Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Shalomar

Cj1 Vs Mustang

Recommended Posts

Where do I start? I have the Eaglesoft CJ1, and my brother has offered to buy me the aircraft of my choice for Christmas. But I am not quite sure I want the Mustang... the alternative is to hold out for the RealAir Duke.I have been going over the specs, and they are surprising. Payload at full fuel is only ten pounds more for the CJ1! Useful weight payload+fuel is 3180 for the Mustang and 3830 for the CJ1. Closer than I expected.But operating costs (which don't count in FS) aside, in almost every respect the CJ1 is superior.Mustang cruise is 320-345 KTAS, CJ1 345-381.Even in the cruise climb, the CJ1 rules... 220 knots versus 170 for the Mustang.At sea level , 8000 LB and 20 degrees celcius, the Mustang needs 2410 feet of runway to stop. The CJ1 at the same weight, *at 8000 feet above sea level* and 20 degrees celcius, and starting from a point **Fifty feet above the runway** needs 3000 feet. So it seems almost anywhere the Mustang can go, with carefull fuel planning the CJ1 can go.Range? The Mustang docs are not clear on this... but afterdoing some math the CJ1 seems to prevail. 1200 NM at max cruise carrying the Mustang's full payload with IFR reserves.Overall... the F1 product has better checklists, the CJ1 has better charts. I could not even find a takeoff runway required table for the Mustang!If I had the Mustang, I probably would not buy the CJ1. But having the CJ1... Is the Mustang worth it???It's a dilemna... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Where do I start? I have the Eaglesoft CJ1, and my brother has offered to buy me the aircraft of my choice for Christmas. But I am not quite sure I want the Mustang... the alternative is to hold out for the RealAir Duke.I have been going over the specs, and they are surprising. Payload at full fuel is only ten pounds more for the CJ1! Useful weight payload+fuel is 3180 for the Mustang and 3830 for the CJ1. Closer than I expected.But operating costs (which don't count in FS) aside, in almost every respect the CJ1 is superior.Mustang cruise is 320-345 KTAS, CJ1 345-381.Even in the cruise climb, the CJ1 rules... 220 knots versus 170 for the Mustang.At sea level , 8000 LB and 20 degrees celcius, the Mustang needs 2410 feet of runway to stop. The CJ1 at the same weight, *at 8000 feet above sea level* and 20 degrees celcius, and starting from a point **Fifty feet above the runway** needs 3000 feet. So it seems almost anywhere the Mustang can go, with carefull fuel planning the CJ1 can go.Range? The Mustang docs are not clear on this... but afterdoing some math the CJ1 seems to prevail. 1200 NM at max cruise carrying the Mustang's full payload with IFR reserves.Overall... the F1 product has better checklists, the CJ1 has better charts. I could not even find a takeoff runway required table for the Mustang!If I had the Mustang, I probably would not buy the CJ1. But having the CJ1... Is the Mustang worth it???It's a dilemna... :(
You got my curiosity going Shalomar so I went to the Cessna website and found that they have a little feature to allow you to compare planes. What I found was that the CJ1+ is basically a little bigger plane: 7 vs 5 people, heavier: 7020 vs. 5550 lbs empty wieght, cruises a little faster, 389 vs. 340 kts, and takes a 100 foot longer runway. In real life someone might buy the Mustang because it costs $2.8 million vs. $4.8 million for the CJ1+. The operating costs of the Mustang is listed as $794 vs. $1096/hr for the CJ1+, however if you flew the CJ1+ at the Mustang's cruise speeds these costs may be closer to each other. The Cessna site also has some nifty range maps that you allow to center the planes at any airport. According to that, the CJ1+ range is 1300 nm vs 1150 for the Mustang. These of course are all marketing numbers whereas it appeared you were looking at some actual performance documents.I don't have the Flight 1 Mustang (yet) but from what I've read, one reason you might want to have your brother buy it for you is because of the G1000 avionics package. As in real life, the avionics packages that come with an add-on can be the deciding factor between two similar aircraft.Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the CJ1, but I was really surprised by the Mustang. The audio environment, at least, is something I haven't seen in other planes. Flying the Mustang I have decided I want to buy more Cessna aircraft, so I will probably be picking up the Citation X, or CJ1. When Eaglesoft releases a Cessna 400 w/ Garmin I will do my best to be the first in line!I would be one of the people that bought the Mustang (in R/L I mean), because I really love Garmin systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly both, and you are right, the CJ's and the Mustang are basicly the same performance wise. The major difference is the stang has the glass cockpit. The eye candy on both is outstanding.ANY straight wing jet will have about the same performance, so I use the CJ and stang for medium altitudes and the Citation X for high altitudes when I want to get where Im going FAST, and Im in a 'bizjet' mood.Another point for me is that ES planes work well in 'shared cockpit' and school is still out on the stang. It seems to mostly work but I am still testing. To be fair, the developer said right up front that they were not going to support multiplayer/shared cockpit, so the fact that anything works is amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ES CJ1 isn't installed anymore. The Mustang is. The CJ1 is too low resolution to use in the VC imho, and is even pretty difficult to use in the 2D pit. For the performance impact both aircraft have, I'd much rather be flying the Mustang.You may want to wait for the CJX 2.0 for FSX. I'm looking forward to seeing how Eaglesoft does on that one. If you can't wait, I'd grab the Mustang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, if you can afford both, I'd get the Mustang now, and the CJX when it comes out. