Recommend me some airplanes

[rjacobs]

Yea I think under 5 mil or right around is going to be about the limit. That gets rid of the CJ4(I am going to offer it to him though) and the Lear 45XR(but again going to offer it). So a CJ2, CJ3 or LR45 seem to be the best buy. I think I am also going to throw the Premier in there to compare to the CJ2 since it appears to have, at least book ranges, similar to the CJ2, but with a better cabin and avionics.

 

[jonjuan]

Yea I think under 5 mil or right around is going to be about the limit. That gets rid of the CJ4(I am going to offer it to him though) and the Lear 45XR(but again going to offer it). So a CJ2, CJ3 or LR45 seem to be the best buy. I think I am also going to throw the Premier in there to compare to the CJ2 since it appears to have, at least book ranges, similar to the CJ2, but with a better cabin and avionics.

But the premier I has awful range/payload, IIRC.

 

[BoilerUP]

The Premier and the CJ2/3 have the same avionics - Collins ProLine21. The "straight" CJ2 typically has a Universal FMS, but the 2+/3 have the same FMS-3000 the Premier has.

And while the Premier does fly nice, has a larger cabin cross-section and is faster than the CJ2+ (we demo'd one)...in reality it does NOT have the range/payload flexibility or capability than the CJ2+ has, let alone the CJ3. You also cannot operate it for less than you can the CJ2+, and its max range figures are at a 0.70M LRC, slower than the CJ2+. My wife flew P-Is and said they were great - Mach 0.80 all the way to a fuel stop or a service center. I understand the -IAs fixed some of the early Premier's brake issues

Cessna always outperforms their marketing numbers...Raytheon/HBC, not so much.

 

[rjacobs]

OK, guess I will take the Premier out of the equation if the CJ2 is better than it. I have a buddy that has flown one quite a bit and he said it didnt live up to the expectations of it, but it wasnt terrible and it flew well.

 

[CorpCaptain]

Boiler, your better half is a pilot too? Who's the better stick? LOL.

 

[BoilerUP]

She WAS a pilot...decided one professional pilot was enough in a family...

 

[BigMike]

Cessna always outperforms their marketing numbers...Raytheon/HBC, not so much.

What he said. Oh yeah, and the Premier I is crap.

 

[SpaceBall 1]

Go buy a used Astra. Great performance and good support. Higher DOC than the CJ3, but you'll save 3 mil on the purchase price. That's alot of cash to put towards your DOC.

Between the LR45 and CJ3, you'd be better off with the CJ3. Premier?? No way.

 

[NCherches]

Does he want something new or can you get into something like a Citation Bravo or Ultra? Would be a good plane for your mission and is a lot cheaper than some of those CJ series (and feel the same from the back seat). Fuel burn might be slightly higher but not by much.

 

[Quimby]

As an example, I'm showing our CJ2+ from CPS-SJC to be 4+39 and 3600lb block fuel burn...cruising at FL450 with 46kt average headwind. Our Fltplan.com profile is a little conservative on fuel burns, so we'd probably be closer to 3400lb burn...but 600lb is just 45min legal IFR reserves and I wouldn't plan to land that short on fuel.

If you were to fly at a constant long-range speed of 0.68M (vs. the 0.737M max), you'd probably shave another 100-150lbs off that.

Either way, its highly doubtful the 2+ could make St. Louis-Bay Area westbound even under the best circumstances, and the CJ3 would be limited doing so against stiff winds (and even more so with your payload).

If your boss HAS to go west-coast nonstop, the LR45 is definitely your airplane...if he can live with 2x monthly westbound tech stops the CJ series will fit the rest mission profile more efficiently.

.68M?

painful

 

[BoilerUP]

.68M?

painful

All a legacy Citation I/II can really do in cruise is 0.62M anyway (~350ktas)...0.68M is ludicrous speed in comparison!

 

[pilotyip]

Look at a 731 powered DA-20F, biggest cabin for the price, or if you really want to save money a GE powered DA-20 under $1M.

 

[BigMike]

...if you really want to save money a GE powered DA-20 under $1M.

