My good friend did what you are thinking about. He owned an SR22 for quite a few years beforehand. He bought his Mustang 10 years ago and ended up getting his multi in a DA42, flew it a TON for a year or so, and while doing that, did his C510 and C525 type ratings while he searched for a plane. Settled on the Mustang. He required a small amount of mentor time (like 50 hours) for insurance.

I’ve flown the Citation Mustang on CPS-ADS runs with large males plus myself — within five pounds of max zero fuel weight — and handled 500 NM legs just fine but I wouldn't have gone much further. I’ve also done longer trips like PDX to the Phoenix area non-stop with just two pilots, and even took my young family from CPS to FLL (900 NM) non-stop, round-trip, no issues.

Now, looking at the TBM 700C2’s weight and balance, that same 5+1 load wouldn’t even be doable— we’d be over ZFW and well aft of CG. And forget comfort — it’d be a tight, cramped ride. The Mustang isn’t huge, but compared to the TBM cabin, it feels downright spacious.

Running a sample flight today, FLL to CPS in a TBM with a 52-knot headwind would clock in around 4:08 at 1,500lbs. The TBM could handle it with the same young family load, but it’d take at least 45 minutes longer than the Mustang did. The Mustang today would burn about 2,000 lbs and take 3:20 for the flight home. Both aircraft I'd need to top the fuel tanks to be able to make that non-stop today. Add in a higher probability of weather deviations in the TBM at FL280 as well and the trip gets even longer.

Yes, the TBM can technically stay in the air a bit longer, especially if you’re willing to throttle back, but in the real world? I wouldn’t want to be in one for 3.5 to 4.5+ hours straight. The Mustang’s range is comparable, and it delivers it with more comfort, more speed, and a better ride for everyone on board.

Does that include program payments or do they get classified as something other than "maintenance"?

What was driving your high maintenance costs on your Meridian?

Mike C.

Does that include program payments or do they get classified as something other than "maintenance"?

What was driving your high maintenance costs on your Meridian?

Mike C.

I am going to have to tap out of this thread, the manure is getting real deep. Here we have just heard that a Mustang burns less fuel than a TBM. Yet the facts are that a TBM has longer range AND hold less fuel… So double huh??

And now we hear that the twin engine light jet costs less maintenance than a Piper Meridian. Have fun fellas. My boots aren’t high enough.

Thanks, good data points

I misspoke, the Mustang does burn more than the TBM… sorry. Not sure what I was thinking.

I will trust Corey on what they’ll do loaded, but the c2 isn’t exactly anemic.

I could see the maintenance on one particular Meridian being high, but typically they are the cheapest turbine to maintain that you can buy!

The only thing the 501 can't do is be younger. Some people will pay for that, it is a choice.

There is nothing wrong with being newer, but if people are choosing newer thinking it will be cheaper to maintain, they are applying an idea that works generally for most things but doesn't work so well in aviation. New aircraft have been encumbered by the OEMs with more onerous inspections and reduced choice which drives up the cost. Engine programs that are essentially required are a clear example of this. Another example is that virtually every part on a newer airplane costs more than the same part on my plane. Yet another is landing gear overhauls. And the list goes on.

The Mustang, in particular, is by itself with a unique airframe, unique engine, unique type rating, etc. It doesn't share the economies of scale that the 500 and 525 series have. It was costing Cessna more to build a Mustang than a 525 which is why they dropped it and came out with the M2.

One other thing the Mustang can do is have a through the panel yoke. Some people say this is a huge deal over a control column. I worried it might be, but it turns out to be a non issue for me and I'd surmise this is generally true.

Mike C.

It was a wild ride but I will go back to lurking like I have been the past 13 yrs. Beechtalk Bizzaro World must be an awesome place if you can fly an on-program Citation cheaper than a SETP. My boots aren’t high enough either!

Can you operate a 501 cheaper than the Mustang?

Yes.

If you do an apples to apples comparison is it still cheaper?

No.

If you account for engine reserves on both aircraft and maintain them both at the same facility, the Mustang will be cheaper.

If you operate past TBO and maintain the 501 at a small shop, it will be cheaper.

So, to Mike’s point, you do have more options with the 501.

You should just stop, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper

We should re-name most of these “discussions” “confirmation bias”. But as always YMMV

It’s so simple guys: buy the plane that meets your mission and your pocketbook.

Including program payments. The Meridian was not on program and the Mustang is on PA+.

The Meridian was not AOG very often, but it was a constant stream of things like the DAU failure, starter generator overhaul that didn't go well, the timer/relay for prop heat, brake malfunction, fuel leaks, autopilot shenanigans, air conditioning performance, etc. I also used a high-overhead type-specific shop with a reputation for deep annuals.

Maintenance costs aside, the nature of the MX was massively frustrating. I had trouble completing a trip without generating a list of squawks. The plane goes through an annual inspection that would have me down for a minimum of 6 weeks. It was really challenging to find a time of the year where I could put the plane down for that long.

The Mustang never seems to be down for more than a week at a time. Exception being when I did the GWX75 upgrade. And that was only because a previous owner misplaced the Garmin enablement cards.

Have they done the GWX8000 enablement for that yet?

You should just stop, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper