Any advantage to either platform going westbound in the winter?

This seems to be the achilles heel of this class of aircraft from what I gather. It seems to be that a 1000 nm range with an hour reserve is pretty good, but these winter winds can be brutal.

I suspect in addition to headwind vs. fuel burn (speed/altitude) considerations, there may also be routing and speed/congestion considerations, when everyone who can't fly FL450+ over the top of the wind tries to squeeze down into that lower bound (high 20s low 30s?) of acceptable burn/speed vs. headwind component.

Nope.

When going west I will look at the jet stream and plot my course accordingly. Sometimes, like my last trip to Telluride, it is faster to stay south along the coast then make a dog leg at NM into the mountains. Going straight point to point isn't always the fastest option when heading west.

I agree with Philip. It’s rare that you have to take a 100+ kt headwind straight on the nose when you’re on a long trip. When I go west coast to east coast (which is infrequent for me), it’s typically one stop. When coming back, it’s typically two. No big deal, it’s just the way it is. These planes cover half of the CONUS really, really well. When you go beyond that, you plan your stops and stays. It’s part of the fun.

Today must be a rare day. FL390.

Unfortunately, it really isn't that rare in the winter. Headwinds can be brutal and unavoidable sometimes.

Mike C.

That sure doesn't seem to be a 3 degree stabilized approach with a power cut at Vref at 50 feet. Just sayin.[/quote]

It actually is a 3 degree stabilized approach flown at Vref with power cut around 50' agl - unfortunately the VASI's don't show up in the video, but they were on are set at 3 degrees - we use them same as we would at any airport. It may appear different because the VASI's are not located as far down the runway as typical.

As Phil pointed out there’s sometimes a significant break on the south side of the stream

Flying Atlanta to Seattle by way of Cancun doesn't help.

Mike C.

Thanks Doug. These vids can sure be deceiving. I would have thought you ducked under the normal 3 percent at the end. Seemed to touch down pretty quickly on the runway. Normally seems to be a bit farther down, but I defer to you

The Mustang will float if you're too fast, but if you're on speed like Doug was in the video, it sits right down nicely.

Looking at a Citation Mustang, which may head into prebuy, I checked the AFM and the Citation Mustang Flight Planning Guide as well as calculating some flights using FltPlan.com. Now, I’m looking for detailed Cruise Climb and Cruise Performance Charts. The following tables (for different altitudes) came with my C510 sim for Lockheed Martin Prepar3d. Those and a couple of more are free to download at Flight1 for their C510.

Does anybody know which official document are including those?
In the aircraft, I found the AFM, W&B M, OPM and abbreviated checklists. Online, I found the FPG. But where are those tables included? I don‘t have a Cesnav subscription and I‘m not sure if I will (depending on costs).

Thanks for any help!

I'm Martin's friend that owns a Mustang. We both came out of Meridians and both of us were initially looking at Mustangs and 100's. He went the Phenom route. I went the Mustang route. Let me say, I studied both extensively, and I love both of these airplanes. Here are my thoughts after 18 months, 300+ flight hours, and countless conversations with Martin comparing and contrasting the two:

Looks: Phenom 100, hands down. Not even close. Seriously. Ramp appeal is better, cabin is better. The 100 looks like a bigger airplane than it really is. The Brazilians did a great job with this, put some serious care into it, and it shows. The Mustang is not bad by any stretch of the imagination. It's well laid out, and there is actually a touch more legroom in the Mustang between the back seats (because of the lack of a dedicated lav space). But it's no 100. When people picturing boarding a "private jet", the 100 fits that cover art much better than the Mustang...

Range: Mustang (marginally). Not only because of the lower fuel burn, but because of what Martin pointed out. On a cold day, I will have the line guys top it "to the top" and will end up with another 200# of fuel on board. That's 45 minutes at 410, which translates to another 200+nm. There are flights on my Mustang that I've done that Martin couldn't do. That being said, neither of these are long range airplanes. I live in Nashville, so I'm 850nm or less form pretty much everywhere East of Denver, so it's perfect for me. But if you need to go 1,100nm all the time IFR, neither of these airplanes is a good choice. For 1,000nm or less, both are a good choice. The Mustang will edge the 100, but not by a huge amount.

