"anemic"?

I've never had issues with loading, but I don't take 5 heavy guys, it's not the plane for that.

Have they done the GWX8000 enablement for that yet?

"anemic"?

I've never had issues with loading, but I don't take 5 heavy guys, it's not the plane for that.

Ah ok, finally caught it… what I meant to say was “I trust Corey, but the c2 isn’t exactly anemic”

No more cocktails and Beectalk!

Thanks for catching that! I’m always trying to correct misinformation and here I am being the worst offender!

The theory behind those shops is that they prevent faults by being picky. It doesn't sound like that theory worked out.

In my experience, the more things the shop touches, the more problems they introduce.


That's a major point. The SETP, not under an inspection program, is being torn apart every year because it falls under the annual inspection rules. The jet, on an inspection program, is not being torn apart nearly as much.


That is mostly because there was less to do each shop visit.

My V is on a LUMP where I basically don't have hardly anything to do to it for 3 years. This is a MAJOR improvement in up time and reduced maintenance induced faults. The Mustang inspection program is not nearly as generous, it still has some fairly hefty annual requirements, but it is better than a full annual.

We very clearly over inspect our planes causing more issues that we are fixing. The FAA doesn't properly take into account the risks of maintenance, they only seem to understand the risks of lack of maintenance. Thus we are skewed one direction.

Mike C.

True.


False. You have to count the TOTAL cost of ownership to be apples to apples.


Depends on the facility, but probably also false.

The key thing about a Mustang is that you are beholding to Pratt for engine work. The 501 owner has other shops they can use for the JT15D. The 501 owner doesn't have to fly past TBO to be cheaper, they can OH and still be way ahead.

Also, the 501 owner had about $1.5M extra in the bank after he bought the plane. The investment income on that alone pays for operating the airplane before the Mustang owner puts any fuel into it. The lost investment income exists if you don't fly much, the fuel costs scale with use. The 501 owner suffers no program minimums, either.

Now that's apples to apples, the true cost of ownership, capital plus programs add up.

The test would be two owners, one buys a 501 one buys a Mustang, and the 501 owner gets to invest the extra capital cost of the Mustang *and* the Mustang program costs into investments while the Mustang owner doesn't have that extra cash to do so.

After X years, both sell their airplane to the market. Who has the most money after all that?

The 501 owner, by a WIDE margin. It really is no contest and it becomes very obvious when you model it financially.

The people who think the Mustang is cheaper to fly have a blind spot for capital and program costs.

Mike C.

Or maybe they just want a newer airplane with a G1000NXi?

That is a dandy reason to buy a Mustang. Other valid reasons: wants through the panel yoke, likes the look, wants a younger airplane, etc.

But choosing a Mustang over a 501 because you think it is cheaper to own is not valid.

I will point out that you can get a G600 TXi panel in the 501 which is not a G1000, but gets many of the benefits.

Mike C.

Mike,

One day… when I’m not out of patience… I’ll try again, to explain the difference between Op Cost and Acquisition Cost.

I am curious… what year is the car you drive?

Having flown 150+ hours in a Mustang I can definitely second that, but my biggest argument would be ... space. The Mustang is a very spacious plane - for the pilot, the pax and has a huge baggage compartment (suburban style).

I was actually shocked when a fellow pilot invited me on a test flight with his new TBM 940 a few years ago. There's totally no comparison, I was astonished how cramped you sit in the cockpit.

The even bigger shocker was a Meridian. I literally nearly couldn't get into the pilots seat without doing serious acrobatics.

I can only highly recommend to really sit in those planes (never sat in a 501 btw).

Having flown 150+ hours in a Mustang I can definitely second that, but my biggest argument would be ... space. The Mustang is a very spacious plane - for the pilot, the pax and has a huge baggage compartment (suburban style).

I was actually shocked when a fellow pilot invited me on a test flight with his new TBM 940 a few years ago. There's totally no comparison, I was astonished how cramped you sit in the cockpit.

The even bigger shocker was a Meridian. I literally nearly couldn't get into the pilots seat without doing serious acrobatics.

I can only highly recommend to really sit in those planes (never sat in a 501 btw).

He does have a point about capital cost Chip. It IS a real expense that has to be accounted for. (Or not if you just want to pretend like me ).

Due to the control column, there is a bit of "Citation yoga" involved to get into and out of the seat. It isn't difficult or awkward but a technique you learn quickly. Once seated, the column isn't an issue and doesn't affect your seated comfort.

The main issue with the 500 series on cockpit access has to do with the pedestal, the part part that sticks out behind the throttles. In many 500 series, that is fairly lengthy and contains various avionics things, often the FMS control panel. It can be a bit of a chore to step over it to get in and out.

For my plane, I had a fairly lengthy one with FMS and other stuff. When I did the Garmin upgrade, I had it basically all removed which makes access super nice and easy.

Your feet just slide in now, not difficult at all. I highly recommend this change if you have the opportunity to do so.

I'm 6'2", so not a small guy, and getting in and out of the V is pretty easy, easier than the MU2 was.

Mike C.

Then why aren't you flying around in a BBJ with a staff of 15 to take care of it?

For the rest of us where money actually matters, if you are frugal, you can be flying an airplane one class higher than otherwise. That means jet when you have turboprop money, for example.

Mike C.