A required yearly service center visit doesn't sound like a LUMP to me, or it isn't a very generous LUMP.

My yearly inspection is 3 hours. No service center, no multiple days, no $10K. That's what I do for 2 out of every 3 years.


It is due every year, so it really is an "annual".

My phase 1-4 is every 3 years, phase 5 every 6 years. Those are the "annuals" I face.


Is it an overhaul or an inspection, legally?

If an overhaul, that is not required for part 91 operators. You could elect not to do it.

If it really is an inspection, that is required.

My V's landing gear hasn't been out since the plane was built 34 years and almost 9000 landings ago. No gear overhaul or inspection on the V until you reach life limits on parts.

Landing gear overhauls are common on newer planes and not so much on older ones. It is an example of how newer planes often have more onerous inspection schedules.


Nice numbers. 1.59 lbs/nm.

If I fly at max altitude, FL450, and LRC, I get 798 pph, 361 KTAS, 2.21 lbs/nm.

You are 28% less fuel per mile in cruise but 31 knots slower. That's really not as much difference as most would assume for what is roughly twice the airplane.

Mike C.

I haven't heard of a required landing gear inspection on the mustang. We've had ours 7 years now and I've done acquisitions on others.

I looked at the master inspection list and the 72 month landing gear is listed as "detailed inspection". Our maintenance tracking has landing gear "on condition", 12,000, or 20,000 landing intervals depending on the component.

Pretty rare that I don’t make my 1000nm trip non stop. I would love to be able to climb to 43k, or not get vectored due to the lower speeds, but it is comfortable and efficient, and it fits in both of my hangars that a larger jet wouldn’t. The Mustang is grossly misrepresented on the forums. Talk to actual owners and then decide.

"The Mustang is grossly misrepresented on the forums."

I think you could replace 'mustang' with just about any low airframe count plane that is interesting....

What is useful load for you on a “typical” 1000nm trip? Would 800lbs in the cabin be possible?

I am seeing a bit of a discrepancy on this 1000nm range mission. For anyone running 1000nm trips could you expand on the following:

Direction of flight

Payload

Climb speed/Cruise speed

Cruise Alt


I am curious to hear if this is mostly due to winds, payload, or perhaps pilot technique

Given your KSRQ location, this is likely north/south, and mostly in the south where the jet stream doesn't dip down so often.

It is different in the upper part of the country, especially in winter. A 100 knot headwind flying west is pretty common, especially upper plains into the west coast.

I suffered a 170 knot headwind from KRDU to KEHR about a month ago. Ouch! That's half the speed of a Mustang. I managed about 240-250 knots ground speed at FL380.

Doing 1000 nm in a Mustang would be dependent on your situation, cabin load, route, time of year, and just how reliable you want non stop to be.

Mike C.

Given your KSRQ location, this is likely north/south, and mostly in the south where the jet stream doesn't dip down so often.

It is different in the upper part of the country, especially in winter. A 100 knot headwind flying west is pretty common, especially upper plains into the west coast.

I suffered a 170 knot headwind from KRDU to KEHR about a month ago. Ouch! That's half the speed of a Mustang. I managed about 240-250 knots ground speed at FL380.

Doing 1000 nm in a Mustang would be dependent on your situation, cabin load, route, time of year, and just how reliable you want non stop to be.

Mike C.

The beauty of a Mustang is that it doesn't burn a ton of fuel to begin with which makes flying lower a viable option.

Example: Most of our flying is from STL - West Virginia, nearly East West, 440NM. Our typical flight is at FL330 or FL350 going over with the option to go higher to get above weather if needed. TAS ranges from 328 to 350 depending on ISA, 340TAS average, fuel burn averages around 580pph.

Coming back will depend on the winds. If it is say 40 knots or less I typically fly at FL340. Stronger winds I can drop lower.

If the winds are 100+ knots I can scream over at FL330 or FL350 doing 420+ GS. On the return I can often find less winds at FL280, say 60-70HW vs 100-120HW at FL350 giving me a 30 to 60 knot savings. Yes, I'm burning more around 800pph but my GS offsets the increased fuel burn often making fuel consumed a wash, but I'm getting home 10-15 minutes quicker on that flight. I've dropped down as low as FL240 to get out of some wicked headwinds. The fuel consumption of a V would be ridiculous as that altitude.

