Know of one Citation owner flying a SP model that is being required by insurance to have two pilots in plane at all times. Has plenty of jet and Turboprop time. Crazy insurance situations out there. This floored me. Check before jumping guys.

A north-south run will be less affected by winds, but try this east-west, say in the PNW, and the winds will play a much bigger role, especially in the winter.


A 300 knot turboprop wouldn't be more than 15-20 minutes slower than the Mustang in still air. With a headwind, the difference would decrease since they can fly lower out of the strongest winds.

Say KFAR (Fargo, ND) to KBFI (Seattle, WA), 1038 nm. At FL400, average headwind is 78 knots. At FL240, 54 knots headwind. A 441 at 315 KTAS will be doing basically the same GS as the Mustang and has longer range.

Headwinds bite. If your trip avoids them, that's fantastic, but the only real treatment is a faster airplane.

The Mustang is a nice plane, but its speed and range come with compromises. This shouldn't be news to anyone.

Mike C.

This is not typical, must be other circumstances not in evidence.

Mike C.

So is a 172. The question is what compromises did you make to fit your mission to the plane.


On paper, yes.

In the real world, not always. To get any decent range you have to fly high, and higher generally means higher headwinds. As the example I posted earlier, the 300+ knot turboprops flying in the 20s can pretty much keep up with a Mustang flying in the high 30s to low 40s.


Is it? I'm not certain that it is much cheaper than I could do it in my V. Less fuel, yes, though skipping the fuel stop and cutting through headwinds at 400+ knots make the race very close on that, too.

Take KMSP to KBFI right now, 1215 nm, into a moderate headwind (not as strong as it can get).

My Citation V at FL430 would need 4,522 lbs fuel and 4:03 flight time at max cruise. At long range cruise, this changes to 4197 lbs and 4:17.

A Mustang at FL400 would need a fuel stop (KMLS Miles City, MT) and needs 3284 lbs fuel and 5:04 flight time in total.

The fuel was less, but it will take about 2 hours more to do the trip when counting the fuel stop, and I'd wager my other costs are less (maintenance, capital, extra cycle, etc).

Airplanes should be judged how well they do on the headwind days. On the tailwind days, everybody is happy and good.

Mike C.

FWIW, I flight planned some trips in a Mustang and I found I could beat it in the MU2 in almost every circumstance. Time travelled was about the same, fuel used about the same, range always better, payload always better.

Comfort hard to gauge, Mustang may have won if you want to focus on noise, MU2 probably won if you focus on physical seating comfort. Mustang would win on those few days where higher got you out of weather. But those were relatively few.

Note that this was a paper exercise for me, and I know owners are very happy with their Mustangs.

So is a 172. The question is what compromises did you make to fit your mission to the plane.


On paper, yes.


My Citation V at FL430 would need 4,522 lbs fuel and 4:03 flight time at max cruise. At long range cruise, this changes to 4197 lbs and 4:17.

A Mustang at FL400 would need a fuel stop (KMLS Miles City, MT) and needs 3284 lbs fuel and 5:04 flight time in total.

The fuel was less, but it will take about 2 hours more to do the trip when counting the fuel stop, and I'd wager my other costs are less (maintenance, capital, extra cycle, etc).

Airplanes should be judged how well they do on the headwind days. On the tailwind days, everybody is happy and good.

Mike C.

Why a 1300nm trip?

Let's talk 1500 - 1600nm

Instead of 5 hours in the air and two cycles in a Mustang?

Most people will choose the 4 hour non stop. I would, and I do.


I presume you are talking about maintenance costs.

I am pretty sure I will beat a Mustang easily. Big reason is the low cost of parts and the long inspection intervals due to being on a LUMP program. I publish my numbers, do you?


It is a pretty regular occurrence on CJP for Mustang owners to talk about a parts shortage. There are very few Mustangs in salvage and virtually no parts on the 500 or 525 series fits them. The plane is out of production so it doesn't mean parts are on the shelf just because it is newer. It is a unicorn airplane.