He DID mention operating costs ya' know.

 

[hiflyer731]

But without the mod it only does around 1500?

I dont want to mess with mods right now simply because the guy doesnt know much about aviation so he wont understand the point of buying an airplane just to spend an additional 500k on it to get it to do what we want.

Plus the 40XR's are damn near even with 45XR pricing from what I am seeing(not including an additional 500k for the fuel mod on the 40).

I cant think the DOC on the 40 is that much less than the 45, maybe 10 or 15 GPH fuel flow and the same for everything else.

I personally have not operated the 40, only the 45. But I have used a contract pilot that manages and flies a 40 and he says they do Chicago-LA once a month and only when the weather is bad in LA and alternate fuel is required do they need to make a stop. The 40 has a lower BOW and MTOW and a much more aft CG so it gets to FL470 sooner and is more efficient in cruise than the 45. Those two factors allow it to pretty much match the range of the 45. It's worth talking to some 40 operators to verify.

 

[pilotyip]

He DID mention operating costs ya' know.

depends upon how much he is going to fly, 100 hr a year, the cheap airplane is more cost a effective, a 1000 hours a year the expensive airplane with good SFC might be the best buy. We found at $4.00/gal we would have to fly a 731 powered airplane over 100 hours per month to be cost effective over the GE airplane when you consider the capital cost that has to be justified by the hourly savings.

 

[rjacobs]

I personally have not operated the 40, only the 45. But I have used a contract pilot that manages and flies a 40 and he says they do Chicago-LA once a month and only when the weather is bad in LA and alternate fuel is required do they need to make a stop. The 40 has a lower BOW and MTOW and a much more aft CG so it gets to FL470 sooner and is more efficient in cruise than the 45. Those two factors allow it to pretty much match the range of the 45. It's worth talking to some 40 operators to verify.

I will do some more research on this. The book only shows about a 1500nm range on the 40XR without the fuel mods and it shows about a 1900 mile range on a straight 45. I dont see how it can be that much more fuel efficient to basically make 180 more gallons of gas vs. a 45. Its not that much smaller or lighter.

depends upon how much he is going to fly, 100 hr a year, the cheap airplane is more cost a effective, a 1000 hours a year the expensive airplane with good SFC might be the best buy. We found at $4.00/gal we would have to fly a 731 powered airplane over 100 hours per month to be cost effective over the GE airplane when you consider the capital cost that has to be justified by the hourly savings.

I am costing things based on 350 hours a year. If he ends up making 2 west coast trips a month thats almost 160 hours right there for the year.

 

[BoilerUP]

The 40XR only weighs 500lb less than the 45XR...and early 40s carry nearly 700lbs less fuel than the 45 or current 40XRs.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...009_p0128-168049.xml&headline=Learjet+40/40XR

The "new" 40XRs with extended range was made for exactly one reason - stay competitive with the CJ4 in performance. The CJ4 makes 2002nm with 2 pilots and 1000lb payload at HSC; the 40XR makes 1991nm with 4 pax (I think the typical marketing 170lb passenger, not sure) at 0.75M LRC...which is a fuzz slower than the CJ4's HSC of 0.77M.

Also - the 40 lacks the biggest thing the 45 series offers over the CJ series IMO: an APU!

I think a BR-modded used 40 represents great value, but operationally an XR or BR-modded aircraft has similar range to a CJ3 for probably 25-40% higher DOC. It does, like the 45, have superior payload capability over similar-range Citations with the 21,000lb MTOW STC.

Its REALLY too bad Bombardier hasn't put a PL21 cockpit in these things yet...

 

[rjacobs]

The 40XR only weighs 500lb less than the 45XR...and early 40s carry nearly 700lbs less fuel than the 45 or current 40XRs.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...009_p0128-168049.xml&headline=Learjet+40/40XR

The "new" 40XRs with extended range was made for exactly one reason - stay competitive with the CJ4 in performance. The CJ4 makes 2002nm with 2 pilots and 1000lb payload at HSC; the 40XR makes 1991nm with 4 pax (I think the typical marketing 170lb passenger, not sure) at 0.75M LRC...which is a fuzz slower than the CJ4's HSC of 0.77M.