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're not looking at is the SIM versions of each plane. The Mustang blows every add-on I have out of the water. Period. Systems simulation, graphics, flight model. It is on the level (or surpassing) the LDS-767, Maddog 2006 and F1 ATR. It is the ONLY reason I reinstalled FSX. Now if I could get some decent weather. REX is horrible, ASA is flaky and FSX weather is a joke. :( EddieKABQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you're not looking at is the SIM versions of each plane. The Mustang blows every add-on I have out of the water. Period. Systems simulation, graphics, flight model. It is on the level (or surpassing) the LDS-767, Maddog 2006 and F1 ATR. It is the ONLY reason I reinstalled FSX. Now if I could get some decent weather. REX is horrible, ASA is flaky and FSX weather is a joke. :( EddieKABQ
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it blows every add-on out of the water. The G1000 is only partially working and the nav database is not so....complete. The eye candy is wonderful on the Mustang. I wouldn't say its on the same level as the LDS-767 or the Maddog. And for the same price you can get the Coolsky MD-80 which is complete and is a much more worthy FSX plane.Saying that is the only reason you reinstalled FSX shows the bias you have about the plane. It's an OK plane for what it is, but it did not live up to the hype if you ask me. I think I'll stick with my MD-11's, MD-80s ect. I have yet to gt ahold of a corporate jet that impresses me. Hopefully the Citation X will bring that. If you already have the CJ-1 save your money, and wait. Something much better should be along shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it blows every add-on out of the water. The G1000 is only partially working and the nav database is not so....complete. The eye candy is wonderful on the Mustang. I wouldn't say its on the same level as the LDS-767 or the Maddog. And for the same price you can get the Coolsky MD-80 which is complete and is a much more worthy FSX plane.Saying that is the only reason you reinstalled FSX shows the bias you have about the plane. It's an OK plane for what it is, but it did not live up to the hype if you ask me. I think I'll stick with my MD-11's, MD-80s ect. I have yet to gt ahold of a corporate jet that impresses me. Hopefully the Citation X will bring that. If you already have the CJ-1 save your money, and wait. Something much better should be along shortly.
Yes, his bias is that he is REALLY impressed with the Mustang. I think the Mustang is UNDER hyped! The thing is a true work of art. It is also, unpatched to date except for an updated gauge file. "Something much better . . ." Really? Like what? The Mustang has set a new benchmark for lighter aircraft. It's beatiful, stable, quite complex, tons of bells n whistles. Yes, it is not perfect with regard to navdata etc, but geez, it's also unpatched. It will only improve, and that will take ALOT!I am also a proud owner of Coolsky's cluncky but effective SUper MD80, plus PMDG stuff for FS9. I have abandoned FS9 months ago.Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is not perfect with regard to navdata etc, but geez, it's also unpatched. It will only improve, and that will take ALOT!Noel
Yes indeed Noel, it will improve and some of those things in fairly short order. No add-on can be everything to everybody. But the Mustang does an awful lot and will be doing more soon.Jim Rhoads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it blows every add-on out of the water. The G1000 is only partially working and the nav database is not so....complete. The eye candy is wonderful on the Mustang. I wouldn't say its on the same level as the LDS-767 or the Maddog. And for the same price you can get the Coolsky MD-80 which is complete and is a much more worthy FSX plane.Saying that is the only reason you reinstalled FSX shows the bias you have about the plane. It's an OK plane for what it is, but it did not live up to the hype if you ask me. I think I'll stick with my MD-11's, MD-80s ect. I have yet to gt ahold of a corporate jet that impresses me. Hopefully the Citation X will bring that. If you already have the CJ-1 save your money, and wait. Something much better should be along shortly.
OK. Well the Coolsky would be the THIRD version of MD-80 if I got it. But we were talking about corporate jets. And, more importantly, VLJs. I live in Albuquerque and got to fly the sim at Eclipse. It was awesome! Unbelievable to fly a JET at a 90kt approach. I rushed home and scoured for a VLJ for FS. Nothing. I was so disappointed So, maybe that is where my bias comes from. The Mustang is a jet that I might actually fly in real life. If I win the lottery my first 3M is going straight to Cessna! I will never pilot an MD-80. Or MD-11. Or Citation X. I don't know what's missing from the nav database except procedures. I am capable of manually entering fixes (or having FSBuild do it for me). I don't know what's missing from the G1000 (except Safe Taxi... and I doubt we want to pay for that many airport diagrams) but it does everything advertised (or at least what I expected). Last night I planned a flight on fltplan.com using their Mustang data and at the end of the flight my fuel burn was within 5% of what the site predicted. And that is using the flawed wind engine in ASA (about 40kts off predicted RW winds.) Anyway, I THINK the Mustang is amazing. And I THINK it is on par with the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I THINK the Mustang is amazing. And I THINK it is on par with the best.
