Cesna Citation Mustang - First impressions

[OVERKILL]

We (our company) recently acquired a new plane, a Cesna Citation Mustang, which seats 6 (including the pilot seats) to replace our rather aged and quite slow Piper Navajo.

Average speed on the last trip was around 406 knots. The glass cockpit is fantastic and take off distances are expectedly short, with a very smooth cruise.

The seating is comfortable and for a relatively small jet, the interior space is quite good; well laid out and things are where you would expect them to be. The ride is surprisingly quiet, even when sitting next to one of the engines.

Overall, I'm looking forward to some more seat time, hopefully sitting up front, as both times I've been in the rear.

 

[fdcg27]

It's an entry-level jet that does what it's advertised to do.
It can't fly very fast and it can't fly very far with more than a couple of souls aboard. Not enough useful load for that.
It does what it's intended to do and Cessna builds a solid airframe.
Check back when your employer gets a Citation X.

 

[Mr Nice]

Nice. I always thought these jets looked too stubby.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
It's an entry-level jet that does what it's advertised to do.
It can't fly very fast and it can't fly very far with more than a couple of souls aboard. Not enough useful load for that.
It does what it's intended to do and Cessna builds a solid airframe.
Check back when your employer gets a Citation X.


It is reasonably fast, but you are right on the range, it is limited. This is our first jet, we've had a few props before this, so this is "testing the waters" so to speak on the jet front. So far the experience has been quite positive.

406knots is roughly 467Mph, or 750Km/h, which is about the same speed as the commercial jets I've been on when going to Dallas. Certainly not slow. Of course there are faster planes out there but I think describing it as not flying very fast is inaccurate.

The Citation X is around 10x the price (25 million vs 2.5 million), but as you noted, significantly faster and with a higher payload. I'm guessing there would be an intermediate between this and something like that, based on our history.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Nice. I always thought these jets looked too stubby.


Yes, they DO look stubby! And they feel a bit awkward, likely due to that short wheelbase, when landing. However you don't feel it at all when in the air or during takeoff.

We were originally looking at getting a King Air, but this is what we ended up with instead.

 

[NMBurb02]

One of my clients bought a Citation Mustang about a year ago. They like it. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to ride in it per my employer's rules.

 

[user52165]

Own, lease, share?

 

[Astro14]

406 true is slow.

That's a lot slower than the commercial jets you've been on...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
406 true is slow.

That's a lot slower than the commercial jets you've been on...


The Embraer 190 (through Air Canada) we went back and forth to Dallas in was under 800Km/h

Going by the lovely little data screen they give you on the seats.

This is the plane:
https://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/embraer-190.html

Notes cruise speed at 811Km/h or 504Mph. I only ever saw it crest 800Km/h a few times, most of the time it was in the high 700's, which is pretty comparable to the 750Km/h cruise speed we are doing in this thing..... no? Unless I'm missing something that is glaringly obvious to you airplane folks

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: user52165
Own, lease, share?


We own.

 

[SEMI_287]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
406 true is slow.

That's a lot slower than the commercial jets you've been on...


Not too much slower, we cruise about 460... oh wait.... (goes back to the cave)

I don't think that's too bad for that little thing. It is slower than most commercial jets but hey, it's better than a prop.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Astro14
406 true is slow.

That's a lot slower than the commercial jets you've been on...


The Embraer 190 (through Air Canada) we went back and forth to Dallas in was under 800Km/h

Going by the lovely little data screen they give you on the seats.

This is the plane:
https://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/embraer-190.html

Notes cruise speed at 811Km/h or 504Mph. I only ever saw it crest 800Km/h a few times, most of the time it was in the high 700's, which is pretty comparable to the 750Km/h cruise speed we are doing in this thing..... no? Unless I'm missing something that is glaringly obvious to you airplane folks

That Embraer is an RJ....it falls into the slow category.

A B757, for example, has a cruise Mach of .80 ( there are many variables that we are omitting but this is close), which is closer to 460 TAS.

That's over 100 KPH difference.

If you came up upon traffic going 100 KPH slower than you while driving your BMW, you too would call that slow. When we have to slow down for RJs, or Citations, we notice...

