As I sit here in Milan, as usual I daydream about flying myself to any destination in the world in my own plane. At the moment I’m about 5000nm away from my home. So I started doing some calculations for fun; how long it would take, how many stops I’d have to do and how much fuel I’d burn if I’d done this trip in various planes with roughly similar seating capacity. I’ve calculated for 1hr IFR reserves and not accounted for climb power burn, just counted the cruise fuel flow to do the 5000nm. Each fuel stop I counted as 1hr. Here we go:
Citation Mustang (1269nm range, 336kts, 540pph, 4 stops):
Time: 14.88hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
TOTAL TIME: 18.88hrs
FUEL BURN: 1199.28ga
Pilatus PC12NG (1800nm range, 278kts, 360pph, 3 stops):
Time: 17.98hr
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 21hrs
FUEL BURN: 971ga
Piaggio Avanti (1398nm range, 364kt, 580pph, 4 stops):
Time: 13.73hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
TOTAL TIME: 17.73hrs
FUEL BURN: 1188gal
Cessna Citation CJ4 (1800nm, 420kts, 1000pph, 3 stops):
Time: 11.9hrs
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 14.9hrs
FUEL BURN: 1776ga
Turbo Commander 1000 (1700nm range, 300kts, 402pph, 3 stops ):
Time: 16.66hrs
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 19.66hrs
FUEL BURN: 999.6ga
Perhaps not surprisingly is that the CJ4 will get you there the quickest. But it will do so at almost 1.5 times as much fuel as the Avanti, whilst only being 2.5hrs quicker. Or twice as much as the slower turboprops, whilst carrying the same amount of people. Perhaps even more surprising is that the Citation Mustang will burn more fuel and take longer to get there compared to the Avanti, despite carrying fewer people. Completely unsurprisingly, the PC12 will get you there with the lowest fuel burn.
If low fuel cost per mile is your priority, this is the order:
1. PC12NG
2. Commander
3. Avanti
4. Mustang
5. CJ4
If efficiency is your criteria (total fuel burn/kts):
1. Avanti (3.26gal/kts)
2. Commander (3.32gal/kts)
3. PC12NG (3.49gal/kts)
4. Mustang (3.56gal/kts)
5. CJ4 (4.22gal/kts)
If speed is your criteria:
1. CJ4
2. Avanti
3. Mustang
4. Commander
5. PC12NG
If low fuel burn per seat is your criteria:
1. PC12NG
2. Commander
3. Avanti
4. Mustang
5. CJ4
I guess there are no real surprises here. The Avanti, with it’s low drag airframe, is unbeatable in efficiency. And turboprops still win out over jets.
Hope you enjoyed this little mind exercise! 
I like such calculations and did it for the TBM too. It is smaller than most planes in the ranking, but it can carry 50% more weight with full fuel than the Mustang, so not exactly out of place. I used TBM 900 PIM page 339 as source.
Socata TBM-900 (1378nm range, 320kts, 365pph, 4 stops):
Time: 15.62
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
Total time: 19.62
Fuel burn: 859ga
If low fuel cost per mile is your priority, this is the order:
1. TBM900
2. PC12NG
3. Commander
4. Avanti
5. Mustang
6. CJ4
If efficiency is your criteria (total fuel burn/kts):
1. TBM900 (2.68gal/kts). (verify??)
2. Avanti (3.26gal/kts)
3. Commander (3.32gal/kts)
4. PC12NG (3.49gal/kts)
5. Mustang (3.56gal/kts)
6. CJ4 (4.22gal/kts)
If speed is your criteria:
1. CJ4
2. Avanti
3. Mustang
4. TBM900
5. Commander
6. PC12NG
If low fuel burn per seat is your criteria:
I’m not sure what number of seats you used for each.
The TBM 900 efficiency can even be stretched to 1,700 NM using long range setting…check the PIM for details.
davidfarby, using LRC would eliminate one stop, but the whole trip would take 3 hours longer. Typical values are 252kt@38gph.
TBM long range (1683nm range, 252kts, 253pph, 3 stops):
Time: 19.84
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
Total time: 22.84
Fuel burn: 754ga
TBM fits for sure. It carries as many as the Mustang. It’s an impressive machine an the sleek cross section accounts for its high speed and low fuel burn. They are pricy, though. But as the aircraft ages and the older 700’s are coming down in price, they offer great economy. I think in about 10 years time, they will be real contenders in the used market for any high end piston single or twin.
What legs did you assume and what wind flexibility? I can tell you that if you were flying from Milan to LA in a GA aircraft the only thing that matters is TAS, altitude flexibility and comfort. Range matters to the extent that you can skip Greenland.
In practice the Mustang will be doing 350 knots over NAT and burning more fuel as it won’t get above FL280 between Iceland and Canada.
I actually think that light jets are not worth comparing with SETs. Comparing a Pilatus with a TBM is also pointless. And the Commander is not exactly an option for sane people.
I assumed zero wind, Jason. Over Greenland, northern route. You can’t get to RSVM space over Greenland?
I should add my old heap as an exercise (this is with long range tanks which are not yet installed):
680V (1467nm, 235kts, 402pph, 4 stops):
Time: 21.27hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
Total time: 25.27hrs
Fuel burn: 1276gal
Pretty bad numbers overall. Then again, it’s economical to purchase.
JasonC wrote:
In practice the Mustang will be doing 350 knots over NAT and burning more fuel as it won’t get above FL280 between Iceland and Canada.
Why is that? Surely the Mustang is RVSM qualified? FL280 for any Jet is a killer in terms of economy.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Why is that? Surely the Mustang is RVSM qualified? FL280 for any Jet is a killer in terms of economy.
I’m not an expert in this field, but believe you’d need an MNPS approval on top of your RVSM approval to fly in RVSM over NAT.
It’s a short theoretical course + paperwork to show your hardware meets minimum requirements.
loco wrote:
I’m not an expert in this field, but believe you’d need an MNPS approval on top of your RVSM approval to fly in RVSM over NAT.
It’s a short theoretical course + paperwork to show your hardware meets minimum requirements.
Nothing to do with authorisations. I of course have MNPS (now called NAT) and RVSM. Due to there being no radar in Greenland, if you need to land there, ATC can’t easily climb or descend you and maintain procedural separation vs aircraft higher and in the tracks. So in my experience you might get FL300 if you are lucky on a good day.
If you have the range to skip Greenland then this doesn’t apply particularly if you can climb above RVSM airspace.
In the Mustang it actually doesn’t make a major difference except in fuel burn as you have the range to do it down low anyway but it is annoying.
