Lear 24 poor man's jet?

Sit in back? You gonna spend millions on an airplane and pay someone else to have all the fun? Not me bro.

 

Have you ever really really priced it? Have you seen how far in advance you must book to be able to travel when you want? It's not like piloting your own airplane. Plus you have to show ID to get on board.....

 

the age of the electronics / systems can be a financial nightmare should they need update or repair... the best way to evaluate the systems is to check for factory support or continued factory support... there are many systems that have been or are close to being dropped from factory support due to age... any failure in unsupported systems means that avionics / systems shops will NOT touch them in the event they need any attention leading to grounding of the aircraft... without factory backup / support ( parts availability ) , the liability to the shop becomes full system replacement... a risk not worth assuming... it's not about the hull cost , it's about the systems that keep it flying

 

In other words..... There's a reason cheap planes are cheap. Better to pony up and buy something up to date.

 

Interesting thread.

Don - there are many Citation 501s on the market with updated avionics. Some have Sierra's "Stallion" modification as examples of how far one can go modernizing an old airframe (there's one on Controller that boasts CJ2 speed and range, at less than the cost of a Mustang).

Are there any chronic personality issues with the 501s you remember? How about known maintenance gotchas?

 

Ummm...no one comments on the beer!! Ha

 

I fly Citation 1's and 2's and S2's all the time. Good, solid, reliable, parts are expensive on all aircraft, but livable, compared to Falcon or Lear parts. The straight wing design is very forgiving in adverse weather, compared to swept. Because so many of the Citations have been updated over the years, typically you will see updated avionics in the great majority of the fleet. I suppose the wet wings are the only area of repeated maintenance. Complete reseals are about $7,500.00, and that's probably every 10 years or 2500 plus hours, so that really isn't bad at all. If the aircraft is part 91, and if your usage is limited to around 100 hours a year, and the aircraft is hangered, you can apply to have a low maintenance service schedule, such as what Gulfstream offers. Phase 1-4 every 4 years, instead of 2, Phase 5 every 6 years, instead of 3. That in it self , in the first 6 years, will save you around $60-$70k, or more.
Gary Bobileff

 

This L39 is available as is an Eclipse 500 with around 100 hours.

My client is selling off his toys. If you have any interest, let me know.

 

Some of best memories are in Lear 24/25 and 28's. I would never want to see the MX bills.

 

I think the Sierra modified Citations are actually a pretty good deal-- I was talking about the 501s with the original Pratt engines.

Otherwise, they're just old airplanes, with old wiring, old mechanicals, etc.

If you are thinking seriously about a Sierra Citation, the real competition isn't a new airplane like a Mustang, but rather a used CJ1 or maybe a used CJ2. Do you want to pay that much for a 30-40 year old airframe, even if the engines are new?

All that said, I don't think there is anything wrong with a Sierra Citation.

 

I guess that's the rub; older airframes with old wiring, connectors, components, engines, and with them are old design philosophies are priced accordingly.

The question is, are they inherently good airplanes and are "just old", or are they death traps?

Would they still be able to provide good, safe, service if maintained according to the manufacturer's recommendations?

I don't doubt the younger CJ1 and CJ2 are actually "better overall value", but it's hard to ignore a "real" jet for less than half a mil, even if they had the original Pratts.

 

A Sierra-converted Citation is going to be well over $1 million. I'm talking about the Sierra conversions of the engines, not their extra fuel, etc.

In the case of a stock 501, well, you do get what you pay for. The Sierra airplane, or a CJ1 or CJ2, will cost considerably less to operate. The question is, can you afford to pay 50% of what you paid for an old 501 each year to operate it?

If the answer is yes, wouldn't it maybe make sense to pay a bit more up front and get a much newer, better airplane?

Cheap airplanes are just like cheap Ferraris-- they typically end up costing you a lot more than getting a good one in the first place.

