Mark, be honest. :-)

We can check your figures.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FFL ... /KSDL/KTEX

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FFL ... /KTEX/KSDL

Looks like 1:23 and 1:22 flight times.

As long as we are bragging, flight planner says 1:00, 1480 lbs fuel for my V from KTEX to KSDL with a 5 knot tailwind.

Was the stop in KABQ for fuel? I wouldn't need one on a KOJC to KSDL leg. I'd save about 90 minutes total.

As long as we are bragging... :-)

Mike C.

I'm finding the fuel burn not as bad as I had expected. Part of this is that I fly in the 40s most of the time since getting there is easy. And then up there, I am about 10-15 knots faster than book, probably due to being near the rear CG limit all the time since the avionics upgrade. My typical cruise is 400-410 KTAS, FL400/410, 1050-1150 pph.

I seem to be operating about the same trip fuel as a 501 flown in the mid 30s based on what I read from others.

My max takeoff is 15,900 lbs, 16,100 lbs ramp. There's an STC to raise that to 16,300 and 16,500 lbs (Ultra weights), which I don't have (or need, I saved 380 lbs on the avionic upgrade).


True, those were some suboptimal flights.


Yes, it can.

With full fuel, I have 1100 lbs cabin load left, and can fly ~1800 nm in still air, so it makes for a pretty good long range load hauling airplane. My zero fuel weight allows 3000 lbs in the cabin, which is a number I will never reach, and I still have 3900 lbs fuel, enough for ~1000 nm, with that load.

The 560 is more plane than I need, but to get the combination of short runway, long range, and high speed, it is about perfect.

Mike C.

For. Comparison.

In the CJ, 1:00 and 900 lbs.

In the CJ4, 0:49 and 1160 lbs.

Andrew

I'm finding the fuel burn not as bad as I had expected. Part of this is that I fly in the 40s most of the time since getting there is easy. And then up there, I am about 10-15 knots faster than book, probably due to being near the rear CG limit all the time since the avionics upgrade. My typical cruise is 400-410 KTAS, FL400/410, 1050-1150 pph.

I seem to be operating about the same trip fuel as a 501 flown in the mid 30s based on what I read from others.

My max takeoff is 15,900 lbs, 16,100 lbs ramp. There's an STC to raise that to 16,300 and 16,500 lbs (Ultra weights), which I don't have (or need, I saved 380 lbs on the avionic upgrade).


True, those were some suboptimal flights.


Yes, it can.

With full fuel, I have 1100 lbs cabin load left, and can fly ~1800 nm in still air, so it makes for a pretty good long range load hauling airplane. My zero fuel weight allows 3000 lbs in the cabin, which is a number I will never reach, and I still have 3900 lbs fuel, enough for ~1000 nm, with that load.

The 560 is more plane than I need, but to get the combination of short runway, long range, and high speed, it is about perfect.

Mike C.

Not paying the Williams tax and not having to pay $10M for an airplane makes the extra fuel burn quite tolerable, even at today's prices.

Mike C.

It is hard to say 2 years in what the long term comparison will be.

It looks like the maintenance *might* be similar or not much more than the MU2. There are several factors here that may not translate to other situations but work for me.

The Citation has significantly longer inspection intervals, basically 3 years for phase 1-4, 6 years for phase 5. This is due to a LUMP, low utilization maintenance program, provided by Textron (Cessna). My MU2 didn't have this and was in for inspection every year or 100 hours. I just went through phase 1-4 this year, now I am looking at phase 1-5 in 2025, 3 years from now. This really reduces down time and costs.

My maintenance is now at my home field. My MU2 was maintained at a remote field due to it being somewhat of a special airplane. This saves me a bunch of time and money ferrying it back and forth. It also means little things get dealt with in a more timely manner.

At my home field, the shop let's me participate in the work and lets me buy parts. These two features are not common for this class airplane and can save you a bunch of money. For example, a factory service center would overhaul exchange my ACM turbine for about $28K (with a $50K core deposit!) but I found the right shop to overhaul my unit for $10K and deal with them directly. I also did much of the work of the ACM package unit tear down and rebuild. It turned out quite nice (it had 5000 hours on it, so it was due):

Another example, I had the right hydraulic pump go bad. Factory says no stock, must change to newer model with adapter kit, $34K. I find a surplus used one of the same model as I have, $200 (yes, literally) and $1200 labor to put it in. Saved over $32K on that and don't have mixed PN pumps on my airplane.

