To be clear, I’m a big fan of the 560, but often end up playing devil’s advocate in these situations.

The reality is that the Citation V/Ultra/Encore is a wonderful and very capable airplane, but Cessna simply didn’t build that many of them and other than the CJ3/4 there is no replacement.

IMO other than the obvious lack of TR’s, and higher acquisition cost, everything else is a win with the 525B/C series. The op cost is lower, the engine ownership experience is superior, fuel consumption and operating cost are considerably lower, range is greater. They are simply superior aircraft.

My standard advice has always been to buy the latest model, lowest time airframe your budget allows. If that’s a V, buy a V, but if you can afford a CJ3, buy a CJ3!

The vocal audience here on BT are legacy Citation drivers, I get that. But, there’s a much larger, silent audience that needs to hear a balanced viewpoint of what their options are.

I was under the impression the Bahamas was one of the places you could get SPE permission. Is that true?

Mike C.

Cessna built 774 of the civilian 560 model variants. That makes it one of the most popular models ever made and quite a bit more than CJ3 deliveries.

There is also a military version, UC-35, about 50 of these were made. No such thing exists for the CJ series that I am aware of.

The 560 is credited with saving Cessna from bankruptcy as it sold very well during a time when general aviation was in trouble.


It actually isn't. This is a fallacy long repeated, but it is simple false. Have someone who owns a CJ3 or CJ4 publish their full costs like I do and you will see. Real costs versus real costs.

New parts are generally multiples more expensive for the CJ series. Here is an example direct from Textron:

Main wheel:
V: $30,743
CJ3: $62,040 (2.02 multiple)

Brake assembly:
V: $59,766
CJ3: $165,704 (2.77 multiple)

It is actually worse than it seems because I can find salvage wheels and brakes out there, and I can find independent shops who work on them too. This higher cost of parts for the CJ series is typical and common. It is extremely rare to find a part cheaper on the CJ series than the 560.

The inspections are more onerous. They don't have a LUMP that extends intervals. They have more life limited parts (like precoolers, which caused AOG problems). They burn brakes and tires. They have a vastly less well stocked salvage market. Textron is often the only choice for parts for the CJ series, not so much for the legacy series.

If you include cost of capital, either interest payments or loss of investment income, then a lower hull value is really a yearly cost to be considered and can dominate the owner flown budget. There are also other costs tied to hull value such as insurance and taxes.

There's not much that is unknown about the 560 series. Ask a CJ4 owner about windshield frame corrosion and see them cry. There is a lawsuit about that now.


It is expensive and climbing fast, now approaching $500/hour, which is now about the same as fuel cost. For some operators, it is the single largest budget line item, more than fuel, and more and more owners are going to end up there as Williams jacks prices and fuel prices moderate. The owners are powerless against Williams and the terms inexorably get worse every renewal. Williams has a monopoly on major engine work.

CJ3 over a 5000 hour overhaul period: $2.5M in payments to Williams. CJ3 owners basically rent their airplane from Williams. And this assumes you meet their 150 hour/year minimums, fly less and you per hour costs jump. I have no yearly minimums.


My penalty is about 15% more fuel per mile, which is about $80/hour. All the other higher costs of an FJ44 dominate the fuel difference.


The V has a longer NBAA IFR range than the CJ3.


Your simplistic guidance has always been to choose the more expensive option. It makes me wonder what discerning insight you really have if you always reflexively tell your customers to spend more.


Because they are cheaper to own and operate for an owner operator and are such capable airplanes.

Mike C.

Your foot is on the scale a bit.

4970 lbs fuel.
12,700 lbs ramp weight.
I've seen empty weight as low as 8000 lbs.

So that's 530 lbs more than your numbers suggest.


This is true.

Within the legal envelope, it has the range/payload slightly better than a Mustang.

Within the payload profile of a 550, it is much better, but technically illegal.

There are STCs to increase the gross weight of a 551. I've seen as high as 14,100 lbs, and apparently the single pilot capability is not affected, so there are possible legal pathways to make it work.


Airplane capability isn't one of them.

Mike C.

