Sometimes when looking around planecheck I have come across some increadibly low priced early Citations, SP versions, some with LR tanks and in good shape and up to date maintenance. I’ve seen some of those priced between 150k to 300k Euros, which is quite low for such a jet.
I’ve seen pireps from the US by some folks who took the step and bought one of those older planes after first chasing something along the lines of an TBM or similar and decided to buy a jet for less than half the price and use the rest of the budget money to fly it. So inevitably, I have been asked questions about this vs for instance a C421 or similar planes, which have different issues such as Avgas availability.
Does anyone here have experience with ownership of an early 501 or such? What are the issues? How much will it cost to operate it including engine programms e.t.c? And is it a plane which a normally talented guy who flies a Seneca or C310 can fly single pilot after apropriate training safely?
Are there any particular versions which are especcially interesting to buy? What is the typical range of something like that? I hear anything between 800 and 1500 NM, which is a huge difference. How about such planes which have been upgraded to newer engines?
And avionic wise: Will upgrading with a WAAS GNS/GTN allow “easy” certification for LPV and similar stuff?
I personally am not in that market (my dreams won’t get any further than a Turbo Twin Commanche if I ever win that lottery) but I am still interested to hear some practical experience and opinions.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And is it a plane which a normally talented guy who flies a Seneca or C310 can fly single pilot after apropriate training safely?
No way. These aircraft are very unergonomic compared to modern light jets. Their autopilot/FMS/avionics (mostly analog dials) are not very capable and difficult to operate.
I started flying descendents of these early Citations after having flown piston twins for more than 2000 hours. The first 500 hours I needed to do in the right hand seat (to unfreeze my ATPL for which 500 hours of multi-pilot time is required) and moved to the left seat on my 501th hour. Did another 50 hours of command supervision then. I guess this would have been the absoulte earliest moment for considering to fly a SP version of that plane (and I guess the insurer would have expressed a similar opinion).
But honestly, I would not want to fly this kind of aircraft single-pilot. If all goes well it can easily be done. If an engine fails, it is easier to control than an MEP after an engine failure, but performs ten times as good. But any difficult failure, the worst being a complete loss of electrical power, will easily overcome you.
Regarding maintenance I could not really tell. The two Citation Bravos on our fleet are 20 years younger but have lots and lots of small glitches, often resulting in an AOG condition. Reverser unlocked lights coming on in flight (very scary I can tell you…), only two greens after gear extension, failures of screens or instruments, corrosion found during inspection and so on. “My” plane is the Encore which is even younger and has very few hours. It costs in the order of 250.000 Euros per year for fixed maintenance alone. With zero hours flown. Add to that the hourly maintenance and all the stuff that breaks (the worst I had was a fractured turbine blade which resulted in 450.000 Euros of damage) and you will find that you need deep pockets to operate one. If you can get a maintenance program for a 1974 Citation I SP I don’t know, but if so, it will not be cheap.
BTW: Earlier this week a Citation I of that vintage crashed in Canada, killing all occupants among them a politician. The cause is not known yet.
It is a question which is not actually straight forward. There are some now that have been upgraded with new avionics eg G1000, ADS-B etc which look quite similar to a more modern jet. But as what_next says, these are essentially very old designs that were not built for single pilot operations. I would probably be more comfortable owning one in the US where is there is a greater range of service and support options than in Europe. Plenty of people own them and fly them SP but it can take some time to really get them working and running well. General view is that compared to CJs for a low utilisation operator they are probably cheaper to run. Not so for high utilisations.
But you would need a real expert to help ensure you didn’t make a tremendously expensive mistake.
what what_next said, agree, although aerodynamically/handling the straight wing Citation may be easier to fly than a TBM? – hopefully someone pops up who has experience in both.
Without a clean design FMS and CAS am not sure upper airways travel in Europe is that comfortable for a SP unless on a very regular schedule with a simple route. Also if there is the equivalent of an amber or red caution, you are having to troubleshoot it with the quick reference guide (too many items to memorise), while continuing flying single pilot and negotiating with ATC.