The owner's maintenance strategy can radically influence the cost. The hands off owner who takes it to the factory service center will easily pay $1000/hour for maintenance. I'm looking at possibly $200/hour. I think I'm there now that my usage has increased and my startup squawks are diminishing.

The Citation ecosystem is much larger than the MU2 one. Way more parts, sources, shops, instructors, simulators, pilots, etc. A larger ecosystem means more choices means lower cost.

The primary negative to my plane is the fuel it uses. My block fuel is about twice per hour than the MU2, but the speed is 40% faster (really about 50% faster when headwinds and weather are considered), so the impact isn't as bad as it sounds. But it is more. The plane is about 50% heavier, so per pound per mile, it is about the same which is not to bad given the speed.

I figure my MU2 was about $750/hour for fuel, maintenance, hangar, insurance on about 125 hours/year. I figure the Citation V is about $1500/hour for the same usage (which is more miles). My costs did go up, of course, but so did my capability.

Most surprising thing about my V is that it uses so little runway that there's hardly any airport my MU2 could go to that my V can't. I expected to lose capability in this area, but really didn't. I can't land on turf runways any more, and the MU2 could, but the only place I did that was my brother's private field. The V would easily land there but it is not allowed to do so in the manual. There is a "gravel kit" that would allow it, but not worth it.


My avionics upgrade was about $240K all in with equipment trade in. That's some heavy coin, but the benefits are outstanding.

My original panel:

What a mess of stuff.

Now what I have:

So much better. This saved me 380 lbs empty weight (yes, for real, actual weighing before and after work, the key is to strip dead wires). It also moved my CG back. Less weight and further rear CG improved my speed.

For a single pilot operated plane, having a clean modern set of avionics is a big help. The old panel was a nightmare. The new panel adds a lot of value to the plane, so you will get much of that back when you sell.

Mike C.

Single pilot that old panel is scary.
New panel is sweet and much less stressful.

I flew the best light jet home from Denver yesterday landing around 9:30 last night.

FL370 then FL390 getting over the bumps when commercial planes were stuck in bumps at
FL350

It is hard to say 2 years in what the long term comparison will be.

abbreviated...

For a single pilot operated plane, having a clean modern set of avionics is a big help. The old panel was a nightmare. The new panel adds a lot of value to the plane, so you will get much of that back when you sell.

Mike C.

A 1000 model with the high MGTOW really is killer utility. With 2000nm rangethey'll prob beat 90% of the SP jets door to door in time and get above most crud at FL350.

No, nothing yet approved, so my plane is still using the SPZ 500 it came with.

Two potential options: Garmin GFC 600 and STEC 5100. I know the STEC 5100 is flying in a V right now. Garmin seems to be missing the boat, however, and is dragging their feet on the GFC 600 STC.

If I can get a modern digital autopilot, I count 13 boxes I can remove and probably about 150 lbs. Among those would be the entire AC inverter system since the only thing that uses AC any more is the SPZ 500, and very little of it to begin with.

I am a believer in removal of equipment I won't need or use. Less is better.

I will do a modern autopilot at some point. Hoping Garmin gets their act together, but may go with STEC if it works well enough and is available.


It is out of my reach today, too. They had a tremendous run up in prices right after I bought mine. I had unsolicited offers to buy mine for twice what I paid 12 months after I bought it. I didn't sell, of course, since I couldn't replace it and I had put my effort into this one.

Mike C.

I did fairly extensive modeling of long range TPE331 turboprops including 441 and Commanders. They have similar features, about the same fuel, ceiling, speeds. The 441 is faster and lighter, so it had a bit more range. It's engine was also derated more so it maintained sea level power to higher altitudes. I really thought I would buy a 441 and not a Citation, so I ran the numbers pretty hard.

The net result of this is that while these planes could go 2000 nm, they actually weren't all the useful to fly long missions. My test mission was KEVV to KBFI, 1622 nm great circle. You'd think that a 2000 nm plane would do that pretty handily most of the time.

First problem is that in the mid 30s, you often face 150 knot headwinds on that trip. In those conditions, the turboprop doesn't make it without a fuel stop, so it is not non stop any more.

Second problem is that to get 2000 nm range, you have to fly it at FL350. At those altitudes, the cabin altitude is 11,000 ft or higher. These planes simply don't have the necessary diff to make the cabin pressurized for a 5 to 6 hour flight. If you fly lower, say FL250, then you get the cabin, but don't get the range, it becomes a 1600 nm plane at that point.

