Oh, another scary statement! The purveyor of doom speaks again!

My research says I can, by a factor of two.

I'll be doing a HSI here in about 200 hours, about 2 years. That will get me another 1800 hours.

Then I can do an overhaul. The life limited parts in the engine will make it through that overhaul as they will have cycles left sufficient for the entire OH cycle. That gets me another 3500 hours.

Based on conversations with owners and shops, my budget for HSI is $75K/side, for OH is $500K/side. That's $1.15M for 5300 hours, or $217/hour. My next 2000 hours (200 to HSI, 1800 after) are only $75/hour. Of course, something major could be found in my engines and I do take that risk, but that's not common.

I'll certainly let everyone know how my HSI turns out in about 2 years. When (or if) I get to the end of the next HSI period, 2000 hours from now, then a question may be whether to invest in the OH or to scrap the plane. That assessment will depend on market conditions at the time. If a lot of people are scrapping, then there are used parts/engines out there. If people aren't scrapping, then the plane has value and worth the overhaul. So we shall see. Another option is another HSI only, so that will depend on how well the engines are operating at that time. For engines with 10,000 hours on them, they seem to be doing quite well.

By the time I'm doing my HSI, TAP will be at $600/hour. By the time I'm doing my OH, TAP will be $1K/hour or more. They are now milking the cash cow and there is no incentive for them to be economical.

People that have 30 year old original CJs must be withering under the Williams tax. They have a moderately low value airframe but with a big obligation to Williams attached to it. It is like ransom money. Williams probably cost them more than the fuel.

Mike C.

"If a lot of people are scrapping, then there are used parts/engines out there. If people aren't scrapping, then the plane has value and worth the overhaul."

That's a short sighted view.

The life of a fleet ends when one particular part becomes too rare, or expensive, or both.

Sometimes it's an engine, sometimes it's a gear saddle, sometimes it's something else...but the whole fleet will need that part all at the same time.

I have a copy of an invoice from a friend who just did HSI on his V 10 months ago.

Left: $53,000 (needed a new exit duct, seal ring, weld repair)
Right: $27,625 (needed almost nothing)

Total down time 2 weeks, mostly due to outside vendors on parts rework.

No HT blades.

Average: $40K/side. I'm budgeting $75K/side.

I don't make up my numbers, they come from research.


I've seen evidence that says you can.


For the -5D Ultra engine, yes, for -5A engine, they tend to go a long time. We shall see.

I should go look at my records for the past HSI and the OH before to see how many HT blades, if any, were replaced. I know they put in a new impeller at that overhaul, so that's a non issue going forward.


For the JT15D, you have choices. You don't have to go to Pratt. That's the main point when it comes to FJ44 vs JT15D.

Mike C.

If the fleet is large enough, then someone will solve the problem. The legacy Citation fleet is large enough.

The fleet has a lot of planes with various flight times, so it isn't like one day, poof, they all can't fly.

Most of a Citation V is built with simple stuff. Not a lot of complex electronics in the airframe, for example, which can be very hard to maintain in the future. There is really no part that I know of that is looming as a problem in the near future.

There are very few ADs on the airplane, basically none of long term consequence.

Mike C.

I have owned two and I personally know of two owners who were grounded 6 to 10 months waiting on intercoolers and windshields. So it isn't FUD as you say. Its real ... I have first hand knowledge. Don't be obtuse.

An auto exec once told me they needed to sell 15,000 units before you started to see them while driving around and 50,000 units before you see them daily. I have seen exactly 1 Piaggio in my 15 years of flying, so I wonder how many need to be sold and how many need to be flown to regularly see a model. I wish I could see more of them, they are so unique.

[quote]

I have seen three in the last week here at Addison Airport. I guess it depends on where you live.

Aside from the TKS system, which is different than the rest of the citations and may/may not have parts issues, what's wrong with the S2?

Absolutely nothing, they are amazing airplanes. They do have some issues with parts availability for the TKS system it absolutely requires removing during a pre buy for corrosion checks. The rest of the airplane is amazing. If you fly primarily in the south as I do they are a very viable consideration. A lot of airplane for the money.

Absolutely nothing, they are amazing airplanes. They do have some issues with parts availability for the TKS system it absolutely requires removing during a pre buy for corrosion checks. The rest of the airplane is amazing. If you fly primarily in the south as I do they are a very viable consideration. A lot of airplane for the money.

The SII is a nice upgrade from the II in several respects. The wing is better at flying slower (short runway use) and better at flying faster (higher cruise speeds). The range in incredible with 5800 lbs fuel. The TKS system removes boot maintenance and costs very little performance when being used. In theory, a great airplane.

