The same question came up when someone wanted to add a PA46-500 to his PC12 based flight department.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 09:43

Username Protected wrote:

People don't buy the Mustang "for short hops". They buy the Mustang because it's a lot of bang of the buck at $1.5MM. Then they just use it for what they use it for.

If you already have a KA200 then you're not buying a Mustang because "that's just the plane that's in your price range".

I agree with this. But if you don't already have a KA 200 (and the OP's client does not - they are chartering) is the KA 200 still the best option? It would be interesting to compare the DOC's. Then add the capital carrying costs and see where you come out. If you're talking new the Mustang is certainly going to cost less over a reasonable hold period. Used? For a comparable age and time KA 200 the Mustang will still be cheaper.

To really look at this carefully I think you have to go beyond a meat cleaver approach (500-700 NM Trips) and specify how many of those you have (each). For example, in my case, my annual trips are 74% under 300 NM. But the miles I fly are 52% greater than 500 legs and 39% are greater than 800 (37% are greater than 1000). If most of the OP's trips are 700 miles and not 500 then a jet begins to make more sense.

But if the Mustang is a marginal plane for the purpose something like a 100 isn't the answer. It's a bigger jet. To your point, if there's no budget for it you just buy what you can afford and make the best of it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 09:46

Username Protected wrote:

It's interesting to look at cycles compared to hours on the Mustang. They appear to average about 1 cycle every 1.1-1.5 hours. If you fly a Mustang, even occasionally, 500-1000 miles you'll have cycle times averaging more than that. So, short hops and jets may not go together but that's what the Mustang seems to be used for.

Why?

Because 'if you have a hammer you see lots of nails'. People who own a jet don't say 'today I am just going from Atlanta to Destin, let's charter a king-air'. They get in the jet and go where they want to go.

I pointed out somewhere in the SF50 thread how many jets do 'short hops' (based on flightaware data). It was rationalized away with explanations as logical as 'people who fly longer legs are probably blocked on flightaware' ;-)

Lots of business is regional, 500nm with occasional 700 is not an uncommon profile. The same question came up when someone wanted to add a PA46-500 to his PC12 based flight department.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 09:50

Username Protected wrote:

It's interesting to look at cycles compared to hours on the Mustang. They appear to average about 1 cycle every 1.1-1.5 hours. If you fly a Mustang, even occasionally, 500-1000 miles you'll have cycle times averaging more than that. So, short hops and jets may not go together but that's what the Mustang seems to be used for.

Why?

Because 'if you have a hammer you see lots of nails'. People who own a jet don't say 'today I am just going from Atlanta to Destin, let's charter a king-air'. They get in the jet and go where they want to go.

I pointed out somewhere in the SF50 thread how many jets do 'short hops' (based on flightaware data). It was rationalized away with explanations as logical as 'people who fly longer legs are probably blocked on flightaware' ;-)

Lots of business is regional, 500nm with occasional 700 is not an uncommon profile. The same question came up when someone wanted to add a PA46-500 to his PC12 based flight department.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 09:54

Clint puts his DOC at $800/hr which is close to what jetbrokers.com posts. They have the Phenom 100 at close to $1000 which is 15-20% faster and the KA200 at $1200/hr which is slower.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 09:58

Username Protected wrote:

I agree. My question was rhetorical.

I can make an argument for my own purposes that a Mustang, CJ, M2, KA 90 or 200, Pilatus, TBM, M600 or even Mu2 or Commander works (if I want to fly antiques

). I've got a dozen hammers for different kinds of nails. I can only afford one airplane which may be the OP's situation as well. Do I buy a sledge hammer and try to drive finish nails? Or a tack hammer and beat away on 16 pennies?

The OP question tends to get lost in this kind of thread:

1-3 pax
500-700nm
3000-3500ft runways
Remotely managed
The capital is allocated/available

Not sure what we are even arguing about ;-)

(the OP said 'adding' a mustang, sounds like they run a challenger 604 somewhere else in the country)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 10:03

Username Protected wrote:

Clint puts his DOC at $800/hr which is close to what jetbrokers.com posts. They have the Phenom 100 at close to $1000 which is 15-20% faster and the KA200 at $1200/hr which is slower.

Is that the same method? 1200 DOC sounds high for a KA200.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 11:02

Username Protected wrote:

Clint puts his DOC at $800/hr which is close to what jetbrokers.com posts. They have the Phenom 100 at close to $1000 which is 15-20% faster and the KA200 at $1200/hr which is slower.

Is that the same method? 1200 DOC sounds high for a KA200.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 11:02

Username Protected wrote:

Clint puts his DOC at $800/hr which is close to what jetbrokers.com posts. They have the Phenom 100 at close to $1000 which is 15-20% faster and the KA200 at $1200/hr which is slower.

