Chip,

This saddens me greatly. I was on the design and cert team for the Garrett/GE CFE738 (responsible for the fan containment system, bypass vanes, spinner, and mixer nozzle) and it was a really phenomenal engine (in many respects).

I was also on the cert and design team of another orphan: Garrett ATF3-6/6A used on the Falcon 200, French Navy Guardian, and USCG HU-25A. This was also a truly revolutionary engine. Sadly, the ATF3 was so far ahead of its time that the airframers didn’t know how to leverage it.

Art

Hi Tom,

As a 501 driver, I'm curious what is causing you to consider the move? 5 people in a Mustang is nearly maxed out while there is more space in a 501. Also, Idk what Mustangs are going for these days but I'm guessing you could do a full Garmin upgrade to a 501 and still have plenty let over for the increased fuel burn.

Chip,

This saddens me greatly. I was on the design and cert team for the Garrett/GE CFE738 (responsible for the fan containment system, bypass vanes, spinner, and mixer nozzle) and it was a really phenomenal engine (in many respects).

I was also on the cert and design team of another orphan: Garrett ATF3-6/6A used on the Falcon 200, French Navy Guardian, and USCG HU-25A. This was also a truly revolutionary engine. Sadly, the ATF3 was so far ahead of its time that the airframers didn’t know how to leverage it.

Art

that would be a showstopper.

Hi Tom,

As a 501 driver, I'm curious what is causing you to consider the move? 5 people in a Mustang is nearly maxed out while there is more space in a 501. Also, Idk what Mustangs are going for these days but I'm guessing you could do a full Garmin upgrade to a 501 and still have plenty let over for the increased fuel burn.

Seriously? That is crazy. So they won’t do an HSI on an over TBO motor?

A Mustang will be tough for 1000 lbs flown 1000 nm reliably. it is not a very fast airplane so a 100 knot headwind is a real killer.

You will want to be very careful about the fine print in the programs for low use like this. It isn't just hours, but it also cycles you have to watch out for.

Do you have 500 hours turbine time or close to that? That would qualify you for an SPE which opens up the 550 or 560. Both of those will EASILY do your mission with spare payload and range and are faster than the 501 or Mustang. You already have the type rating, too, and experience with 500 series systems and maintenance.

There are also 551 which don't need an SPE, but they are not as common and payload limited. The SPE is not a big deal to maintain.

The Mustang is an odd duck of an airplane, sharing almost nothing with the 500 or 525 series. Parts for it are unique and generally controlled by Textron, not a lot of choice to get them elsewhere. There have been some supply problems, and engine delays. The PW615F is not aging as well as Pratt claimed it would.

My 560 uses very nearly the same fuel a 501SP uses for any given flight, especially if there is a headwind and if you are going 1000 nm. This is because the 560 easily flies higher and the engines are more efficient than the -1A. In a headwind, the extra speed reduces the effect. It isn't nearly the fuel increase one expects going from a 501 to a 560.

I believe there is no LUMP for the Mustang while the 500 series can get one that extends inspection intervals. Great cost saver especially for your low usage profile.

Do you use wet, snow, or ice runways? Mustang has no thrust reversers, the 500 series generally does, and that helps greatly with non dry runways. TRs are also great for brake failures and other unexpected situations (I know this first hand!). Saves brakes.

Mustangs will generally be more expensive to buy than 550s. The savings in capital cost have a big impact on total cost of ownership. A 550 plus full Garmin panel upgrade will be generally less than a Mustang, and you will end up with a new easy to use, cheap to maintain modern panel.

Mike C.

Nope.

Pratt PW600 or Williams FJ44.

I'm not sure if Pratt would do an HSI on a JT15D over TBO, my guess is not, but I don't have any data probably because no one would choose that option. Fortunately, there are other shops that will.

Mike C.

A Mustang will be tough for 1000 lbs flown 1000 nm reliably. it is not a very fast airplane so a 100 knot headwind is a real killer.