 

[OVERKILL]

Fair enough, my jet comparison was the Embraer (and I mentioned as much), I've never been in the B757. It is relative I guess. This is coming from the old Navajo which was literally less than half as fast, so to use your own example, it was like 500Km/h slower, now THAT is coming up on some slow traffic!

BTW, curious what you would consider an intermediate between this jet and the Citation X that was mentioned earlier?

 

[Astro14]

The Citation X is downright fast. 0.92 IMN. Which puts it at roughly (again, making approximations for temperature, altitude, etc.) 525 KTS TAS. Or, roughly, 975 KPH. Well above the airliners.

The Mustang is quite slow (but that's OK, because it was designed to be inexpensive to operate) at 0.63 IMN, or roughly 340 TAS and 640 KPH.

Most of commercial aviation falls between those two jets. So, lots of intermediates exist...

 

[fdcg27]

The Mustang is built to a cost target and has things that you won't see on a faster jet, like boots for wing de-ice and a straight or nearly so wing. The Model 510 (Mustang) does have a minor degree of sweep. Both are found on all of the basic Citation models going back to the original Model 500 first delivered in 1972. Cessna does build significantly faster Citations other than the X (Model 700 series) in the Model 600 series, but they are a whole lot more costly to buy and operate than is any Citation of the Model 500 series.
This aircraft's speed is limited largely by the wing. A wing that would allow higher speeds would either be very small and very thin with tapered leading and trailing edges, like an early Lear or a Lockheed F-104, would be a delta, like the Concorde or most fighter jets or would have more sweep, like most modern transport aircraft.
Anyway, the Mustang is a nice aircraft at a pretty nice price. If it lacks the cabin space of any King Air model, it should still be much quieter and have less vibration in flight as well as offering greater cruise speed.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Astro14


Most of commercial aviation falls between those two jets. So, lots of intermediates exist...


Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant what would you consider a good intermediate priced jet between the two? Like something in the 10-15 million range?

I'm just curious, I am not very knowledgable on aircraft and how one goes about choosing one here.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The Mustang is built to a cost target and has things that you won't see on a faster jet, like boots for wing de-ice and a straight or nearly so wing. The Model 510 (Mustang) does have a minor degree of sweep. Both are found on all of the basic Citation models going back to the original Model 500 first delivered in 1972. Cessna does build significantly faster Citations other than the X (Model 700 series) in the Model 600 series, but they are a whole lot more costly to buy and operate than is any Citation of the Model 500 series.
This aircraft's speed is limited largely by the wing. A wing that would allow higher speeds would either be very small and very thin with tapered leading and trailing edges, like an early Lear or a Lockheed F-104, would be a delta, like the Concorde or most fighter jets or would have more sweep, like most modern transport aircraft.
Anyway, the Mustang is a nice aircraft at a pretty nice price. If it lacks the cabin space of any King Air model, it should still be much quieter and have less vibration in flight as well as offering greater cruise speed.


Thanks for the explanation

Yes, I assume it was those things that resulted in the purchase of this over the King Air. I was not involved with that decision, but it seems to be a sound one based on usage profile at this point.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Astro14


Most of commercial aviation falls between those two jets. So, lots of intermediates exist...


Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant what would you consider a good intermediate priced jet between the two? Like something in the 10-15 million range?

I'm just curious, I am not very knowledgable on aircraft and how one goes about choosing one here.


I'm not the one to ask when it comes to the business jet market...my background is fighters then commercial airliners. I know slow vs. fast, but the details and options aren't my area of expertise.

Seems to me that the Mustang is a good choice for your company. You can quickly get up to $80 million for an airplane (Gulfstream, for example) but at $3 million or so, the Mustang offers low operating costs, low ownership costs, and substantial performance improvements over a turboprop.

 

[OVERKILL]

Thanks Astro

 

[SatinSilver]

The Honda Jet which is a competitor to the Mustang retails for $4.5 million. It's cruising speed I believe is 435 mph. Not sure why they would cost so much more.

A nice single engine prop is the Cessna Corvalis TTX. More for personal flying and fast for a single engine. One of the guys on another car forum has one. He bought a new one after his first one was due for a major overhaul because of the hours on it.