I’m a CJ3+ owner who upgraded from an M2. A few thoughts:

1. An M2 Gen 2 is essentially an identical airplane to any M2, aside from a few interior appointments. There is one big difference after serial number 1048, and that is better G3000 boxes, with higher resolution, faster processors, and an upgrade path to things such as GWX8000 radar. That said, any M2 can get the upgraded boxes, and the GWX 8000, for something just north of $300K.

2. If you can accept a higher time airframe, you can be in a 3+ for less than you describe. I am in a high time plane, but I did new paint, interior, and all of the Garmin box upgrades, at a price point less than $2M over my comparably equipped M2, with arguably better aesthetics.

3. The 3+ is a hell of a lot more plane than the M2. Almost twice the full fuel payload, over 40% more range at max cruise, and FL450 vs FL410. It’s nice not to have to be thinking about fuel reserves all the time.

4. IMO, the sweet spot for the owner flown CJ series would be a CJ2, with new paint, interior, and the full Garmin panel upgrade. (Not available in the 2+). That gets you something that looks and feels like a late model M2/3+, for well under $4M. You get the payload of the 3+, FL450, and a max cruise range squarely in between the M2 and the 3+.

The operating costs of any of these 3 options are so close, that it’s not even a consideration. In fact, for my milk run of 1,200nm, I often had to make a stop in the M2, due headwinds. Eliminating the stop actually reduces my operating costs.

The straight 3, or the 2+, are also great planes, if you are happy with the Collins avionics. Most owner pilots prefer the Garmin systems, because they normally move up the ranks from Garmin equipped planes.

If you really want the best bang for the buck, it's probably the Citation V, if you can accept an older airframe, the lack of a modern autopilot, and the international flight limitations that come with the single pilot exemption. You get similar performance to the 3+, with lower operating costs, and better short field landing performance, all at a much lower capital cost.

I went with the 3+ because I could stomach the capital cost, prefer the CJ aesthetics, and prefer the G3000 avionics. Makes no financial sense, but I don’t really care, ‘cause I can’t spend it from the grave.

The CJ3 retains a lot of value on resale. I remember looking at acquiring a mid time airframe for a client back in 2012, and they are similarly priced today.

The CJ4 is my ultimate favorite of the 525’s but the least financially advantageous. The CJ2+/3 is really the sweet spot. The M2 is great for 800 mile missions with only a few passengers. All of the CJ1+ and M2’s I used to fly were with no more than 3 or 4 passengers and a typical stage length of 500 nm. The range of and payload of the CJ3 is compelling, it just depends on the mission.

Garmin is great but PL21 is tried and true. I miss it sometimes.

After several thousand hours, I am a little more accepting of lesser avionics than the G3000, but would be a hard sell to leave those avionics to fly single pilot flying hard IFR. Years/decades of muscle memory can make a difference in the heat of battle.

I would definitely take the M2 GEN2 all else equal. But would not criticize someone who felt differently. Mark is a role model to all mere mortals

I think you got the wrong Mark!

It’s the right mark!!

Haha really? "Pro" flown? Any proficient pilot will be able to use the avionics, especially if they don't rely on being "pro" for their proficiency

Garmin and Genesys/STEC are both working on autopilot STCs.

Older airframe, not exactly sure why people shy away from that so much. The parts for the CJ series cost so much more in general, and they don't have the advantageous inspection intervals I have. I think too many advisors perpetuate the "older is more expensive to maintain" myth. Just isn't true.

The international single pilot thing is real. Having a copilot for those trips is not a bad idea, but it does come at some inconvenience. I had an SIC for my trip to Calgary. I do hear some hopeful comments that Canada might allow the SPE, especially since they have basically the identical thing that allows C registered legacy Citations to fly single pilot.


Can confirm.

The short field performance was the biggest surprise. I really didn't give up hardly any runways versus the MU2. Love those TRs, and they make a huge difference on wet, snow, ice. If your ops are from airports that are regularly wet, snowy, or icy, you have to seriously consider a TR equipped airplane.

