Dave do you have the freon air or just the ACM as we have not had any of those issues with ours. We have the freon air as well which works really well, but we don’t get that scoring heat that you guys have. You are right about that ACM rebuild is 25k.

Gary

I fly the M2 and Cj3+, flew the CJ4 in a past life.

M2 and CJ3+ burn about the same amount of fuel (m2 at 410, CJ3 at 450) 1000-1100 first hour, ~700 second hour.

I have never flown a CJ1 or 1+, but the m2 is a real dog above 360 if it's ISA+ anything. The Cj3+ is a freakshow as it will blow through mmo at any altitude, any weight and any temp ive seen. That being said, .737 is the limiting factor and not that fast.

I think the CJ3.5+ would be the perfect light jet if:

Glass windshield
15,000lb mtow with increased fuel
tamarack winglets (yes they work)
mustang door
externally serviced lav.
.75 or greater .mmo

If we're getting really crazy, a mini apu would be wonderful.

The CJ4 has a huge pair of nuts and glass windshield but the wing is a total FUBAR by cessna. weighs 3,200lbs more than a CJ3 with marginally more capability (mostly payload at the extremes of range 1600+miles)

For a personal airplane the m2 wouldn't be a bad choice.

Hate to say it Gary, but I don’t recall and am not flying that bird now. I was just giving Mike a heads-up and he seems very aware (as always).

Nice write up. Freakshow airplane sounds great to me. I can even live with the slowtation cruise since that straight wing makes it slow on approach and easy to fly.

Only way to get both, speed and low approach speed is slats and then the costs get stupid.

Nice write up. Freakshow airplane sounds great to me. I can even live with the slowtation cruise since that straight wing makes it slow on approach and easy to fly.

Only way to get both, speed and low approach speed is slats and then the costs get stupid.

Gulfstream wing is a work of art, beautiful in its simplicity. I love the look of it.

It proves you are right. If you add enough wing you can avoid slats.

The G650 has almost the same wing span as a MD-80 but weighs 50,000 lbs less than the MD-80

I've always wondered if/how bad the light wing loading hurts the ride, but i'm still waiting on that 'ride'.

Years ago, I used to fly around Europe in the back of a CJ2 regularly - it is an good plane for the sorts of distances needed to fly between popular city pairs in Europe and economical to run, so popular with the charter operators. One day before a flight, while we were waiting for something in the FBO I had a chat with our pilot for the flight, where I shared with him that I was working on my PPL and I learned that he was the head of training for the operator (which also had a flight training program, including type ratings on Citations, which he ran) and we bonded over my learning to pilot in a Cessna 152, which he had some ridiculous number of hours giving instruction in.

A little while after takeoff from Cannes Mandelieu, he generously kicked the copilot to the back of the plane and invited me to join him in the copilot's seat. A few things stuck out for me about the experience - including my being a bit confused about the indicated airspeed being something like 250 Knots but him telling me we were actually going 350 knots (true airspeed was still a vague theoretical concept I hadn't quite wrapped my head around due to IAS and TAS being virtually the same when one's flying experience is limited to the Class G airspace in Southern England beneath the Class A which starts between 1500 and 3500 feet around London).

Also, what I remember as he explained by showing me the calculations on the Proline 21 FMS (which I only vaguely understood), that, at our current assigned altitude, we didn't have enough fuel to get to our destination... which seemed a bit alarming to me. So, he had to negotiate with ATC (again, something which I wasn't so familiar with) to get permission to climb higher. He said that ATC liked to keep them lower than they wanted to be flying because they (CJ2s) were slower than the airliners which were up higher (on what I now understand to be the airways routings which are typical in Europe). He, then, proceeded to negotiate something higher and showed me on the FMS how we were now fine on on fuel for our mission at the higher cruising altitude.

I'm wondering if this being kept lower is just a European busy airspace sort of thing due to rigidity of routings or something that one practically encounters in busier airspaces elsewhere around the world with smaller jets such as various CJs. Thinking of that unfortunate Learjet 35A flight a year ago between Philadelphia and Teterboro, specifically that bit about the plane only being allowed to climb to 4000 feet between Philadelphia and Teterboro (I'm not saying Learjets are slow...).

Do the 'slow' cruise speeds of the single pilot jets like the M2 and CJ2 (relative to, say, an Airbus A320) often mean operating at significantly suboptimal cruising altitudes and step climbs because they mess up the flow of the airliner traffic?

It's mostly aspirational and a daydream for me at the moment, partly thanks to that generous captain planting the seed, by telling me how easy the CJ2 was to fly, that he could train me to fly it quickly, in terms of simply flying it (to be clear, he was not saying I did not have a lot to learn in order to be safe flying it...). But as I sit here daydreaming of flying the SP jets, I am wondering about the real practicalities of the speeds, altitudes and operating conditions that these SP jets enable.

In my experience "yes" and the reason I bought a Pilatus over a Phenom 100 (couldn't afford a CJ3 at the time). Between big cities like NYC, ATL, MDW and any where in S. Florida ATC climbs you slow and descends you early. I believe this is also the reason the little jets lose value so quickly.

Some here will say "it's not true" but all you need to do is check FA.
PDK-TEB Phenom 300
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N91 ... /KPDK/KTEB
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/PRD ... /KPDK/KTEB

PDK-OPF Gulfstream 4
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FWK ... /KPDK/KOPF

It doesn't need to be a small jet to be kept low. It's more about keeping you away from the "big airports".

And should you ever get in “the way” of the fast traffic ATC will snobbishly refer to you as a “slow mover” on frequency.

Go buy and fly your own “slow mover” Mr. Controller man!

In places like the east coast USA and western Europe, perhaps! I find it to be a bigger nuance on STARs/SID's, which often has the airlines doing 280knts.

The ability of the CJ3 and 4 to climb straight to 450 has almost always negated any issues in cruise (I fly out west) as airline traffic above 410 is non existant. I do like letting them know how smooth the ride is at 450 though.

My favorite thing. Smooth here at 450 if anyone is asking.

I have never seen the problem in over 10 years of flying a CJ2 on the East coast and the rest of the US.

Airliners are typically in the mid FL3XX. Except for very short trips I always take the CJ2 to FL400/410. With RNAV I am often off-airway. ATC deals with the different climb rates and airspeeds on SIDS. On STARS a CJ2 can do 260 -270 kts IASand ATC may slow airliners who can do 280 - 300 kts until 10K. At 10K we all need to do below 250 kts anyway.

Citations fitting into the airliner flow may have been an issue in the 1970's - 1980's. Lots of things have changed since then including the speed and altitude capability of the M2 and CJ2 to make it a non issue.

Those Gulfstreams above me at 510 are nice.

We were kept lower several times in the Citation II, especially, in summer when full and our climb rate was slow. Depends on the routing, but it could take a long time to get to FL370 in the II and might involve a step climb is fuel was full. Of course, above ISA days were the worst. Same in the C90 KA, especially on STARS and DPs from busy airspace. I've only gotten quick climbs in the KA leaving Dallas area a few times when traffic was light. Leaving Greenville, SC on the way back, Atlanta cleares me to low flight levels quickly.