https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... learjet-55

There you go.....750k ask, "needs new home, won't be undersold, bring all serious offers", and all that other gimmicky speak.....

I don’t see any engine times. Should one assume they are runout?

I don’t see any engine times. Should one assume they are runout?

1500NM range is hard. 900-1100nm range much more doable with a wider range of planes.

In my experience/opinion business users should be looking to cover 80-90% of their spec'd missions and use charter or airlines for the last 10-20% if those missions are outside the window of doable. Most can't/won't/shouldn't afford to spec the plane for the 10%. If someone is their own pilot, can afford it, and finds a bird that meets all missions and does it well with good dispatch that can also be comfortable on those long range missions of 1,500nm I say go get it. Great job.

Even to the point of a fast jet for the normal shorter milk runs can be used, with a fuel stop, for many of the longer ones. A TBM/Pilatus does this but don't meet the pricing parameters. All depends on load and this one is three big guys and a pilot. Not sure cramped in a Cirrus after a long day is ideal either. Older jets or KA's tend to have better support and more pilots qualified to be PIC.

Hospital in western KS uses an old C90, like Dave S's, for it's milk run. They pick up 2-4 Dr's 2-350nm away and bring them to the hospital for surgery's and consults a couple days a week sometimes three. Pick them up at 7 and home to APA by 6pm. Just like they were going to the office in Denver. Have a single pilot unless he has a pax like me in right seat bumming a ride. Pretty good set up for their situation.

I don’t see any engine times. Should one assume they are runout?

So a Williams 501 would be pretty close in fuel use and save more than an hour in flight time.

The Williams saves a lot of fuel by climbing fast to altitude, and then cruising fast while up there, while burning less fuel than the JT15D-4 on the II.

Even if the fuel use is more, the Williams 501 saved more than an hour of airframe time which translates into maintenance savings, too.

Mike C.

Or just make a fuel stop.

If I had a plane that did 90% of my missions non stop, then a fuel stop for the remaining 10% isn't too bad.

Mike C.

Now we're projecting. I would argue that a plane that takes 2hrs to go through the exact same atmosphere as one that does it in 1hr, all things being the same, are subjected to the exact same air-stresses. The faster one just does it with higher frequency.

Now we're projecting. I would argue that a plane that takes 2hrs to go through the exact same atmosphere as one that does it in 1hr, all things being the same, are subjected to the exact same air-stresses. The faster one just does it with higher frequency.

I suppose I'm arguing that the ones that goes twice as fast, will have have intervals half as long. You can only bend a piece of metal X amount of time before it breaks.

Where the jet shines: go high, go fast, go far with a lot of people. If time is highly important. When one goes Sierra or like conversion: a lot of capital in an old air frame.

I suppose I'm arguing that the ones that goes twice as fast, will have have intervals half as long. You can only bend a piece of metal X amount of time before it breaks.

And don't forget what you mentioned earlier, poor workmanship. If you can find a Clifford conversion they are said to be better.

Yes. Some are looking at brochure numbers and assuming quality is there. They may be disappointed when they inspect or test fly the actual bird.

Do the W&B on some Citations and you'll find you can't fly alone with full fuel without ballast. In the II I flew, with two of us up front we were just at CG limit.