Also - the 40 lacks the biggest thing the 45 series offers over the CJ series IMO: an APU!

I think a BR-modded used 40 represents great value, but operationally an XR or BR-modded aircraft has similar range to a CJ3 for probably 25-40% higher DOC. It does, like the 45, have superior payload capability over similar-range Citations with the 21,000lb MTOW STC.

Its REALLY too bad Bombardier hasn't put a PL21 cockpit in these things yet...

Thats alot of what I was thinking. If I am looking at the 45's, the 40XR(without the fuel mod) just isnt in the ball park. Plus losing the APU, while not huge, is something I am considering. I like having one in the RJ I fly now. Boss calls, fire it up and 15 minutes later, nice cool cabin. No need to monkey with GPU's(which in my experience are hit or miss on if they work and if they are even available) and you can sit and get your flight plan loaded, ATIS, clearance, etc... without burning an engine.

The avionics are the same in the EMB145 I fly now, not spectacular but they work and I personally have never had an issue with them breaking in 5000 hours in the plane. I think the PL21 is superior having seen it a few times in a KA350 a buddy flies, but meh, not my biggest concern. At least they are better than the avionics in the LR60 and 31A.

 

[BoilerUP]

Plus losing the APU, while not huge, is something I am considering. I like having one in the RJ I fly now. Boss calls, fire it up and 15 minutes later, nice cool cabin. No need to monkey with GPU's(which in my experience are hit or miss on if they work and if they are even available) and you can sit and get your flight plan loaded, ATIS, clearance, etc... without burning an engine.

Almost every FBO in this country, save small municipal airports, will have at least one GPU available if not a whole bunch of them. Sometimes you somebody else may have the one an FBO has, but most times if their pax aren't close at hand a crew won't mind letting you use it for 10-15min for cooling & engine start.

GPU availability ain't an issue in the bizav world like it is in the regional airline world...

 

[Caboclo]

Everyone has been discussing the longest mission, but the OP originally said that most of the trips would be 250 miles. A LR-45 is awfully inefficient at that distance. I would recommend an Avanti or even a TBM.

 

[hiflyer731]

Almost every FBO in this country, save small municipal airports, will have at least one GPU available if not a whole bunch of them. Sometimes you somebody else may have the one an FBO has, but most times if their pax aren't close at hand a crew won't mind letting you use it for 10-15min for cooling & engine start.

GPU availability ain't an issue in the bizav world like it is in the regional airline world...

You are correct, but the 40/45 is VERY picky about GPUs. There are some FBOs i have been to with 4 GPUs but only one will work on the 45.

 

[rjacobs]

Everyone has been discussing the longest mission, but the OP originally said that most of the trips would be 250 miles. A LR-45 is awfully inefficient at that distance. I would recommend an Avanti or even a TBM.

The TBM is a bit small. A PC12 would be an ok option, not sure about the single engine aspect though. Plus its pretty slow when you talk about LRC(which would be required to make the west coast).

The Piaggio is a decent option, but I am not sure on the range. I have seen 1500 miles and I have seen 1800+ miles. The Avanti II would be what I would go with I think. Did the fuel tanks get bigger from the straight Avanti?

 

[jonjuan]

Go to a local airport and track a flexjet 40/45 on flightaware. I would talk with the pilots who I believe can and do operate both. They may shed some good data/feelings about the plane in real world ops. Good luck.

 

[corpflunkie]

The TBM is a bit small. A PC12 would be an ok option, not sure about the single engine aspect though. Plus its pretty slow when you talk about LRC(which would be required to make the west coast).

The Piaggio is a decent option, but I am not sure on the range. I have seen 1500 miles and I have seen 1800+ miles. The Avanti II would be what I would go with I think. Did the fuel tanks get bigger from the straight Avanti?