Is that the same method? 1200 DOC sounds high for a KA200.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 11:05

More to look at than just cost per trip for some folks. Speed, comfort, capability, the aura of a jet, etc.
For me, the Citation II v the C90 economically takes 100 gallons more fuel to go from Dallas to Madison, WI, but it saves an hour, it's more comfortable, and more capable (can climb over more weather). I've done round trip in one day in the Citation, whereas, the King Air became an over-nighter. The capital outlay for a legacy C90 and Citation II can be near the same. I've decided to own the C90 and lease the Citation for the fewer, long trips where I go higher, faster with lots of folks. Flying the Citation low on short trips will sure get one's attention re fuel burn. I like to do a lot of instrument training. The Citation just isn't efficient for this.
A lot of this is preference if cost isn't a major determining factor. Time and comfort are larger factors for some.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 11:42

Username Protected wrote:

Lots of ways to get to this. Which makes it confusing. But, consulting http://www.aircraftcostcalculator.com and the BC&A Operations Planning Guide and BC&A Purchase Planning Handbook you get a similar result. Here is what BC&A says for the KA250 (which should have similar costs to a KA 200 with upgraded motors) and Mustang based on $2 million airplane (BC&A used $5.25/hr for fuel so you need to factor that in):

Variable Costs:

Mustang $690.16
KA250 $910.19

Trip Times (missions 4 pax):

Mustang 300NM 1.0
Mustang 600NM 1+56
Mustang 1000NM 3+19

KA 250 300NM 1+03
KA 250 600NM 2+03
KA 250 1000NM 3+28

So, clearly the Mustang is cheaper to operate from a variable cost point of view. And the planes have virtually the same trip times.

If you look at the same guide for fixed costs they are (per year total using $2 million hull for insurance, $1 million liability and fixed costs include hull/liability insurance, hangar, Software & Misc Services):

Mustang $34,481
KA 250 $36,303

The OP didn't state number of miles, or hours per year (or I missed it) but if you assume 250 hours a year the Mustang's fixed costs are $137.92 and the KA's are $145.21.

Periodic Costs (hot section & overhaul)

Mustang 177.14/hr
KA 250 257.14/hr

So, based on 250 hours a year the Mustang will run $1,005.22/hr and the KA 250 $1312.54.

The per mile costs are the most important metric but the trip times for 600 miles (which splits the OP's 500-700 mile average trips) are a virtual dead heat at +/- 2 hours. So, the per mile cost for these trips is:

Mustang 3.35/mile
KA250 4.38/mile

I haven't included the biggest expenses of all which are capital carrying cost and depreciation. But I'm assuming here a $2 million dollar airframe and a similar depreciation curve (although the Mustang probably depreciates faster the KA is so much more in every other respect it hardly matters).

If you use $4/hr for fuel costs it lowers the Mustang Variable to $565.16/hr (and total hourly to $880.20) and the KA 250 Variable to $756.09 (and total hourly to $1158.44).

It sure seems to me that the Mustang is a better choice than a King Air for these missions.

Interesting info, the link directed me to a trail offer so I could not check it out.

The cost quoted for the king air is close to the cost of chartering one!

I am surprised either of these airplanes can take a pilot and 4 passengers 1000nm and have reserves!

The KA250 is a awesome airplane but it has gotten awfully fat over the years!

The Mustang can't have much fuel left after a flight like that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 11:47

Username Protected wrote:

I'd be remiss if I didn't pitch the Phenom 100. It has a roomier cabin plus a flushing head. I did a pretty in-depth comparison of the Mustang, Phenom and M2 and found the all-in cost of the Mustang to be pennies cheaper than the Phenom. With the Phenom you gain speed, room, much more comfortable pilot seat (no center column yoke), and a bathroom for those unexpected needs.

Your analysis would be interesting to see.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 11:58

Username Protected wrote:

Interesting info, the link directed me to a trail offer so I could not check it out.

The cost quoted for the king air is close to the cost of chartering one!

I am surprised either of these airplanes can take a pilot and 4 passengers 1000nm and have reserves!

The KA250 is a awesome airplane but it has gotten awfully fat over the years!

The Mustang can't have much fuel left after a flight like that.

aircraftcostcalculator.com is a subscription service like C&D. BC&A figures (which are what I used) are published in their magazine. Subscription is free and I assume if you're a subscriber you can access the appropriate issues online. Their are two separate report used in calculating the numbers. Some of their data comes from Aviation Research Group/U.S. www.aviationresearch.com, some of it comes from Aircraft Bluebook (for out of production aircraft - not applicable in my analysis).

In the BC&A "Purchase Planning Handbook" they state that the pilot is included as one of the 4 passengers for "piston-engine airplanes". That does not apply here. If the plane is not capable of the mission they list N/A which was not the case for either of these two aircraft for the missions listed.

What I find, in general, is that the Conklin and Dedecker, BC&A and aircraftcostcalculator.com data are all very similar and conservative compared to results posted here, on TBM's owner's site, citationjetpilots.com and other, similar owner website to which I have subscribed (eclipsejetpilots.org and a couple of others).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 May 2016, 12:00

Free is good I will check it out, thanks for the tip.

I guess not just checked it's $1800/yr. I will have to pm you if I need a comparison.