The SET class, at least if it is a relatively new airframe with the glass still under warranty, seems to operate at a fraction of legacy multi jet maintenance.
Interesting market anomaly for turbines at TBO is that market doesn’t value them at anymore than the price of the panel. Take an E90 King Air with engines at 3500hrs, the book value on Vref is sub 100k as the overhauls are 250k per side. You can fly past TBO on Pt91 but you must do the HSI each 1800hrs in this case. You hear in places like Africa they last indefinitely :-)
I’m not sure if its the same for jets. A friend of mine had a 551 SP and sold it for what he paid for it after getting 300hrs use out of it.
I know nothing about this but a few years ago I was visiting a certain hangar in the south east of the UK, where I saw two jets (Citations? aren’t they all Citations? (only kidding)) and there was an A&P “living” there who said they run them on £20k/year each. He worked full time for the client(s).
So, as in every other walk of life, the more you know, the less you pay 
That’s hugely obviously true with pistons, too. The gulf between “getting pro-active” and doing it at arm’s length (which is what most owners do) is easily 5:1 in cost, and more in the value of downtime.
So, on the face of it, so much of this supposed cost saving (of buying an old plane) depends on your particular airfield situation, politics, etc.
People with serious money just buy an inclusive maintenance package… for TBMs too in some cases.
Just got this from one pilot with a lot of experience on these:
This is the kind of airplane I am talking about.
http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=28665
Add sais nothing about remaining engine hours to TBO / Hot Section (incidently, what are the TBO / Hotsection intervalls on these?) but otherwise appears to be up to date with a new Garmin installation and EASA Single Pilot, RVSM and so on.
What are the phases 1-5? I reckon they are maintenance intervals, but what do they signify?
Quite some adds hasten to say that the engines are over TBO but on “programme”, so what does that mean?
What are the consumptions for these planes and their range? I hear massively different hear say stuff, POH’s e.t.c are hard to come by. How far will one of those fly with max fuel (and what can it carry then) and how far will it fly with all seats occupied?
As for pilots experience, I am not really referring to people who come fresh out of a CPL/IR but people who are proficient on piston twins or turboprops.
Phase 1-5 are major maintenance inspections. In the US they can run 50-100k.
Engines on programme mean they have a paid up maintenance program. This means that when they get to HSI or Overhaul or have other problems the parts and (depending on programme) labour are fully covered. So on that basis hours to overhaul are not really a major concern in value.
Here’s one for Cirrus type money.
Still a fair few hours to HSI/TBO
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Add sais nothing about remaining engine hours to TBO / Hot Section (incidently, what are the TBO / Hotsection intervalls on these?).
Mine has slightly different engines (PW-535 instead of JT-15D) but the overhaul after the TBO of 5000h costs 900.000$ per engine. The JT-15 has a TBO of 3600h only and will not be much cheaper as the engine is similar. HSI came around 3000h with the 535, can’t remember what my employer paid for that.
As Jason already said, an “engine program” is a scheme by which you pay a given amount for every hour of utilisation and the program then pays for maintenance and/or overhaul. Gambling on that (as my employer does), as with every other insurance, by investing that money yourself can save you a lot of money as long as the engine lives to TBO or make you lose a lot of money when something happens to the engine early. Most owner have their engines on programs.
… but otherwise appears to be up to date with a new Garmin installation…
This is not some Pa28 but a part 25 certified aircraft. If registered under EASA, you don’t even exchange your position light bulb against a modern LED bulb without the appropriate paperwork. The paperwork cost alone for replacing a C501’s avionics with some modern glass will exceed the value of the aircraft. You either fly this kind of aircraft as it is or leave it alone.
… EASA Single Pilot, RVSM and so on.
EASA single pilot maybe if the aircraft was already certified single pilot before EASA. RVSM? No way. Requires different avionics which will again cost more to certify for that aircraft than the aircraft is worth… Better sell it to the States or Canada and let the new owners crash it themselves.
