You may wanted to include that in your original post.

Ahh gotcha.

High level there’s a direct correlation between acquisition cost and operational cost, but it isn’t linear.

The greatest divider is single pilot vs crew, but the insurance companies continue to drive towards crewed operations, especially if the hull value exceeds $3M

As pointed out, the most popular jets certified for single pilot operations are the Citation 525 series airframes. CJ, CJ1/1+/M2/2+/3/3+/3g2/4

You also have the Mustang, it’s the latest design, but the only example of the 510 series. This, in my opinion represents one of the most unfortunate decisions Cessna has made to date.

You also have legacy offerings that can be flown single pilot, 500/501/550 series as well as some of the 560’s.

Add to these the Phenom 100/300, Pilatus PC-24, Premier I/IA and the Honda Jet and there’s a pretty broad range of sp private jets.

There are several light jets that require two pilots, such as the Learjet and Beechjet.

Once you get into mid-size, super mid-sized and large cabin jets, they’re all crew operated.

I encourage those considering jet ownership to do a needs assessment, once you’ve answered a series of questions, your choices will shrink, usually down to one or two airframes that will work for 80% of your missions and meet your budget requirements.

Mike C. will quickly point out the cost of money and with interest rates at 8.5% that is a major consideration, but residual/ resale value is often a concern as well, especially if the budget is in excess of $3M

Tax benefits often drive budgets, a purchaser who has a $1M tax problem and is buying based on bonus depreciation doesn’t care how good of an airplane he can buy for $1.7M

I sold airplanes for 15 years before switching to representing buyers, that shift caused me to realize that what a owner, pilot or salesperson thinks you should buy is immaterial.

The decision should begin with someone asking you what your mission, needs, desires, and budget constraints are. Once you’ve completed that assessment, the path usually reveals itself.

It’s funny, most of our clients still hire us knowing exactly what they want, but about 25% of them change airframes once they’ve engaged us and started walking through the process.

It’s all about accurate and unbiased information, that can then be used to make the best decision.

If part of the role/mission profile is to have fun flying a jet single pilot, it narrows the choices down. Insurance may narrow it further.

Ahh gotcha.

High level there’s a direct correlation between acquisition cost and operational cost, but it isn’t linear.

The greatest divider is single pilot vs crew, but the insurance companies continue to drive towards crewed operations, especially if the hull value exceeds $3M

As pointed out, the most popular jets certified for single pilot operations are the Citation 525 series airframes. CJ, CJ1/1+/M2/2+/3/3+/3g2/4

You also have the Mustang, it’s the latest design, but the only example of the 510 series. This, in my opinion represents one of the most unfortunate decisions Cessna has made to date.

You also have legacy offerings that can be flown single pilot, 500/501/550 series as well as some of the 560’s.

Add to these the Phenom 100/300, Pilatus PC-24, Premier I/IA and the Honda Jet and there’s a pretty broad range of sp private jets.

There are several light jets that require two pilots, such as the Learjet and Beechjet.

Once you get into mid-size, super mid-sized and large cabin jets, they’re all crew operated.

I encourage those considering jet ownership to do a needs assessment, once you’ve answered a series of questions, your choices will shrink, usually down to one or two airframes that will work for 80% of your missions and meet your budget requirements.

Mike C. will quickly point out the cost of money and with interest rates at 8.5% that is a major consideration, but residual/ resale value is often a concern as well, especially if the budget is in excess of $3M

Tax benefits often drive budgets, a purchaser who has a $1M tax problem and is buying based on bonus depreciation doesn’t care how good of an airplane he can buy for $1.7M

I sold airplanes for 15 years before switching to representing buyers, that shift caused me to realize that what a owner, pilot or salesperson thinks you should buy is immaterial.

The decision should begin with someone asking you what your mission, needs, desires, and budget constraints are. Once you’ve completed that assessment, the path usually reveals itself.

It’s funny, most of our clients still hire us knowing exactly what they want, but about 25% of them change airframes once they’ve engaged us and started walking through the process.

It’s all about accurate and unbiased information, that can then be used to make the best decision.

