Assuming you can achieve that in a 551, you have 4637 useful load to ramp weight of 12,700 lbs. Still not quite full fuel.

I'd estimate that a 551 fueled to the same range as the 501 (say about 3800 lbs fuel), then you have ~800 lbs cabin load.

So even though the 551 is limited, it mostly covers the range/payload curve of the 501. Since the airplane is basically a 550, you have the numbers for operating over gross if that's the way you roll.

You would want to put a 551 on a weight reduction plan. New avionics can save you 250 lbs. Lightweight interior. Remove "furniture" and anything you don't need. Main issue is most of this weight savings is forward of the wing, so you can end up tail heavy.

Mike C.

A 1,000 mile range works well for me. I am located in central Europe so most destinations are fairly close. Rarely will I have more than 3 passengers.

I hear that used parts for these planes are easy to find and reasonably priced. I wonder how much it would cost to buy one in the US and upgrade the avionics to be EASA compliant?

I have nothing to contribute to this thread, but I really like reading it, at this point I can afford some day dreaming. So I’m posting just to have it a click away on the “View Your Posts”. Hoping to meet the Mikes in person someday in the near future and listen to the Citation wisdom with a beer or two.

Great source for Legacy Citation used parts . cypressaircraftsales.com

Ditto.

Probably there aren't many 551's out there because with the gross weight limit of 12,500 lbs you don't gain much over a 501. But as Mike pointed out, if you can lower the 551's empty weight you may have something, though you have to be careful about a rear CG.

For what it's worth as a baseline, the Textron Aircraft Range Tool shows the range of a 551 with 2 occupants total (1 pilot + 1 passenger) as 1223nm. For a Citation I (assumed to be the same as a 501), it's 1109nm.

At seven occupants total, the advantage flips to the Citation I. 551 range is down to 761nm but the Citation I is only down to 947nm.

If it's just you and three passengers, the 551 nominally has a range of 1038nm per the range tool.

Mike C
Do you have any idea why 551 800lbs less on ramp weight than a 550 .

Take a look at CG too folks. If you're flying alone with full fuel you will probably need ballast up front unless you're much more than standard weight. Always an issue when I was flying out to pick folks up and return full.

I can’t imagine there being any difference in empty weight in similarly equipped 550/551 of the same age.
Why would the 551 be heavier, as stated above?

Robert T

I have a nice one. It may be for sale. PM if interested.

Robert T

There should not be a difference. See the below SB to change a 550 into a 551.

https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/con ... s_id=11748

Certification rules.

Back when these planes were being certified, part 23 normal category ended at 12,500 lbs MGTOW. Any jet heavier than that had to be part 25, which, for all practical purposes, meant two pilot.

The 550 was part 25, thus could be heavier. The 551, being part 23, could only go to 12,500 lbs. And thus it was.

The FAA created a part 23 commuter category some time ago intended for small air carrier class commuter turboprops. This allowed MGTOW to be 19,000 lbs and to be operated single pilot. In 2002, Cessna was designing the CJ3 and wanted to make it single pilot, so they petitioned the FAA to allow the jet to be certified under the commuter category. The FAA agreed, here is that exemption:

https://aes.faa.gov/AES/Exemption?ExemptionNumber=23023

Makes for interesting reading and what arguments Cessna made at the time. Also has some accident stats on various turboprops and jets. I've attached the file just in case it moves or the link breaks.

By granting this exemption to Cessna, the FAA opened up the commuter category to light business jets and essentially every new jet certified between 12,500 lbs and 19,000 lbs since then has used the commuter category. This is both due to simpler part 23 rules, and to enabling single pilot operation.

As Cessna noted in the petition, commuter category has not really been used that much for commuter aircraft.

The next step is to try and convince the FAA that the legacy small cabin Citations which can currently operate under an SPE can be made officially single pilot by STC and CE-500S type rating. This would then remove the clumsy SPE ecosystem, make the jets single pilot worldwide, provide for pilot qualifications well understood in the industry, and avoid this ever present threat the SPE won't be renewed by the FAA. Given the arguments Cessna made for commuter category and for the original SPE issued in 1984, this should be reasonable, but who knows if the FAA can do that or not.

I've also attached the original SPE, issued in 1984, that started the SPE system. Ironically, in 1995 you could fly a Citation Ultra single pilot under the SPE, but Cessna could not certify the CJ3 as single pilot until the commuter category exemption.

Mike C.

How’s the 550 compared to the MU-2?

The 550 is the best value in legacy citations and the V is the best legacy citation for 3 times the money. It’s a big airplane, burns about 180 gph block and goes 365kts 1350nm. These are big airplanes and you have to be OK with the size. The 501 has a more personal airplane feel. .

I liked my MU-2 and it’s a wonderful airplane but I do not believe anymore that it’s any cheaper to own than a Citation. Maybe the MU-2 burns a little less gas but not much less. The Citation is much easier to fly with more parts available and more people that can work on them.

That would be wonderful news to a new Citation owner!

Alas, I don't really believe it after owning an MU2 for 13 years.

If amount of paperwork correlates to cost to own, then there is no fracking way a Citation can cost the same as an MU2. I have 30 lbs of MU2 paperwork over 46 years, and 200 lbs of Citation V paperwork over 30 years. The Citation literally generates 10 times the paperwork per year.

Mike C.