Mike C.

Mike,

Some people like new airplanes.

Sincerely,

Chip

Older airframe, not exactly sure why people shy away from that so much. The parts for the CJ series cost so much more in general, and they don't have the advantageous inspection intervals I have. I think too many advisors perpetuate the "older is more expensive to maintain" myth. Just isn't true.

Mike C.

Like, for example, all the CJ folks I know who carry an FJ44 FADEC download kit and PC so you can reset the nuisance faults so you don't end up AOG somewhere? Is that the sort of "ease of operation" people are looking for in the newer planes?

If so, I like my older "hard to use" plane just fine. Not a single bit of code needed to run my engines.

Mike C.

Like, for example, all the CJ folks I know who carry an FJ44 FADEC download kit and PC so you can reset the nuisance faults so you don't end up AOG somewhere? Is that the sort of "ease of operation" people are looking for in the newer planes?

If so, I like my older "hard to use" plane just fine. Not a single bit of code needed to run my engines.

Mike C.

CJs also have exciter boxes, so they suffer the same fate.

The V has two single exciter boxes per engine, which means one can fail and the other will keep you going. So I need two boxes to fail to take out one engine. Some earlier models had dual boxes, so only one failure away.

So your two AOG events had two boxes that failed at the same time? That's weird and unusual. If that happened to me, I can move a good one from the other engine and keep going. I'd be AOG only if I had 3 exciter boxes broken, which should be so rare as to never have happened. Would take 20 minutes.

I do carry spare ignitors. Haven't needed them.


The point is older gets a bad rap which isn't deserved. There are plenty of things that the older airplane does better than the new one.

But I'm grateful guys like you don't get it, that keeps the cost down for those of us who do get it. If more people knew the true value of older Citations, they would increase in price.

Mike C.

That is the first time I have seen you say any Mike is right. Haha. You spend a lot of time saying Mike C is wrong in his preference which is how we end up in all the arguments.

Your statement above is absolutely correct. Each person has their own value system and perceived return on investment. Both extremes can be right.

I would absolutely love a new Citation, but I can’t afford one. When given the choice between newer and smaller and older and larger I went with older. I value the range and seats over aesthetics.

This thread made me look at CJ2’s. No way I would swap my plane for a CJ2, too small and not enough range. I would go to a CJ3 but the cost is literally 6x the cost of my plane. Just not possible in my world.

Mike C is right for owning what he owns and some guy that buys a new CJ4 is also right for him. I am jealous of both as both have a nicer plane than I do. But I bet there are guys that wish they had my plane. It’s all relative.

Btw just had to get the ECU kit from Williams to clear a code. So I get to enjoy some of both negatives. Haha

Mike

CJs also have exciter boxes, so they suffer the same fate.

The V has two single exciter boxes per engine, which means one can fail and the other will keep you going. So I need two boxes to fail to take out one engine. Some earlier models had dual boxes, so only one failure away.

Mike C.

There's a lot of reasons people buy new(er) aircraft and op cost rarely makes the top three. I would say that ease of operation is above actual op cost.

When someone is spending $5M -$6M on a small jet, they're probably not too concerned about +/- $20k a year in op cost.

As far as capability, that's a trade off. It's easy to say "bigger is better" but that isn't the only consideration.

I drive a 425HP Yukon XL, seats 7 adults comfortably, with plenty of room for normal luggage.

My buddy Rick told me last night he just ordered a new Lexus LC500...

What? He's CRAZY!

First of all, the thing only carries four people, and I don't think I want to be one of the ones in the backseat.

I guarantee you my vehicle has a better ride and it's a 4WD truck!!

Why in the heck would he spend the same amount of money for a little car that doesn't do anything better than mine? Unless it's the extra 50HP?


Obviously, anyone who knows anything about cars is going "depends on what you want"

I love my Denali, wouldn't trade it for a convertible sportscar... but there is no denying which one is sexier![/quote]

Speaking of Denali, Beech give up on it yet?