There is no difference in fuel quantity on the Avanti I and II. There is a slight difference in the engines, which give you a few more knots in cruise. 900-1000nm is about what you can plan non-stop. Ontario, Canada to Van Nuys can be done with one fuel stop in the Denver area. STL-SFO will require a fuel stop as well. PM me if you are going to consider the Piaggio, I can give you the good and bad of the plane.(+3000 hrs in it)

 

[guido411]

Just curious, what OTHER sources are you using to get information? While the ladies and gentlemen of FI.com are a helpful bunch many of them have not shopped for or bought an airplane before. If your boss found out you were spending his money based on the advice of some folks on the internet would he think he hired the wrong guy? Consultants like Conlkin & de Decker may seem pricey but not as pricey as buying the wrong airplane and trading it in 6 months for what you really need.

No offense but you're all over the place here. You've acknowledged suggestions from TBM to Hawker. It may be worth a short meeting or phone call to narrow down this new owner's needs and wants and not waste him time with a spreadsheet of 15 different airplanes.

By the way, no, I am not a CdD employee but just giving my advice to an RJ guy that might not have had a lot of exposure to this side of the aviation coin. Enjoy the ride, whatever it is.

 

[rjacobs]

Just curious, what OTHER sources are you using to get information? While the ladies and gentlemen of FI.com are a helpful bunch many of them have not shopped for or bought an airplane before. If your boss found out you were spending his money based on the advice of some folks on the internet would he think he hired the wrong guy? Consultants like Conlkin & de Decker may seem pricey but not as pricey as buying the wrong airplane and trading it in 6 months for what you really need.

No offense but you're all over the place here. You've acknowledged suggestions from TBM to Hawker. It may be worth a short meeting or phone call to narrow down this new owner's needs and wants and not waste him time with a spreadsheet of 15 different airplanes.

By the way, no, I am not a CdD employee but just giving my advice to an RJ guy that might not have had a lot of exposure to this side of the aviation coin. Enjoy the ride, whatever it is.

I have a couple of buddies that work in aircraft acquisition that are helping me. None of the suggestions on here were ones I hadn't already thought of on my own. I dont fly corporate so I dont get exposed to the various corporate aircraft and their real world numbers. Of all my buddies that fly corporate I have one that has lots of king air time, one that has lots of CJ2 time and one that has lots of LJ45 time. All I would be getting for the others is book numbers, which dont mean a whole lot in the real world, as this thread has shown.

I am not saying C&D doesnt provide a good service, but I have a feeling they would come back at me with the same list I already have made. I can do the math on the various cost aspects of the aircraft by talking to operators of them, which is exactly what C&D does.

Just because somebody suggests something doesnt mean I am heeding that suggestion.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I have never seen any aircraft deal happen as described on the pilot clown boards.

I mean, the collective braintrust here has you looking at single engine prop planes and 45 year old car part hauling Falcons whose next stop is a mexican junkyard....lol.

They will study the for sale rage like they are actually buying something, will quote C&D data like its gold, or (most likely) simply insist what they fly is the best.

Pure entertainment.

 

[pilotyip]

They will study the for sale rage like they are actually buying something, will quote C&D data like its gold, or (most likely) simply insist what they fly is the best.Pure entertainment.

However having been there done that, if it is the best and too expensive, they may tire of their expensive toy. This may particuarily true of a new entrant to the corp airplane market. Just thoughts, that is all

 

[gern_blanston]

I have never seen any aircraft deal happen as described on the pilot clown boards.

I mean, the collective braintrust here has you looking at single engine prop planes and 45 year old car part hauling Falcons whose next stop is a mexican junkyard....lol.

They will study the for sale rage like they are actually buying something, will quote C&D data like its gold, or (most likely) simply insist what they fly is the best.

Pure entertainment.

What?!? You don't trust the accumulated knowledge of the all-knowing, all-powerful Oz, er I mean, Forums?!? Blasphemy!!!!!

 

[xrated]

King Air 350! Does everything you want it to. Much bigger cabin then all the little jets you've mentioned, has the range, DOC and fuel burns. Ton of them on the market well under $4-5 million!!