Recent example, oxygen bottles are reaching life limits, hard to find. The whole fleet will go through this over the next few years, then nothing for a while, so the part demand sometimes spikes and that isn't always well controlled.


A turboprop would be less than 5 minutes longer than the Mustang and save even more fuel.

That's the problem with this short leg argument, the Mustang can't compete with a turboprop on short runs and can't handle the longer ones without a fuel stop.

Each plane has its sweet spot, but range and speed are not the Mustang's strong points. You need something else if you missions regularly exceed about 700 nm.

Mike C.

Trivia question: Who wants to fly 5 hours non stop in a tiny jet? Answer: only the owners of them.

I don’t know how to make any of this green on my phone.

Chip-

My passengers, given a choice, will clearly prefer a 4 hour non stop flight over a ~6 hour trip with a fuel stop in a smaller Mustang.

Mike C.

Mike,

How far have you flown in the Mustang?

What did you think of the size / comfort?

How did the cockpit compare to the V?

One of the things Mustang advocates point to is the cockpit comfort. The Mustang is the only Cessna jet with through the panel yokes (like a 172) instead of a floor control column and that's considered a big deal for cockpit comfort. I did worry what it would be like with the column and how much discomfort that would cause on long flights.

In my experience, the comfort up front in my V is just fine, has never been an issue that there is a control column. I've sat in the pilot seat for 7+ hours in a single day and had no complaints. So my concerns were not warranted and I don't think this is a meaningful issue. At 6' 2", I'm not small, either.

Part of this is that my pedestal was removed during my avionics upgrade which makes getting in and out of the pilot seat vastly easier than stepping over a bunch of controls. This is a very worthwhile upgrade.

Mike C.

Corey, I enjoy everyone's perspective and thoughts on this.

Your position loses strength when you get emotional and say things like "beater 33 year old."

I would also offer that new doesn't mean better. Certainly the craftsmanship on Bonanza's declined over the years.

My 2 cents on the matter.

One of the things Mustang advocates point to is the cockpit comfort. The Mustang is the only Cessna jet with through the panel yokes (like a 172) instead of a floor control column and that's considered a big deal for cockpit comfort. I did worry what it would be like with the column and how much discomfort that would cause on long flights.

In my experience, the comfort up front in my V is just fine, has never been an issue that there is a control column. I've sat in the pilot seat for 7+ hours in a single day and had no complaints. So my concerns were not warranted and I don't think this is a meaningful issue. At 6' 2", I'm not small, either.

Part of this is that my pedestal was removed during my avionics upgrade which makes getting in and out of the pilot seat vastly easier than stepping over a bunch of controls. This is a very worthwhile upgrade.

Mike C.

Instead of 5 hours in the air and two cycles in a Mustang?

Most people will choose the 4 hour non stop. I would, and I do.


I presume you are talking about maintenance costs.

I am pretty sure I will beat a Mustang easily. Big reason is the low cost of parts and the long inspection intervals due to being on a LUMP program. I publish my numbers, do you?


It is a pretty regular occurrence on CJP for Mustang owners to talk about a parts shortage. There are very few Mustangs in salvage and virtually no parts on the 500 or 525 series fits them. The plane is out of production so it doesn't mean parts are on the shelf just because it is newer. It is a unicorn airplane.

Recent example, oxygen bottles are reaching life limits, hard to find. The whole fleet will go through this over the next few years, then nothing for a while, so the part demand sometimes spikes and that isn't always well controlled.


A turboprop would be less than 5 minutes longer than the Mustang and save even more fuel.

That's the problem with this short leg argument, the Mustang can't compete with a turboprop on short runs and can't handle the longer ones without a fuel stop.

Each plane has its sweet spot, but range and speed are not the Mustang's strong points. You need something else if you missions regularly exceed about 700 nm.

Mike C.