Starting to plan for my next airplane purchase and looking for help considering the value proposition of the FJ44 powered jets for my scenario.
Mission:50/50 Work/Personal, flown by me
Pax: 0-3 (usually 1),
Length: mostly 800-1000NM, occasionally 1600NM, some shorter

I've been considering the 501SP Stallion and CJ1's, but I understand the FJ44 engine programs are onerous if not flying 200+ hours a year. If I'm only planning on flying a couple of thousand hours (Part91) over the next 20 years would it make sense to forego the engine programs? Is there a limited plan for that scenario?

I know some guys have been championing the PW-powered 501SP for low use, but I'd like to fly faster than that. If FJ44 off program is a no-go, then would S550 make sense in spite of my limited payload needs?
Thanks in advance.

Williams will eat you alive if you are not on the programs. Just paid 34k for a set of 2 start fuel nozzles for a 600hr inspection on a fj44 off programs. Those are just the start fuel nozzels not even the main ones. 80k for a serviceable fcu, 50k for an oil cooler. It’s pretty ugly off the programs, pretty ugly on the programs too….

FJ44s can get expensive off program. That’s why PW jets like the 501SP are popular for low use Part 91 owners, still fast, but way more predictable on costs.

Just to be clear Williams TAP is 150 hrs/year, not 200. You also get 1 grace year per contract period where you don't need to hit those minimums.

The customer service and support has been second to none with Williams. Just incredible with how responsive they've been. I understand the mixed feelings with the Mafia like mentality, however if you're on the programs and the costs make sense you will be in good hands.

You can either: stay off program and hope nothing major happens; go on program and view the 70 hours as the cost of peace of mind; be on programs and dry lease out your plane for a few hours to recover that lost program cost.

I'd rather go slower and have a Pratt Powered off program Citation. I just don't worry about it and I know I can fix most any engine problem.

An off program Williams bird can be a great value but you must consider it a disposable airplane if something bad happens. The odds are in your favor to not experience a disaster.

An on program Williams bird is extremely expensive to carry for most low utilization people given most of us are not flying 150 hours a year. There are also some very expensive parts not covered by the program on the airframe side for the converted birds.

Get a 501 or 550 with Pratts.

This is a complex question with lots of subtle consequences.

The TAP Blue minimum is 150 hours/year. Fly less than that and you pay the difference. TAP Blue now costs ~$500/year and has been increasing substantially more than inflation.

You do 1 year out of 5 forgiveness. That happens on the FIRST year you fly under 150 hours. So do NOT fly 149 hours in a year, make sure you get to 150 to preserve the forgiveness for a year that is really under.

Williams did (and maybe still does) offers a "low use" plan. It works as follows: you pay, up front, for 135 hours for the year. Then you can fly any amount 0 to 150 hours with no addition cost. Any hours over 150 cost a 30% premium. This chart shows the effective rate per hour of the standard and low use plan:


The cross over is about 200 hours.

The low use plan has not forgiveness clause so the standard might not be as bad as depicted. Also, the cost of money isn't included in my chart, the low use plan is paid on average 6 months earlier.

Williams wants everyone on the program so they punish anyone off program with exorbitant pricing for parts and service. A rep from them told me that their off program HSI, OH cost about 30% more than the program payments would have been.

The only viable off program tactic for Williams is to consider the engines disposable at OH. A well known CJP member had a Stallion, was off program, flew into his 70s, then scrapped the plane.

There is this:

https://skyway-mro.com/flex-program-ove ... fits-fj44/

I'm not sure how well that works, and how it interacts with Williams. Details are sparse.

Another aspect is a low use inspection program for the airplane. One of the major cost reductions for me is that my phase 1-4 is ever 3 years and phase 1-5 is every 6 years. This is available only for JT15D powered legacy aircraft. Textron will not issue this for an FJ44 modified aircraft (like Stallion), and the CJ series doesn't have anything nearly as beneficial. Not having to tear the plane apart for 3 years is absolutely wonderful.

A 1000 nm trip in a 501SP might not work in some headwinds. It will mostly do that. A Stallion will do it quite well.

A 550 would do it very nicely, and an S550 will do it very well. At 1600 nm, the S550 will do it non stop on maybe 60% of the days, but you will be payload limited. The 550, S550 will require SPE for single pilot operations. The 551, rare, could be an option, which preserves single pilot out of the box, but is (legally, not physically) weight limited.

Surprisingly, the 501SP is not particularly fuel efficient. My V actually uses almost the same fuel for any given trip. The slower 501SP suffers more in headwinds, and the -1A engines are not as fuel efficient as the larger ones. So bigger might not be more expensive. Also, the faster airplane suffers less flight time and airframe hours are a cost. So a big cabin isn't as costly as one might expect.

Mike C.

We sometimes joke or get a little frustrated with the Mike/Chip debates and chirping, but I coulnd't wait to read your answer to this, and why I value your input so much on the board. This is really good info, even for someone not thinking about off programs planes. And I love Chips contributions as well....

Wow, I can't say thank you enough for the thorough responses. I didn't realize that Stallion meant no LUMP. I'm not sure what that would mean in terms of dollars saved, but I appreciate minimizing downtime and exposure to mx induced failures.

The thought of flying a Stallion and then dumping it with 0 hrs remaining on the engines isn't horrible, but it sounds like Williams' propensity to increase prices for off-program parts and labor leaves the total lifecycle costs rather undefined.

Looking at the 551 it seams like the 12.5k gross does limit fuel load, so I'll be looking closer at the S550.
Thanks again!

I don't know why Cessna allows Williams to do this with their program. I guess they must give Cessna a great deal to hang them on the pylons.

80 hours a year doesn’t keep you current in a jet. Doesn’t really work.

100% correct

Not sure why you're getting -1's........it's as common sense as listening to LEO's and not getting dead........fly more, be more proficient, live more.

Flame suit on. Or not.

Bruce, in your opinion, how many hours a year does an owner/operator of a light jet need to fly to truly stay current and safe? Genuine question.

The at TBO Stallion engines might have some value at Williams. I’ve heard of them making deals to get their engines back. Problem is, you wouldn’t know until that day came. As alluded to by M.Tarver, the Stallion retrofit spec’d some hard to find(read:expensive, none existent etc) airframe parts that connect to the engines. As for LUMP, maybe Richard Bacon has one for the Stallion.
If you are relegated to either 501SP, 551, 550 or S550, and you can qualify for a SPE, in my opinion it’s the S550 hands down. The split flap wing, 5800 lbs fuel, and other enhancements not to mention cruise speed of 390 kts or more, and landing ref speeds between approximately 87-101 kts. I’m quoting from memory, so verification is in order. And, the S550 has much more range.
Good luck in your search.

Robert T

Hours and proficiency are only loosely related. Hours watching the AP fly the plane don't make you proficient, and that is the vast majority of hours jet pilots get.

You can fly 200 hours and be marginal. You can fly 50 hours and be sharp. it all depends on what you do in those hours.

For myself, I do a yearly training at a sim school or in airplane (alternative each year). Then every 3 months or so, I do a practice flight which involves 3 approaches, single engine work, air work, and I do it generally without AP for the entire ~1 hour flight. I get more stick time in that 1 hour flight than some folks flying 50 hours. During "normal" use, I almost always fly an approach, and often hand fly them to keep my skills up. The goal is to make hand flying, a perishable skill, easy enough that I can hand fly AND do some thing else at the same time.

So blanket statements like "X hours is required to be proficient in a jet" are mostly meaningless. It depends on what you do in those hours, and who you are.

Mike C.