You will want to be very careful about the fine print in the programs for low use like this. It isn't just hours, but it also cycles you have to watch out for.

Do you have 500 hours turbine time or close to that? That would qualify you for an SPE which opens up the 550 or 560. Both of those will EASILY do your mission with spare payload and range and are faster than the 501 or Mustang. You already have the type rating, too, and experience with 500 series systems and maintenance.

There are also 551 which don't need an SPE, but they are not as common and payload limited. The SPE is not a big deal to maintain.

The Mustang is an odd duck of an airplane, sharing almost nothing with the 500 or 525 series. Parts for it are unique and generally controlled by Textron, not a lot of choice to get them elsewhere. There have been some supply problems, and engine delays. The PW615F is not aging as well as Pratt claimed it would.

My 560 uses very nearly the same fuel a 501SP uses for any given flight, especially if there is a headwind and if you are going 1000 nm. This is because the 560 easily flies higher and the engines are more efficient than the -1A. In a headwind, the extra speed reduces the effect. It isn't nearly the fuel increase one expects going from a 501 to a 560.

I believe there is no LUMP for the Mustang while the 500 series can get one that extends inspection intervals. Great cost saver especially for your low usage profile.

Do you use wet, snow, or ice runways? Mustang has no thrust reversers, the 500 series generally does, and that helps greatly with non dry runways. TRs are also great for brake failures and other unexpected situations (I know this first hand!). Saves brakes.

Mustangs will generally be more expensive to buy than 550s. The savings in capital cost have a big impact on total cost of ownership. A 550 plus full Garmin panel upgrade will be generally less than a Mustang, and you will end up with a new easy to use, cheap to maintain modern panel.

Mike C.

I guess that would depend on how intensive these inspections are:

Looks like you are in the shop every 12 months at a minimum with multiple inspections, and 24 and 36 month effort seems high. Doc 13, in particular, is not cheap to do. Using Skyway MRO pricing, all the 12 month inspections base price adds up to $10,115. Those aren't trivial inspections!

My only 12 month inspection is phase 18 which takes 3 hours and involves no disassembly (roughly Doc 6 for a 510).


The 510 is definitely better on fuel, but that advantage is not that great on a per mile basis, especially when factoring headwinds, fuel stops, and the V flies higher. The question is whether the cost of extra fuel offsets other costs, and/or gains you performance advantages in speed, range, and payload.

For example, both planes flown 4000 ft under their ceiling:

510 at FL370 ISA MCT: 333 KTAS, 567 pph, 1.7 lbs/nm.

560 V at FL410 ISA LRC: 346 KTAS, 798 pph, 2.3 lbs/nm.

560 V at FL410 ISA MCT: 403 KTAS, 1077 pph, 2.7 lbs/nm

For a plane that is almost twice the weight, twice the range, twice the payload, that's a relatively smaller adder for fuel. Flown at similar speeds (my LRC is still faster than the Mustang MCT), the Mustang saves under 30% on fuel. If I push mine to MCT, I get 400 knots and the Mustang would use about 40% less fuel. Throw in a 100 knot headwind and the advantage shrinks.

Fuel is just but one cost. All the other costs have to be considered. It is also the cost that scales most with use, which is good. Use it less, you aren't still paying for engine program hours you aren't using, for example. The calendar time clocks on the inspections are still ticking, too.


He did, but the question is what he hopes to gain by doing that. I wanted to point out what he might be losing. The Mustang is a minimum performance jet and 1000 lbs flown 1000 nm is not a great fit. 100 knot headwinds are a real thing.


I gave him an option to consider, one that I have direct experience with as an owner and pilot, and in no way told him what to do. He is smart enough to do what he wants with that information.

Mike C.

A Mustang will be tough for 1000 lbs flown 1000 nm reliably. it is not a very fast airplane so a 100 knot headwind is a real killer.