Third problem is that at FL350, to get the range, you have to fly it at max range power, not max cruise. That's okay in still air, but with a 100 knot headwind, it really hurts since max range speed is about 250 knots or so.

When you fly with the tailwind, all the planes work well so you don't worry about that case.

My assessment was that it would be tiring to me and my passengers to due west coast trips in a 441 or Commander 1000 due to the headwinds and thin cabin air.

The Citation V does this trip better because it has much better cabin pressurization (8.9 PSI), and can fly in the 40s where the headwinds die down somewhat. Even so, it won't make KEVV to KBFI non stop every day, but then the 400-420 knot speed reduces the effect of headwinds quite a lot. I estimate my west bound reliability will be 50% (in winter I will have to stop, in summer not), and my eastbound reliability will be near 100% all seasons.

It will be very rare to find a trip a Commander 1000 can do faster than I can in the V. I challenge you to find one.

I really, really tried to make a 441 work and it just didn't pencil out for that trip with delivering passengers that aren't fatigued by the flight.

That being said, if the economics of the V start to weigh me down, a 441 would be looked at closely.

Mike C.

I did fairly extensive modeling of long range TPE331 turboprops including 441 and Commanders. They have similar features, about the same fuel, ceiling, speeds. The 441 is faster and lighter, so it had a bit more range. It's engine was also derated more so it maintained sea level power to higher altitudes. I really thought I would buy a 441 and not a Citation, so I ran the numbers pretty hard.

The net result of this is that while these planes could go 2000 nm, they actually weren't all the useful to fly long missions. My test mission was KEVV to KBFI, 1622 nm great circle. You'd think that a 2000 nm plane would do that pretty handily most of the time.

First problem is that in the mid 30s, you often face 150 knot headwinds on that trip. In those conditions, the turboprop doesn't make it without a fuel stop, so it is not non stop any more.

Second problem is that to get 2000 nm range, you have to fly it at FL350. At those altitudes, the cabin altitude is 11,000 ft or higher. These planes simply don't have the necessary diff to make the cabin pressurized for a 5 to 6 hour flight. If you fly lower, say FL250, then you get the cabin, but don't get the range, it becomes a 1600 nm plane at that point.

Third problem is that at FL350, to get the range, you have to fly it at max range power, not max cruise. That's okay in still air, but with a 100 knot headwind, it really hurts since max range speed is about 250 knots or so.

When you fly with the tailwind, all the planes work well so you don't worry about that case.

My assessment was that it would be tiring to me and my passengers to due west coast trips in a 441 or Commander 1000 due to the headwinds and thin cabin air.

The Citation V does this trip better because it has much better cabin pressurization (8.9 PSI), and can fly in the 40s where the headwinds die down somewhat. Even so, it won't make KEVV to KBFI non stop every day, but then the 400-420 knot speed reduces the effect of headwinds quite a lot. I estimate my west bound reliability will be 50% (in winter I will have to stop, in summer not), and my eastbound reliability will be near 100% all seasons.

It will be very rare to find a trip a Commander 1000 can do faster than I can in the V. I challenge you to find one.

I really, really tried to make a 441 work and it just didn't pencil out for that trip with delivering passengers that aren't fatigued by the flight.

That being said, if the economics of the V start to weigh me down, a 441 would be looked at closely.

Mike C.

I love my 980 and the long range tanks gives it serious range and utility. That being said, I did a 6 hour flight in it once (~1100 miles into bad headwinds) and it’s pretty exhausting. The utility comes in mixing up payload and fuel and still having range, or being able to ferry fuel. From a comfort and fatigue perspective, jets are better suited for long range even if it involves a fuel stop (or the Piaggio).

You would have been faster on a bicycle than the time you spent on restoring that old Commander 680V. So that's not the proper criteria to use.

Why I have my plane is to make it faster for me and my passengers on the day of the trip, not to save me total hours of my life. It is an investment in time and money to provide a specific capability.

I find the hours training and maintaining it fun, so they don't count. :-)


Most light jets go well beyond 1000 nm range. The ones that don't go appreciably further than 1000 nm are really small like Mustang, Eclipse, Cirrus SF-50.


But you can't take anything with you, no useful load left with full tanks, and fighting a winter headwind will be a LONG flight at sub 300 knot speeds.

I have 1100 lbs left when tanks are full.

Mike C.