Support: Cessna hands down. Embraer isn't bad, quite the opposite. They are great. But they are not Cessna. One of the biggest advantages that Cessna has is how well they take care of their owners. I can attest to this first hand. It's a very real deal. MSU's everywhere, service centers are 24/7 and there are a lot of them, and everybody everywhere knows how to work on a Citation. I have "Team Mustang" stored in my phone. Call that number, and within 30 seconds a Cessna engineer with access to everything ever made on the Mustang is at the ready. Again, Embraer is good. But Cessna is as good as it gets in the owner flown jet market.

Future Proof: Marginal edge to the 100. While Cessna will support the Mustang until the end of time, it is now a "legacy" airplane (although it's a Citation, so support will always be there). The 100 is still being built, and I suspect some of the enhancements of the new planes could be retrofitted into the older fleet. For example, at the Phenom Owners Group this past week, they teased the option of adding the new 300EV seats to the existing 300 fleet. You'll probably see some things like that. On the other hand, I have NXI in my Mustang, and the 100 hasn't even started testing yet, so who knows.

Economics: Mustang. Period. It's the biggest advantage of the Mustang in this comparison. It's not just the fuel burn, there are a bunch of little things that add up. Consider (all numbers are assuming 150 hours / year of flight time):
- Parts program on 100 is $80 / hour higher than the Mustang. $6k annually.
- EEC has $500 monthly fee on top of hourly usage. Cessna does not. $6k annually.
- Gear overhaul is $120k @ 10 years on the 100. Mustang was $10k @ 7 years. $11k annual difference on maintenance reserves.
- Fuel burn on Mustang is about 25 gph less block x $4 = $100 / hour. $15k annually,
- Cap costs. A good 2010 Mustang on programs will cost you about $1.6m. A good 2010 100 on programs will cost you about $1.9m IF the gear overhaul has been done. @4% (rough value of cash), the 100 adds about $12k annually in cap costs.

Based on this, the 100 costs about $56k / year more to own than a Mustang at 150 hours annual flight time (12k + 6k + 11k + 15k +12k). Martin and I have had countless conversations comparing notes of the two aircraft, and we've ended several of them with "so bottom line it costs about $60k / year more to own the 100". Add in a slight insurance premium on the 100, and that's spot on. Martin can feel free to call me out on any of these, but it's the basic math we have been over more times than I can count.

Speed: Phenom 100 edges out the Mustang. To whomever said you won't go to 410 very often, I would argue that point. I do it regularly, as does Martin. If you're going more than 500nm, you're typically going to 410. The Phenom is faster, but the Mustang will climb to 410 every time without a step climb. You'll make a stop occasionally in the 100 on the way up. But the edge goes to the 100 just because of the raw speed. For most of my flights, the difference ended up being less than 10 minutes, so I wrote this off. But Martin gets bragging rights when swapping pictures of ground speed...

Training: Mustang. Now before anyone flames me here, I'm not speaking about quality of training, rather, just cost and availability. There is ONE simulator school for the 100, with one simulator. With the Mustang, Flight Safety has three sims, and Simcom has 1. Additionally, there are a LOT of in aircraft providers for the Mustang. Very few on the 100. So getting your initial type rating, just because of availability and competition, will be a lot easier and less expensive in the Mustang.

Owner Community: Mustang, and it's not even close. There is no comparison between CJP and the Phoenom owners group. Again, neither is bad, but CJP is the gold standard. Join both and it becomes apparent. There's a large following, wealth of information, and Cessna has invested heavily into CJP over the years. Phenom is working on it, but they have some serious catch up to do that will take years.

Summary:
- Primary driver is looks, speed, cabin comforts and the benefits of a currently "in production" aircraft = 100
- Primary driver is manufacturer support, training and operational simplicity, economics, and community = Mustang

Bryan, that’s the best post on this entire thread. That’s really all that needs to be said on the entire discussion. Thanks so much for taking the time to write it up.

So what do you figure for your all-in costs on your Mustang for 150 hrs?

Thanks for taking the time to do that Bryan. That’s very helpful!

Clearly not in the market, but wow, what a great write-up.Thank you Bryan!
Isn't BT magical? Knowledgeable 100 and Mustang owners discussing their planes on BEECH talk...

Great post Bryan!