But it has its problems. Obviously, the TKS parts are unicorn stuff, so keeping that maintained is critical. The manual says to use it every 30 days to keep from drying out the panels, but I suspect that is mostly ignored with expected consequences. The TKS control system is complex, lots of electronics, pumps, valves, etc, seemingly way more complex than it should have been. I could repair the electronics, but I can't fab a TKS panel. The inboard panels run with engine deice, so you end up turning them on for more than you might think. The TKS fluid has limited time, it is a consumable, and you can't always get it at your destination (though the TKS Cirrus fleet has improved that) so you end up hauling spare fluid, more useful load lost. The TKS system is heavy, like 200 lbs by the time you count the panels, plumbing, pumps, controls, and a full TKS tank. There are SIIs that weigh more than my V.

Beyond the TKS, the SII has a few other issues. Mostly, it is under powered. It has the same 2500 lbf engine rating as the II but is much heavier. They eked out the performance with temp tweaks to the engine and a better wing, but it is marginal. The weight of the TKS system plus the ability to load 5800 lbs fuel means there is basically no useful load full fuel and 2 pilots.

In the present market with the premium the V commands, the SII might be a viable choice if the TKS system is in good shape (it can stay that way a long time if you take care of it), and your range/payload needs fit. You either go far with few, or go short with many, can't do both.

The FJ44 converted SII is a special airplane capable of 2400 nm range single pilot (with SPE). Not much in that category. This is why I was looking at those closely in 2019 and 2020. I test flew an FJ44 converted SII and made an offer on it, but it was rejected. I'm glad it was now. The FJ44 converted SII had a really horrible engine fan whine that my test passengers complained about bitterly. It turns out this afflicts the FJ44 conversions for some reason. Performance was good, though, but it has unicorn parts in the conversion, too.

I'm glad I bought a V which is basically an SII with boots instead of TKS, bigger engines, higher weights, and longer fuselage. Yes, it uses more fuel and has less range than an FJ44 converted SII, but I have far more payload, I don't have to pay the now exorbitant Williams tax, my plane is eligible for the Textron LUMP (FJ44 converted SIIs are not), and my passengers (including those on my SII test flight) don't complain about the engine fan whine. I also paid half what the FJ44 SII would have cost. I guess I got lucky buying when I did.

Mike C.

Aside from the TKS system, which is different than the rest of the citations and may/may not have parts issues, what's wrong with the S2?

The SII is not a "550" really. It pioneered most of the 560 innovations such as the better wing, the hydraulic flaps, and the lack of fin boot/panel. It is far more truthful to call the SII a "mini 560" than a 550.

The lack of a fin boot is an oddity. The 500, 501, 550 have a fin boot. To save weight and cost, Cessna certified the SII without a fin panel. Then the 560 didn't have a fin boot based on that testing. The 500, 501, 550 probably don't need one anyway, but it was cheaper (certification wise) to put one on and not push it.


It depends on what you mean by "performance". If that is range/payload, then yes, the V wins that easily.

If it is outright range, the SII and V are basically the same there.

If it is speed, the SII is faster than a II (new wing), but a bit slower than a V.

In terms of efficiency, the two airplanes are about the same if flown at the same speed. Here are some charts that show KTAS versus PPH fuel flow, data taken from the OEM manuals:


In these charts, I let the V go 2000 ft higher and be 500 lbs heavier. Those seem like reasonable adjustments since the V can climb better to altitude. In reality, the V is nowhere near 500 lbs heavier than the SII, so these charts are maybe a bit pessimistic for the V by about 2 knots.

The V can go faster, but not a huge amount.


Plenty of 500 series are "viable". People fly 501 and 550 all the time. Charter users are not a requirement to make a plane viable.

The 500 series will have staying power because it has fantastic short runway manners even on snow and ice. The "modern" airplanes without TRs don't. Lots of people need the TR capability, say to operate in the central and northern plains of the USA.

This is a takeoff that a 500 series can do that no 525 series can do legally, 2 inches solid ice covered runway. My abort runway distance was 3600 ft on a 5500 ft runway.



You want to land short?



No brakes? No problem.



TRs are wonderful and pay for themselves in reduced brake overhauls.

Mike C.

Look at this cool AI generated image!

Here are flight plans KLIT-KLAX filed on FltPlan.com for the SII and the V Ultra. I operate both. I have found FltPlan.com to be surprisingly accurate.


Robert T

Identical results?

Seems like you didn't change the model between screen shots.

The other thing is that is that it is reasonable to fly the V higher. You have more power and climb rate to get there. Fuel usage goes down being higher.

I also notice the Ultra model on FltPlan.com over estimates my fuel usage by about 5% or so. I have no idea what the SII model correction factor is, if any.

Mike C.