You will want to be very careful about the fine print in the programs for low use like this. It isn't just hours, but it also cycles you have to watch out for.

Do you have 500 hours turbine time or close to that? That would qualify you for an SPE which opens up the 550 or 560. Both of those will EASILY do your mission with spare payload and range and are faster than the 501 or Mustang. You already have the type rating, too, and experience with 500 series systems and maintenance.

There are also 551 which don't need an SPE, but they are not as common and payload limited. The SPE is not a big deal to maintain.

The Mustang is an odd duck of an airplane, sharing almost nothing with the 500 or 525 series. Parts for it are unique and generally controlled by Textron, not a lot of choice to get them elsewhere. There have been some supply problems, and engine delays. The PW615F is not aging as well as Pratt claimed it would.

My 560 uses very nearly the same fuel a 501SP uses for any given flight, especially if there is a headwind and if you are going 1000 nm. This is because the 560 easily flies higher and the engines are more efficient than the -1A. In a headwind, the extra speed reduces the effect. It isn't nearly the fuel increase one expects going from a 501 to a 560.

I believe there is no LUMP for the Mustang while the 500 series can get one that extends inspection intervals. Great cost saver especially for your low usage profile.

Do you use wet, snow, or ice runways? Mustang has no thrust reversers, the 500 series generally does, and that helps greatly with non dry runways. TRs are also great for brake failures and other unexpected situations (I know this first hand!). Saves brakes.

Mustangs will generally be more expensive to buy than 550s. The savings in capital cost have a big impact on total cost of ownership. A 550 plus full Garmin panel upgrade will be generally less than a Mustang, and you will end up with a new easy to use, cheap to maintain modern panel.

Mike C.

Mustang maintenance is mostly very simple. It’s had a LUMP from day one. The majority of the DOCs are visual inspections that can be performed by any A&P. I am a founding member if the CBC. I have a local guy who does the majority of my inspections. In total I pay him about $4k per year.

Once a year I go to Textron for the things the local guy cannot do. The DOC13 is really the jet equivalent of an annual inspection. My guy can do over half of those items. Some like the Garmin Autopilot Servo test require specific equipment. In labor only I generally spend $8k to $12k at the Service Center. I time that work to coincide with my recurrent at Flight Safety. Both FSI and Textron are at MCO right next to each other.

FSI closed the Mustang SIM in Orlando so I now go to Wichita for recurrent. Textron is also there for service. I don’t have to make duplicate trips.

The most expensive DOC item is the landing gear overhaul every six years. I was getting a bit of nose wheel shimmy so this last time I was due for real. Even that job at $14k total is not bad in comparison to some others. This last time they found some wear in my nose trunnion which probably caused that shimmy. That one hurt a bit the additional part was $7k. I’m not saying these things are cheap but Mustang maintenance has not cost more than my Meridian. I have owned the Mustang for 10 years so I have been through most of the schedule.

I fly the Mustang at FL 390 to FL410 most of the time. That will be about 330 kts and 525 lb/hr. If temps are more than +3 you are not going to FL410 right away. No problem getting to FL390 in any temp I have seen.

I would not plan on 1,000 lbs and 1,000 nm. For that distance with reserves you need to fill it to the rim. That will give you 2700-2750 fuel depending on fuel temp. The literature will show 800 load with full fuel but that is with rated capacity of 2585 fuel. The mission you describe would put you at least 400 over gross. Ignoring legality and single engine performance, the noticeable problem would be high altitude climb. The Mustang is not intended for that mission. Make it an 800 mile trip and everything works.

The Piaggio beats them both. You get as new of airframe as the Mustang with an Avanti II, it will carry Mikes payload of the V in far greater comfort than he has with the fuel flows of the Mustang AND with a speed only 20 knots slower than the V.

And it’s cooler…(sorry Mike). .

The true beauty of the Mustang is its simplicity.

It is a cool plane, no apology needed.

Hard to beat the payload, cabin size, speed, and fuel usage.

Mike C.