A bunch of 20 somethings buy a 501 Citation:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/7cpWa0La_AA[/youtube]

This video pretty much describes the experience of having one of these planes, though they are a bit over the top excited about it. Still, I think the joy and wonderment is authentic and refreshing. I felt good about seeing young people overjoyed about flying a plane twice their age. I was also reasonably impressed with their knowledge of the type, not much was said that was incorrect, and not many 20 somethings get it right.

A few things to point out:

The weather on this leg was a total non issue for the jet and may not have been for a turboprop due to a weather line:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N52 ... Z/0M5/KPWA

I don't think it requires two fuel stops for the trip, I think they were doing so to get more landings, buy cheaper fuel, and not to land in the weather in the middle. KSVH to KFFZ is 1524 nm, so should be doable in two legs even in pretty strong headwinds.

I don't think the TRs cost 200 lbs, maybe around 120 lbs. They pay for themselves in reduced brake wear (which the guys pointed out in the video). I'm a big fan of having TRs and regularly make no brake landings with them.

The 501 is inexpensive to get, moderate on maintenance (particularly with extended inspections), and expensive to fuel. It is easy to fly, very safe, and very comfortable. Would make a fantastic family cruiser.

If you can become emotionally and economically adapted to the fuel costs, then the plane can work for you. Contract fuel (particularly CAA) really helps. If you can't adapt to the fuel costs, then not for you. That's the basic question for whether you are a jet owner or not.

Mike C.

I don't think either of the Alan brothers even has his PPL yet.

They're probably going to get Garmin to finance an upgrade and then flip it.

In the meantime the excitement generates tons of Youtube views and drives up the price of Citations. They will now be able to secure guest appearances in their videos from certain highly sought-after Youtube personalities. Unfortunately, they will also get a lot of hate from jealous people who think daddy bought it for them.

Someone on BT might even start a thread called "I wonder how these young guys can afford all this?"

Kind of a two-edged sword.

I just hope they don't paint it a ridiculous color.

Mike, that video was great, a fantastic way to start the morning here.

They said 120 gal / hr at cruise. Is that right? What is typical fuel consumption rates for the various phases?

Awesome video Mike. Great to see young folks doing this! Fantastic cross country airplane.

Cool video.

what kind of TAS would one see in a 501, in the high 30's ?

It varies with altitude and temperature, but that's roughly right.


The manual gives time, distance, and fuel for climb since it varies as you climb.

For FL380 as used in the video, the numbers in the manual are (for max weight, ISA):

Time: 29 min
Distance: 107 nm
Fuel: 590 lbs (88 gal)
End climb: 360 fpm

In round figures, the first hour is 150 gal, 260 nm, each additional hour is 120 gal, 340 nm. Descent is a bit less fuel, but count it like cruise to have some maneuvering margin. It will vary with weight, temperature, altitude, etc. The 501 is a bit wheezy to get to FL400/410 routinely, so FL370/380 will be fairly typical.

Starting with 564 gallons, leaving 100 for reserve, you get about 1100 nm range in still air.

Mike C.

That video was a lot of fun to watch. Hat’s off to those guys! Is that the Citation that Conrad Dahl previously owned?

FL370 about 330-350.

For more money, you can find a few FJ44-2A converted 501s, so called "Stallion". Then you speeds go up, your fuel flow goes down, your range increases, and getting to FL410 is easy. Costs more to get and you pay Williams to be on the engine program, and you lose TRs, so comes with some downsides.

Mike C.

Flying a jet, especially an older one that was not designed from the ground up to be a single pilot jet (like the Mustang, SF50, Phenom, HJ) is a lot of work, and a lot of money. A lot of work to get a type rating, and a lot of work every flight. A lot of work when everything is going well, and a whole lot of work when things aren’t going well. Mike, you came from the MU2, which is probably one of the hardest to fly, least forgiving single pilot airframes out there, so the jet seems easy. You already went through a type rating (the MU2 SFAR). A Meridian handles like a big DA40, and has the system complexity and V-speeds of a Baron or Saratoga, but without the engine complexity. Very easy transition for a piston pilot, and much harder to get behind the plane. The safety record of the single pilot old jets has not been stellar. I was flying the day that a beautiful couple went down in a legacy citation climbing out of SLC. Some combination of avionics issues with the hodge lodge of avionics in that plane, and he had LOC in IMC and tore the airframe apart. This was right after a safety meeting. Had he left out in a simpler Meridian with better avionics, they would still be around. There is no free lunch. These old citations are old, complex, and less forgiving. They need more pilot than most planes. The reality is that most GA accidents are not the planes fault. But the fault of a pilot that was for some reason less pilot than he or she thought they were, or just not enough pilot on that day. On a Monday 8 AM, I am OK flying most anything. But in reality, like flying complex weather at the end of a long but satisfying week, I admit that I am not as good as that Monday pilot, and I want a plane that is more forging and that helps me a little more.

For a 50 nm trip you could put 1400 lbs in the cabin.

For an 800 nm trip you 550 lbs in the cabin at normal cruise 260 KTAS and 3:14 no wind flight time.