I would be surprised if Bahamas is ignorant of the SPE.

It might be worth just asking.

Mike C.

Mike,

You’re twisting a lot of numbers, trying to make your case, but I not falling for it.

First of all, since we are including engines in this, let’s leave out the Encore.

That leaves 505 JT15 powered, low op cost for an involved owner, aircraft.

There’s well over 700 CJ3’s produced and they are still building them.

But, you also left out the CJ4? Why? It is also an aircraft most consider a replacement for the Citation V / Ultra.

Even our own Jason Crandall bought one!

If you combine the CJ3 and CJ4, you’re talking 1200 airplanes and they are still building both.

As far as engines, we’ve beat that dog to death. You don’t get being able to drop an airplane off for HSI on Monday a d pick it up on Friday. You don’t need loaners… you can be down for six months for overhauls… wait… you don’t even need overhauls.

Apples and orangutans.

Again, Citation V is a great airplane… CJ3/4 is better.

The fact it takes a $13M airplane to meet Citation V capabilities is quite a statement about how good the V is.

The CJ4 costs nearly $1M in capital costs before you fly a mile. Op costs are huge just due to this, plus you are suffering initial depreciation in market value. The probably spend more on insurance than I do on fuel.

The economics of a CJ4 are on another planet compared to the V.


It takes about 2 weeks for JT15D-5A HSI. This is an actual Citation V done at Aerodyne in Stuart FL in 2023. Total cost was $90K, $45K/side. I know the owner, he wrote up his experience on CJP.

Few FJ44 HSI are done in a week. I am aware of no such examples reported, do you have any documented cases like that? Typical downtimes seem to be about 3-4 weeks for MPI-3 (aka HSI) for FJ44. Loaner engines can cover this time, but come with various gotchas such as insurance requirements, deposits, and the customer does pay quite a bit to have it done since removal, installation, and shipping of loaner engines is NOT included in the contract.

One particular FJ44 posting said this:

"So to conclude, we have suffered through 3 unscheduled engine events, almost 20 days of downtime, 5 missed trips, and have accrued related maintenance expenses (not covered by WI) to the tune of ~$5,000."

The turn times, without the loaner, would have added up to 10 weeks for the 3 events.

Paying the money to Williams does not assure you of a great experience.


Thanks for noting why the JT15D is better.


If you want to spend more, yes.

If I had CJ3/CJ4 type money, I'd could be flying something else like an Excel and still have money left over, even after I pay for a full time SIC and the extra fuel. For me, it is all about getting the most airplane for the money. Your clients don't fit that profile. The fact they hire you is a self selection process right from the start.

Mike C.

Mike C.

In reality:

CJ3 assembly exchange via Textron: $9,776. Mike exaggeration factor to suit his beliefs: 16.9x

Citation V brake assembly via Textron: $6,423. $3,400 cheaper, not $106k cheaper.

I manage a fleet of 525s, we just haven't had much of a concern over runway lengths. Yes, it can be a factor. The reality is if I'm not comfortable taking a CJ into a 3,500' strip wet or dry, I would not take a TR'd plane in under the same conditions. Yes, we have an XL with TRs and the numbers can be less, but find a professional pilot willing to go into a 3,000ft strip or takeoff on a wet 3,500' strip, then I don't want them flying for me.

A BT member just messaged me here they spent $550k on an engine that needed an OH 1,000 hours prior to OH on their V.

In St. Louis, there are about 20 525s and 7 500 series.

Money is renewable, fuel is not. Some people want a newer aircraft with more efficient engines. They are not idiots. I would do the same.

100%

There's "good" money and "bad" money... money spent on a newer airplane gives both the benefit of having a nicer aircraft and the hope you'll get it back. That is an investment or "good" money. Money spent on fuel and maintenance is money you'll never see again. Bad.

I find that in many cases, it is not the actual amount spent on flying, it is the feeling of not being wasteful.

I was comparing new prices. You are comparing exchange. I'm not exaggerating, those are numbers from Textron.

And you conveniently forgot to include the core charge which you don't always get back in exchange. The exposure is higher than you are indicating.