I should add that I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a well-maintained Citation 501, from a safety point of view. Although, as they get cheaper it does get harder and harder to find a well-maintained one.

 

So let me see if I have this right. If you wanna be a poor guy with a private jet start by being a rich guy and buy a Lear 24?

 

That's interesting...can anyone point me to the costs of owning/flying a Columbia or Cirrus or Cessna? TIA.

 

I have seen both sides, a few years ago I bought an old Citation III for what I thought was a bargain price under the assumption that it made no sense to pay 8 times more for a newer plane that would deliver the same or even less performance, I learned the hard way.

If I had given away the plane for free 2 years ago it would have been literally cheaper than maintaining it for those 2 years and the amount for which I sold it in the end.

Then there is the dispatch reliability issue, after I had this bad experience I bought a late model pre owned Learjet directly from Bombardier, after 1 year and 350 hours of flight time I have only stayed on the ground once which after a call to Bombardier they got a mechanic with the part to me and in less than 24 hours I was out, on the old Citation I had a hydraulic pump fail and the plane was on the ground for 45 days, even though I kept it on Cessna's proparts program they did not have the part I ended up buying a used part from a dismantler, take into account that I maintained my Citation on a Cessna authorized facility so no short cuts or spared expenses on the maintenance side.

After seeing both sides I can comfortably say that nothing beats buying a newer plane, I came to the conclusion that you either spend the money at the beginning to buy a newer plane or you will spend it maintaining and old plane, there is no other way around.

 

Points taken. Old machines are old machines any way you look at it Things age, wear, fatigue, and deteriorate.

Jose - which Lear did you get? A LR60 perhaps (seems similar in mission capability as a Citation III)?

 

Ni, yes I got a Lear 60SE Im very happy with it, it has a very spacious cabin, good range, very fuel efficient and relatively cheap to operate and the performance is above anything else in its class, I operate at a very high altitude airport so I really have a need for the power where nothing beats an LJ60, only downside is its runway performance you need good lenghts

 

OK, I'm going to jump on this old thread, cuz I want to put some itch powder on Rob's skin. I've done the math on the old jet, and the speeds, and distance, RVSM, etc a while back. Thinking like everyone else that the cap-ex would justify the op-ex. I figured it out, and it never made sense.

Here I go - the plane I want, and it's not a jet, nor a turboprop is a 1974-84 Aerostar 601/602P. These things were built hell for stout. They don't have geared engines, but do have four turbos to feed the engines and the cabin. Single pilot, can get up into the decent flight levels, and although they do have plenty of maint to do, none of it is really complex, and there is great support for them. They were hot shyte when they came out, and they've always been hot shyte, for hot shyte pilots. Like the old Lear, they are not for the mangina contingent.

Aerostar Owners Association

 

Good luck with that.

 

Thank you.

 

I owned and operated an Aerostar 601 for 10 years and never had a more robust, reliable piston powered machine. Great airplane to fly, roomier than it looks on the outside and killer performance. You couldn't make a better choice for a piston powered twin. Damn few airplanes to this day will do 230 knots on 32 gph but the Aerostar will. Factory support is excellent through Aerostar Aircraft in Idaho. Out of 10 years and 1000 hrs I had exactly 2 scrubbed missions due to mag problems. Maintenance isn't cheap (figure 100 bucks an hour) but there is a great shop in Plainview, Texas (Miller Flying Service) that can take good care of her. Good luck and happy hunting.

 

Everyone I talk to that has hours in an Aerostar has similar reports. Hardly ever a negative thing to say. Blistering fast, economical, good looking and pretty darn safe all things considered. I fly over Plainview regularly from TX to CO, and I know the shop there somewhat. Right now I'm having a lot of fun with the Bonanza, but I think I'll pony up to the Aerostar some day. I also want those cool looking winglet STC! Haha - only gives an extra 200lb gross increase, but every pound helps.

 

And in the Aerostar you can take off with one of the props stowed in the cabin!