If you are stuck on a Jet, then all the information given is great, but if you want everything like cost of entry, operational costs, speed, and full fuel capacity, then you need to consider an Epic for 6 or less people or a Piaggio P-180 for more than 6 people. You will get to your destination faster and with 50% less costs if under 500 miles, if over 500 miles it takes a pretty big jet like a Phenom 300 to get there faster, but still burns substantial for fuel with high operational costs. Out of all the Jets mentioned the Phenom 300 is by far the best but also has a high entry cost. The CJ's 1&2 and M are great but slow for a jet, while burning a lot more fuel. If you are under 7 people total, the gap between the Epic and anything else is so wide that nothing compares to it. You need to actually fly in all these planes to get unbiased opinions because people will always suggest what they fly is the best because they don't want to consider they could have made a better decision. I'm no different other than I did fly in the other planes before I purchased. The entry cost on the CJ's are very attractive and you can afford a lot of time and fuel for the difference in upfront costs, that is why they are attractive.
Happy Shopping.

Anything under the CE500 type can be flown single pilot, either out of the box (501/551) or via an exemption/waiver.

Not sure what you mean that only some of the 560s can be flown sp unless you're talking about a 560XL.

The 560XL is a totally different beast and I have no idea why Cessna called it a 560... Confusing as hell! Almost as strange as the Conquest I (425) and Conquest II (441) that have essentially nothing in common except that they have two engines!

Robert

In 2018, I said the same.
In 2019, I bought a Citation Mustang.

In 2018, I said the same.
In 2019, I bought a Citation Mustang.

I'm on my second Mustang....best plane ever for my needs!

The ONLY thing wrong with the Mustang is the fact that it's misunderstood. The reality is that most people who say there's something wrong with it, don't know anything about it.

Cessna was trying to cast the 560XL as a 560 with a larger cabin and still have it be single pilot capable (with SPE) and fall under the same type rating (CE-500).

FAA didn't buy it, but we are stuck with the confusion. The C560XL can't be SPE and it has its own type rating.

Mike C.

No plane is perfect and the Mustang has these issues:

It is slow, basically turboprop slow. In a 100 knot headwind, it bites.

It is short range, barely over 1000 nm in still air, and more like 700 nm if you want to do the trip reliably in most winds.

It is a unique type rating that works on no other types. Compare to CE-500 or CE-525.

The design is unique which makes parts hard to come by (some planes have been grounded for months waiting for stuff). You can't tie into the 500 or 525 parts legacy with a 510.

The PW615F engine has had issues and isn't nearly as economical to maintain as originally advertised. It has had various problems.

Some services are very slow. Recent example was a Mustang owner which needed 12 months to overhaul two engines.

Rental engines can be very scarce. That was part of the issue with the 12 month overhaul.

It is a very nice airplane, but every rose has its thorns and if someone tells you there aren't any, they don't know what they are talking about.

Mike C.

No plane is perfect and the Mustang has these issues:

It is slow, basically turboprop slow. In a 100 knot headwind, it bites.

It is short range, barely over 1000 nm in still air, and more like 700 nm if you want to do the trip reliably in most winds.

It is a unique type rating that works on no other types. Compare to CE-500 or CE-525.

The design is unique which makes parts hard to come by (some planes have been grounded for months waiting for stuff). You can't tie into the 500 or 525 parts legacy with a 510.

The PW615F engine has had issues and isn't nearly as economical to maintain as originally advertised. It has had various problems.

Some services are very slow. Recent example was a Mustang owner which needed 12 months to overhaul two engines.

Rental engines can be very scarce. That was part of the issue with the 12 month overhaul.

It is a very nice airplane, but every rose has its thorns and if someone tells you there aren't any, they don't know what they are talking about.

Mike C.

No plane is perfect and the Mustang has these issues:

It is slow, basically turboprop slow. In a 100 knot headwind, it bites.

It is short range, barely over 1000 nm in still air, and more like 700 nm if you want to do the trip reliably in most winds.

Rental engines can be very scarce. That was part of the issue with the 12 month overhaul.


Mike C.

I really like the Mustang. Cessna really goofed letting it go. It would have pulled quite a bit of the market away from the TBM, M600 and SF50, and given those pilots a reasonable step up if they wanted to be in a Jet. My only criticisms are the pilot seats are a little uncomfortable. Not sure, but the padding/shape, is just not quite there. But it only has 3 hour range, so there is that. On a warm day, getting to FL410, feels like a C172 hanging on the prop at 13,000 feet, but it gets there eventually. The range, especially if there is weather needing alternates gets chewed up really fast. The avionics are getting long in the tooth. And I worry about long term support given the limited number of copies with unique parts.

I really wish Cessna would have kept the airframe and upgraded it. Imagine a Mustang with G3000, winglets, ESP, autoland, heated and air-conditioned seats, GWX8000 radar, cool view windows, reimagined interior etc.