As usual, still more expensive for the CJs. And they need brake exchanges FAR more often due to not having TRs.

I have one brake that has 1000 landings on it and the wear pin is not even halfway to the limit. No CJ does that.


That's your prerogative, but the TR equipped plane can do it per the book and the CJ can't. All you are doing is coping with the limitations of the CJ series by claiming they aren't needed or useful, when in fact, they are very useful. I've made use of them a number of times, including departing on an ice covered runway and still having margin in the numbers.

Even for any given runway that the CJ can use, the TR equipped plane has more MARGIN and more SAFETY.


$550K for a JT15D-5A OH seems decent enough. Even if they got only 2600 hours (1000 less than TBO), that's $211/hour, which is cheaper than paying Williams for an FJ44. The vast majority of folks get full TBO and many go beyond it on a JT15D, so this is an outlier.


Actually, fuel can be renewable.


Then you spend you money differently than others. That doesn't make the others idiots, either, just far more frugal for getting more for their money.

Chip says the CJs are cheaper. to operate He is totally wrong about that. I'm happy to compare my actual expenses against anybody's CJ but for some reason, the CJ owners never take me up on that.

A CJ3 would cost me at least double to keep over a V, so I don't have one, and I get more capability as well.

Mike C.

It is. But, no one can beat you running an old V and not doing all of the recommended maintenance.

The more you spend on an airplane, especially for the newer ones, the more market downside risk you have and the more initial market depreciation you will suffer.

If you buy an older cheaper airplane, you don't suffer the initial market depreciation and you also enjoy the potential of a market value increase. Your downside risk is limited, it can't go down any further than the salvage value. In my case, my plane's value has risen significantly while I have owned it where as I am sure someone who took new delivery of CJ3 from Textron in Dec 2020 can't say the same.


Money spent on aircraft load interest payments and unrealized gains on investments not made is money you will never see again.

Suppose I have $4M and want to buy either a V or CJ3 in late 2020.

The CJ3 is about $4M. I'd have no money left to invest. I start paying higher insurance, taxes, and Williams programs. Parts are more expensive. I'm dinged because my yearly usage is under the 150 hour Williams minimum. I have to do heavy inspections every 3 years.

The V is about $1M (after avionics upgrade, my actual numbers). I now have $3M left to invest. I put it in an SP500 ETF, the most basic broad investment. That investment is now worth $6M, I doubled my money and gained $3M. My plane has heavy inspections every 6 years, I have lower insurance, taxes, and no engine program costs. Parts are cheaper and plentiful for salvage. My hull value increases while I own it.

How can the CJ3 be cheaper? There's no way that can be true. I am literally $millions ahead in less than 4 years by choosing the V over the CJ3.

Everybody is free to use whatever delusions they want when buying an airplane, but the hard math can't be ignored. If people are being told to buy a CJ3 because it will be cheaper to own than a V, they are being lied to. That doesn't mean they won't still buy a CJ3, they can do that of course, but they should never do that to "lower costs".

Mike C.

What maintenance do you think I am not doing? Is this how you mentally dismiss my numbers, by claiming they are based on improper maintenance?

I'm actually doing more than the requirements.

For example, my left engine inlet deice valve failed. I elected to go ahead and replace both the left and the right side at the same time even though the right side is working fine.

I also have been buying spares and building an inventory. The costs for those spares ARE included in my costs in the year of purchase even though I haven't used much of it yet. For example, ignitors, I have 3 spare ones and have yet to need one. I have a full set of new tires, too.

This sort of preemptive and efficient maintenance pays for itself in the long run.

My plane is in FAR better shape than when Textron maintained it partly because I seek out things to fix before they cause problems and get too expensive. Many of the squawks I have fixed were missed by the previous owner and Textron.

Mike C.

Come on Mike, no one is paying $150k for a brake assembly, especially not you. Yes there is a core charge, same with yours. I've got collectively 40+ years managing citations and never not received the core back for the brakes.

And yes, I did post my CJ2+ numbers earlier this year.

Same CJ2+ just got out of a West Star doc 10 for $57k last week, no parts program.