Some of it does depend on how you are paying for it, who is paying for it, Tax implications, and the timeline. And yes, I was thinking about it from a perspective of a single engine turbo prop. A similar sized single turbo prop is going to run about 1/3 to 1/2 per hour doing an apples to apples comparison. Since all mustangs now are used, you would have to compare used apples.

Some of it does depend on how you are paying for it, who is paying for it, Tax implications, and the timeline. And yes, I was thinking about it from a perspective of a single engine turbo prop. A similar sized single turbo prop is going to run about 1/3 to 1/2 per hour doing an apples to apples comparison. Since all mustangs now are used, you would have to compare used apples.

Some of it does depend on how you are paying for it, who is paying for it, Tax implications, and the timeline. And yes, I was thinking about it from a perspective of a single engine turbo prop. A similar sized single turbo prop is going to run about 1/3 to 1/2 per hour doing an apples to apples comparison. Since all mustangs now are used, you would have to compare used apples.

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

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

Comparing a Piper Jetprop, Meridian or M600 against anything else that burns jet fuel just isn't fair! I don't think any turbine will get the job done cheaper!

There's things I'm not crazy about when it comes to Piper SETP's... but cost... they are unbeatable.

Great post. As some of you know several years ago I went down this very road. I ended up with a TBM. It’s really been hard to beat. Most of my missions difference in time is minutes. TBM obviously much more cost effective. Higher altitudes to get over some weather would have been nice on several occasions. Both are great birds.

Just eyeballing those numbers, the fuel costs are too similar on the Mustang compared to the TBM which should be about 30% more efficient in the block. Additionally, the engine maintenance on the TBM should really not be there. SETP owners don't typically count engine maintenance, and the engine requires minimal maintenance to OH. Most owners don't keep them long enough to go to OH, so they just kick the can and the resale price includes some depreciation for the engine. If you did put it on plans though, like ESP Gold, it would still be quite a bit less than what you published on 150 hours. So if you make those corrections, the TBM comes in about 30% less than the Mustang. There is also the away ramp and hangar fees for twin jets. Fair or not, they are usually substantially higher for a jet than a SETP.

Great post. As some of you know several years ago I went down this very road. I ended up with a TBM. It’s really been hard to beat. Most of my missions difference in time is minutes. TBM obviously much more cost effective. Higher altitudes to get over some weather would have been nice on several occasions. Both are great birds.

[

Ramp and hangar fees are a consideration... but the real difference is unscheduled maintenance / MSB's / AD's... it would be very unusual for a TBM or a King Air for that matter to cost an owner an unexpected $50k and it happens in the jet world (and no one feels sorry for you) while the Mustang has been really good in this area... it's still a jet... give it long enough, it will bite you.