To perform the same mission mix, the C560V is about 35-40% more cost per mile than my MU2 from what I can see so far. That makes it comparable in seat miles since it has 50% more seats, but you are rarely flying seats full.

I had a -10 equipped MU-2M, one of the more efficient MU2s there is since it can go to FL280, was a short body, was TPE331-10, and had 3 blade props. Change any of those things and it gets less efficient. So the MU2 is about as good as it gets that I am comparing it to.

I considered a 501SP with JT15D. Ultimately, it lacked the range, and the engines are a bit wheezy, so they aren't flown that high. Perhaps surprisingly, the fuel specifics, lbs per nm, for the 501SP are about the same as my C560V. The reason is that the higher power engine has better fuel specifics for thrust, the improved wing has lower cruise drag, the plane flies faster so it mitigates headwinds better, and it flies higher since you have the power to get there. All those things mean a C560V uses about the same fuel for the same mission. The place where this falls down are short missions where you don't get the advantage of flying higher, but then the short mission just doesn't use that much more fuel because it is short.

I did look at the 501SP Stallion, the 501 converted with FJ44 engines. It as much better fuel specifics, can fly high, and goes further. But it lacks TRs, costs more to get, and the indentured servitude to Williams made it kind of expensive.

I looked at the SII S550. The TKS Citation. Good range, inexpensive to get, but slower and the TKS system is a unicorn thing that can be troublesome. The plane is wheezy and underpowered. My C560V gets roughly the same fuel mileage as the S550, too, so not an advantage. When I bought the premium to get a V wasn't much, but today, the S550 might be more attractive due to the run up in V prices.

One of the ways my C560V is cheaper than you might expect is that it has very generously long inspection intervals. My MU2 was in inspection every year, the Citation not so much. Another way is that I have maintenance at home base. That saves money is so many ways, not just the ferrying, but in the ability to time work exactly when it is most cost effective. You aren't doing things early because you don't want to bring the plane back to the shop again.

All I can do is report my actual numbers, which is more than others do. You can make your own conclusions from that.

If I wanted to downsize for the C560V, I'd look at 441s first. Expensive to get and maintain, but very fuel efficient.

Mike C.

It sounds like they are focusing on aircraft produced after Reagan was president

Chip you know you could buy a couple planes a year with the time invested in BT.

I do appreciate the entertainment.

All I know is the fuel bills are double in anything JT15 powered that I’ve borrowed relative to the 840. And all old turbine planes have seriously expensive problems and/or lack of parts around the corner. You just never know which corner. If they didn’t, they’d rarely get scrapped. I will never add up the costs. That would take the fun out of it!

I dont know. Obviously. Mike C had a good handle. But. Maybe he leaves out incidentals like the cost of an initial or current type rating; mentor/co=pilot time. the time involved in being that "involved". Thats the biggest cost in my book. As far as costs go, in dollars, its a no brainer. As far as benefits go? Thats another story. If ones flying for business. Then either one is a black hole. Its easy to see why the really smart people, not addicted to flying, and the mental acuity gained from such, go Net Jets.

I work with dozens of really smart people who own their own aircraft, and would never go to netjets. They chose us, Gateway Jets, to manage their citations and come out 33 to 50 percent ahead of netjets.

Same

A fine opportunity for you to share total expense and total hours flown for your 680V.

A fine opportunity for you to share total expense and total hours flown for your 680V.

Money or time?

Money or time?

Haha I would love to see that as well. That 441 might be tough to beat. . although the MU2 is pretty low cost to operate and the cost is going to be cheaper.. .

It sounds like they are focusing on aircraft produced after Reagan was president

Money, they save even more especially if they fly more than 100 hours per year (which they do) compared to NetJets, but straight ownership usually beats even a 50 hour block with NJ. It's not 100% apples to apples as a CJ/CJ2 flown single pilot with a part time pilot doesn't exactly translate to a crewed Phenom 300, but the end result is still the same.

*I have the the 2023 numbers from NJ and it's really a no brainer to NOT go with them if you fly more than a handful of hours. Having a trusted manager/management company certainly helps.

Time - there's a little back and forth with me on big decisions but in general we take care of all of the ownership duties.

I'm not talking about owner flown, I'm talking about pro flown, pro managed jet aircraft, which is an almost direct comparison to NetJets. That's what the owners are paying for, time. They can maximize that by having a good management company/manager, such as mine, to minimize the time they have to spend thinking about their aircraft, which is really just a tool to most of them.

We manage 10 aircraft for a combined ~15 owners, only 1 is owner flown.

Do you supply the pilots for those aircraft?

Chip-