Ok, I said entry level, maybe I mean more like, "light jet".

Come on guys, a CJ3+ is like twice as much money. Nice plane, but a whole different ballgame in all kinds of ways beyond money.

I see what you meant, You will need a larger hangar.

I've flown a M2 for around 1.5 years. Overall a great plane. Biggest issues:

CG: with a single pilot on board flying solo the nose needs ballast to keep CG forward of the aft limit. Conversely, with someone on the side-facing seat the CG can be too far forward.

Cockpit: The copilot seat is really tight for legroom. If you remove the AFM shelf and store the AFM elsewhere it gains a few inches. The USB charging ports don't put out enough juice to keep an iPad charged with the screen brightness at max. With the windshield anti-ice on (see below) it gets pretty loud and you'll want ANR.

Systems: Although a lot is integrated into the G3000, it's also clear that behind the scenes it's a CJ. Don't use the control lock if the plane has any potential of being towed, and I've never touched the rain removal doors. Don't get me started on the windshield anti-ice...all I will say is an electric windshield would be very nice.

Performance: Every one I've flown (full disclosure: 3) has outperformed book numbers. I can generally be bumping the barberpole (.71) at FL410 after an hour or two to burn down fuel. It'll climb straight to FL410 even at max gross and hot in every scenario I've been in. Runway performance is fantastic when it's dry (shortest runway I've been into was 3200' and had plenty of room). Any sort of contamination and distances go up a ton.

Hope this helps--feel free to PM me with any other questions.

David,
Can you say that the 100 has the range of the M2?

The M2 is a great "entry level" jet, it's safe, and reliable. It's also for old jet pilots who might not be the ace of the base that they once might have been.

Buying something that goes fast to soothe the ego is of questionable value, because looking out the window at altitude doing .92 Mach doesn't look that different from .67.

To reinforce this, the M2 will go Mach 0.71 at some altitudes. This is a straight wing, simple airplane. Other members of the straight wing Citation family go up to mach 0.755.

The airlines run, generally, mach 0.75 to 0.85. Not too often above that by very much. These are swept wing airliners.

The fastest GA airplanes run mach 0.93. The are complex swept wing jets that cost a lot to run.

The take away is that going from mach mid 70s to mach lower 90s is a HUGE increase in complexity and cost, and only a relatively small increase in speed. Indeed, the winds aloft will make more difference to your mission speed than that difference in mach number.

Given the lower departure latency of GA, an M2 can beat an airliner anywhere within its range despite flying slower.

Mike C.

Well we are willing to try to be certain!

That is what the M2 is good for. It is an airplane a pilot can grow old with. Not the fastest, but it isn't the fastest to bite you either. ANd it has tdaht little bit extra range that really makes a difference.

Well we are willing to try to be certain!

That is what the M2 is good for. It is an airplane a pilot can grow old with. Not the fastest, but it isn't the fastest to bite you either. ANd it has tdaht little bit extra range that really makes a difference.

Did that Millardair hangar ever sold? That will be big enough for a few M2.









I see what you meant, You will need a larger hangar.

Yep, Chartright bought it. And have taken some tenants in it. Busy place now.

http://www.chartright.com/ca/news/

Do it John!

M2 and CJ3 are close to the same cost. CJ3 is a lot more airplane. I’m sure the G3000 is nice but PL21 is pretty nice too.

Maybe not, but 30 some years ago I was flying with a Captain in a .87 Falcon 10 who was sure upset to be passed by a .9+ 7-2-7.....

As an entry single pilot jet, I would say the M2 is a little bit fast. Things happen really fast and you can get yourself in trouble pretty quickly. A mustang is a better entry level jet and for someone coming out of a piston, the Mustang is probably a better first jet. A little simpler and more forgiving. I think your friend would/should be looking at a year or 2 of mentor pilot work before going out on his own. Forget about the CJ3 or 4 as an entry level jet. The dude that put his family in the lake, would still be flying if he had a right seater and probably still be flying if he was just in less plane.

As said above, the cockpit is a little tight. I am 6'2 but even coming from the PA46 platform, the legroom was less than in my M600. Seats also don't recline, seems built for the hired help and not so much for an owner pilot. Cabin is very nice.

The Mustang and M2 speeds don't seem that different to me in the terminal environment:

At MGTOW, ISA, 0 MSL:

Citation Mustang (510): V1 = 89 KIAS, Vref = 98 KIAS

Citation M2 (525): V1 = 100 KIAS, Vref = 113 KIAS

Is that really enough to change the risk profile measurably?

The fact the M2 cruises faster in the flight levels is seemingly not a safety issue that I can tell.

Or, to put it another way, if your are dangerous at M2 speeds, you probably are dangerous at Mustang speeds.

If someone gave me the choice of the Mustang or the M2, it is no contest. This is why the Mustang isn't made any more, Cessna/Textron decided to price an M2 to take its place and that had manufacturing efficiencies since the M2 shared much with the rest of the 525 line, and the Mustang doesn't.

Mike C.