It's not always the case but the vast majority of the time I can find less HW than I had TW coming over and the fuel penalty is minimal.

I have been flying Elmira NY to Naples FL in my Mustang for 10 years. That is 1,050nm with typical routing. I can do that non stop 90 percent of the time. That includes the usual getting pushed down lower altitudes the last 150 or so miles. The days that trip does not work are 80kt headwinds or very high temp aloft which prevents FL400.

What I said is not practical is doing all that on a regular basis with 1,000 lbs in the cabin.

As noted the low altitude option is nice to have. With the slightest tail wind I can stay down at FL360 in that trip. That gives me a cabin altitude less than 7000. Even at max ceiling the cabin is 8000. That cabin altitude is one if the biggest improvements over the Meridian I flew (and loved) before.

Without going through the tables you can pretty much count on max range by setting total fuel flow 700 pph or less. Whether by choice due to headwinds, or ATC pushing you down you can keep most of the range with less fuel flow. If you leave it at max cruise FL200 you will have 50 percent higher fuel flow with 10 percent higher speed. That is not unique to the Mustang. All aircraft have an indicated airspeed where drag goes up quickly. For the Mustang keep the IAS under 200 and you will go farther.

I flew northbound last weekend. I was lucky with zero net wind at the beginning, gradually increasing to 70 kts tail the last 30 minutes. I made the trip in under 3 hours and 1700 total fuel. Also had Star Link working with the antenna in a side window. Great trip!

Corey and Don explained it well. Altitude selection is a key flight planning tool with the Mustang. With a big tailwind up high, you can ride it out. Big headwind, go low and get under it. My longest flight was 1500nm to Georgetown, TX with a nice tailwind. Regardless, is a fuel stop really that big of a deal? I find that I can have three adults onboard with full fuel. For every adult added beyond three, I subtract 200 lbs of fuel. So, even with six onboard, I’m 600lbs below full fuel. Still pretty good range

so for the mustang owners, what are the total cost of engine programs?

cost per hour (both engines),

cost per cycle (both engines)?

are there annual minimums?

PA+ rate $452 per hour for both.

There’s an excess cycle charge of $30 per hour, per engine, based on 1.2

The annual minimum is 75 hours

This is based on December 2024 numbers, we haven’t quoted one this year yet.

2025 Rates:
ESP Gold $257/hr/engine
ESP Light $233/hr/engine
PA+ $242/hr

Textron wanted 150 hours annual minimum on this Feb 2025 acquisition we did but was quick to come down to 100 with a simple ask. It sounds like Chip has been able to get it down to 75.

We are taking another mustang under management and it has ESP Gold. I just pulled up our ESP contract and it has no annual minimum.

A large part of it is that if you depart and arrive in urban areas, you don't get perfect ATC handling, esp if you can't maintain 270+ knots, and most flights statistically have a headwind component.

I keep coming back to the Mustang because there is a lot to like about the plane with comfort, capability and efficiency. But it is range limited. Often I am watching winds in the flight levels to see if I were in the Jet, if things would be better. Sometimes they are, but most of the time when I am getting murdered by headwinds, the Jets are as well, unless you can get into the stratosphere, which usually the Mustang can't.

This flight KFXE (Ft. Lauderdale) to KRVS Tulsa a little over 1000 nm the Mustang would be looking at around 90 knots on the nose at FL400, the winds aloft on the MFD are set to 39,000 feet. So it is not making that trip. Even today with only 63 knots on the nose, it only lands with 64 gallons if it gets perfect ATC handling and can depart with full fuel. Perfect handling out of FXE is not a guarantee.

Easy trip in the M600, but a little long in the saddle. Still beats throwing in another stop. Was already going to be a long day flying from Turks and Caicos back to Utah with a mandatory customs stop.

The Mustang is a great plane, but I will be making quite a few more stops if I move to a Mustang. Not interested in carrying more plane around, so the bigger Cessnas are just too much plane for me. Plus the cockpit of the 525's is less comfortable than the Mustang.