In another thread I mentioned the common upgrade path from a Mustang to an M2 to a CJ3+... what I don’t understand is why Textron doesn’t build an M3 (CJ2+ with G3000)

Obviously the step from an M2 to a CJ3+ is a huge one, other than the efficiency of building two airplanes instead of three... why not capture that middle. The CJ2+ is still one of the hottest airplanes they’ve ever built, just needs an update and Garmin.

Having flown a 2+ quite a bit, it is my favorite airplane. I never would have left it, but am moving back to a 1+ as I mentioned in another thread.

The problem with the 2+ is that it wasn't ever that much cheaper than the 3 (and now 3+) and that is compressing over time in the used marketplace. The Fusion modification that is coming out for the 1+ and 2+, at a reported price point of $250k would further drive a question between buying a new, "m3" versus a 2+ and upgrading it. Also, you can pick up good used 3's now for $3.5M, and that is a screamer - especially if fusion is lowered to the price point that it is on the 2+ and 1+.

There is no speed difference between the 3+ and the 3, only the TAS bug that needs to be fixed (showing there is a approx 10 knot difference). I'm not sure about the M2 vs 1+, although it has the same TAS bug on the G3000 that is overstating TAS.

My understanding is that Cessna is selling as many 3+s as they can build. Why would you complicate the line and add another aircraft to the production process?

I wonder what the cost of certifying an M3 by taking the CJ2+ and fitting the Garmin flight deck to it?

My understanding, at least from the people who did that at Lancair/Columbia going from avidyne to G1000, the effort was long, expensive and fraught with all sorts of business peril dealing with certification from FAA and EASA and resulted in a lot of surprising (and often nonsensical) requirements being added.

Chip, you'd know a lot better than I do, but aren't jets sold to the people riding in back more than to the people riding in front? Even more so as the size gets bigger?

From the customer in the back standpoint, as long as all those buttons and dials up front are safe and get them where they want to go, that's pretty much the end of it, right?

I got a demo ride in an M2 and my clear and distinct impression was that it was designed for the customer to be in the back and the hired help in front, though they would make some accommodations for the weirdo customer who wanted to fly himself around in it.

Much rather see them build a CJ5 with the G3000. Need something thats a level above the P300 and well above the CJ3. Too much gobbly gook down there with the VLJ's as it is. And most of them are just some form of entry level stuff anyway.

Interesting, the M2 we just bought was owner flown, my client is an owner / pilot and we called everyone who owned an M2 in our search and many of them were owner / pilots... I was actually shocked by how many calls were passed to me because the owner was open to selling and had a new CJ3+ on order.

Obviously, when you start talking Sovereign+ or Latitude the owner rides in the back... maybe the Textron guys are use to tailoring to the non-pilot owner.

+1

Single Pilot XLS with G3000.

Interesting... I've never considered a CJ5... I am amazed they stretched the 525 into the CJ4... I anticipate a CJ4+ with Garmin avionics... but I've not considered that they would build an even bigger CJ. At the $10M level wouldn't it lose to the PC-24?

How would that fit between the CJ4 and XLS+?

Speaking of Phenom, I'm also not sure why Embraer doesn't build a Phenom 200... the jump from a P100 to a Phenom 300 is even bigger than the Citation gap, plus they could target the CJ2+ buyer.

I think it would cost a lot more than what you think to certify that airframe as a forward fit for the G3000. You also don’t account for the cost of getting the tooling back up and running (assuming they still have it all). It would be a monumental expense - and for what - to have people say it is more expensive than a used CJ3+ and P300 in the market? it just isn’t a viable market. The 2 is too similar to the 3.

The M2 is Cessna’s entry level jet and they actively market it towards owner/operators.

While I agree and love the G3000 flight decks, I don’t see the PC-24 and CJ4 sales suffering.

I think it very easy to look at the aircraft from a point of view of one airplane versus the entire ecosystem - both new and used. There are some pretty smart guys at Cessna (who are passionate about Beech btw) who spend time really looking this stuff over. I can guarantee you that if they thought they could make a 2+ with G3000 work - and justify the investment of that over the returns another aircraft could provide, they would do it. Engineering resources are limited - and I would agree with Sam - I would see the CJ5 (which we have talked about at CJP - is single pilot XLS) over a 2+ rehash. I also would like to see some incremental upgrades to the M2, 3+ and 4. Cirrus does that well.

The CJ2 and CJ3 were too close together. Enough said. Overall, the CJ line is doing quite well. It was always targeted at the owner/pilot, and that's the bulk of the CJ owner base. For the 2-pilot crewed jets, the owners can be found sitting in back for the most part. There's a very distinct break in between owner flown and crew flown. Sure, there are plenty of part 135 CJs out there, but don't underestimate the number of owner flown either.

It's hard to say where Textron will go with the CJ line, but Latitude and Longitude are getting the bulk of the attention currently.

For better or worse

This is what they used to call 'badge engineering' in Detroit.

I think they want 2+ operators to step to the 4 and stay with proline where the M2 owners move to the 3+ and stay with the 3000. Easy transition for the pilot/owner if they stay with the avionics they know.