If you pull the power back to 800 TQ, on the 800 nm trip you can put 700 lb in the cabin, 230 KTAS and 3:36 no wind flight time. So reasonable range payload numbers for a small family.

If you look at the average trip in turbines being around 300 nm, on a 300 nm trip you could carry 941 lb in the cabin traveling on the 1:12 trip.

When I stepped from a single to a FIKI twin, my hours almost doubled. When I moved to the turbine, they went up another 50%. After that initial shocking hit to the wallet the first year, they've settled down to a relative constant level - but it's still higher.

Better capability means better dispatch rate.

We used to have a small share of a partnership in a 501sp and then a Bravo and while I'm not typed I got an extended amount of supervised right seat time in both planes (our usual pilot had the SPE for the Bravo). I'd argue those Citations are easier to fly on trips than a Baron. Weather planning largely only matters at departure and destination, mid route you just look down at it. The speeds really aren't significantly different at low level to a Baron and the engine controls are much more simple. Granted there were no system failures during my time flying but given the redundancy in a jet, they should be less of an issue than in less capable aircraft.

501 was designed to be single pilot. It was designed to be simple. It is.


Depends. In aircraft type ratings can be 4-5 days. It is a one time hit. A good Meridian initial course will be less, but not much less, maybe a day or two.


Is it? I don't see a lot of preflight effort difference from the MU2. The TOLD card is a few minutes.

I spend most of my flight planning time on FBO fees, fuel cost, rental car, etc, which hasn't changed.


This I disagree with. There is much less to go wrong in a twin jet than a turboprop. And when an engine goes bad, I haven't lost propulsion, pressurization, bleed air, and electric power. A single engine turboprop has lost all that.


The engine is complex because there is only one of them. Everything's fine when it runs, but boy is it complex when it doesn't. In the jet, it is easy when both work, and pretty easy when only one fails. I literally can choose any airport within fuel range.


It is WAY better than turboprops. Last year, not a single fatal N registered business jet crash and that's millions of flight hours.

There were two Meridian fatal crashes last year, N324M, N2445F. And that's just the relatively small Meridian fleet.


Your memory is faulty.

The SLC crash was a CJ1 made in 1999, not a legacy Citation. It did not have a "hodge podge" of avionics, but Collins ProLine 21 panel installed at the factory.


I don't agree.

And some others don't, either:

"Today, RWR Pilot Training announced the availability of a higher level of training for pilots of the Piper PA46 Matrix, Malibu, Mirage and Meridian aircraft. According to Master Instructor Dick Rochfort, accident rates are much higher for this technically advanced aircraft and a higher level of discipline, knowledge and skill is needed to improve safety."

My Citation is the safest airplane I have ever flown.


One of the main advantages of a jet is simply avoiding weather, and it certainly is less tiring than anything with a prop.

I have nothing against a Meridian, a nice plane and a huge step up from anything piston, but to claim it is safer and easier than a Citation is just wrong.

Mike C.

Has JC taken over MC's account? JC does have CJ now.

Great to see these thoughtful discussions. Between Chris Leach's comments of going Cirrus to CJ and your opinions and facts on CJ ownership; Chris and you have definitely inspired a few of us, to broaden our horizon on how quickly and cheaply we could actually get into the jet world.

501 was designed to be single pilot. It was designed to be simple. It is.


Depends. In aircraft type ratings can be 4-5 days. It is a one time hit. A good Meridian initial course will be less, but not much less, maybe a day or two.


Is it? I don't see a lot of preflight effort difference from the MU2. The TOLD card is a few minutes.

I spend most of my flight planning time on FBO fees, fuel cost, rental car, etc, which hasn't changed.


This I disagree with. There is much less to go wrong in a twin jet than a turboprop. And when an engine goes bad, I haven't lost propulsion, pressurization, bleed air, and electric power. A single engine turboprop has lost all that.


The engine is complex because there is only one of them. Everything's fine when it runs, but boy is it complex when it doesn't. In the jet, it is easy when both work, and pretty easy when only one fails. I literally can choose any airport within fuel range.


It is WAY better than turboprops. Last year, not a single fatal N registered business jet crash and that's millions of flight hours.

There were two Meridian fatal crashes last year, N324M, N2445F. And that's just the relatively small Meridian fleet.


Your memory is faulty.

The SLC crash was a CJ1 made in 1999, not a legacy Citation. It did not have a "hodge podge" of avionics, but Collins ProLine 21 panel installed at the factory.


I don't agree.

And some others don't, either:

"Today, RWR Pilot Training announced the availability of a higher level of training for pilots of the Piper PA46 Matrix, Malibu, Mirage and Meridian aircraft. According to Master Instructor Dick Rochfort, accident rates are much higher for this technically advanced aircraft and a higher level of discipline, knowledge and skill is needed to improve safety."

My Citation is the safest airplane I have ever flown.


One of the main advantages of a jet is simply avoiding weather, and it certainly is less tiring than anything with a prop.

I have nothing against a Meridian, a nice plane and a huge step up from anything piston, but to claim it is safer and easier than a Citation is just wrong.

Mike C.