Choices lucky us with all that great stuff :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Choices lucky us with all that great stuff :(
No kidding. I bought the Eaglesoft CX the day before the Mustang. It was a GREAT FS Christmas! And curses to Flight 1. Because of their stupid Mustang I had to buy... Ultimate Terrain X, Real Environment Xtreme and Active Sky Advanced! I mean, I couldn't fly such a beautiful plane over that yukky default scenery, with inaccurate weather and ugly clouds! That Mustang cost me $175!Kudos to all the developers for a fun (obsessive) holiday! EddieKABQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well like I said it's a fine aircraft visually but people's opinions are like......anyways, I'm sure Jim will patch her up and hopefully get everything in it everyone is/was hoping for. Like I said in another thread I think some people where expecting more than what they got, rather that be hype from themselves or from anyone else. After hearing me talk about my favorite plane you would think I bought a true to life representation of it too lol.When I said "Something better will be coming along soon...." was meant sarcastically. Because every forum including Avsim's has this rush of "the best thing since sliced bread" type attitudes from people ect when a new plane is released no matter how good or bad it is, so within months something better, by forum speak, will come along and people will start talking about how much better it is than the Mustang, and what options it has that the mustang doesn't, or how much better something works in the new plane vs. the mustang ect. My point about the whole thing with my friend was this, I got a CJ1 that is pretty much the same plane minus better engines and avionics. We can fly into the same fields, they can do the WAAS approaches that I can not but that's not a huge deal for me. So the way I look at things, even though it two totally different planes and development groups personally I would only be buying an upgrade, and one that even the developer accepts still needs a bit of work.Then you get to talking about patching and say, "It will only improve, and that will take ALOT!"......my point exactly. I don't want to purchase a plane that will take 'ALOT' to get it right. I would rather wait another month or two for that to be done before release, and yes we all know testers can't catch everything so I won't get into that. Not bashing and I don't intend on this post to be took this way, as this plane as is looks like a wonderful plane and I'm sure for the VLJ fans out there it's spot on for what they where looking for. Personally once it hits the SP1 or maybe even 2 and I have some multiplayer friends out there talking about how much better it has gotten I will get the bug and purchase it. As of now, I'm in a holding pattern especially with the mixed opinions about this plane and considering I don't fly VLJ's that much.Either way, each to his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben,Jim didn't say it would TAKE a lot, he said the Mustang DOES a lot. BIG difference.I am admittedly biased, since I've seen the Mustang develop over the last several months of testing, but I can honestly say that the Mustang offers a good deal more than was promised -- and several things that are first-time-ever features.Setting all bias aside, it really isn't fair to compare two products when one doesn't own copies of both. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to Noel not Jim. And like I said I'm not bashing, but user concensus especially from the guys I fly with the most, and all but 1 has the plane, deems a lot more on what I think and feel about a plane. Most of the guys I fly with like myself have been in this hobby of ours for quite awhile and pretty much know what each other likes or dislikes about a plane. (Yes you really should hear some of the conversations on that lol) Anyways, there has been word passed to us that the developers basically didn't care about us shared cockpit multiplayer guys, since the real plane was setup in such a way that only one pilot could fly it. But that's ok we are getting really used to not being thought about. Then we are told when asked about the pixelated(blocky) screens in the cockpit, that it was intentionally cut down on the polygon count to save performance. While they are big screens and I agree, could, I guess be seen like that I don't understand this because I have several addons with multiple screens and big screens and performance is not an issue. Fine, not a great answer but taken as is. Then the plane comes out with a database that only suits some of the world, including I would presume the FS default 2005 navdatabases, granted I've heard that it is being worked on that the database guy was coming back soon to work on it or something, but that it may or may not be a subscription service in the long run. Rather that means Navigraph or Flight1 in house or a one time update to get procedures and waypoints put in I don't know. Then the whole load the default flight then load the mustang stuff is just plain weird. I can load any plane in my hangar that just as complicated or more so without doing this and everything works fine. Why would I have to do it with this aircraft? Or is that just a precautionary step? I can keep going with various problems. The good thing, and one of the things I do like about what I've seen from Jim over the years is he does stay active in the community with keeping people in the loop and has said most if not all of this would be worked out, fixed, gone, what have you, in future updates.Now the upsides I have heard about this plane, is the icing effects are pretty cool, the displays even though they are a bit blocky look decent. Most text is readable. The external model looks very nice, the handling and peformance is on par per plane stats. And the performance in sim is to be expected of a quality aircraft. Like I've been telling people, and I believe I've stated in this post I personally don't have anything against Flight1 or this particular plane specifically. What I do have an issue with is somethings where not quite what they were "expected" to be or things where left out inadvertantly . I guess is my own head I had this set out to be a polished little to no fuss type A/C that I would enjoy. The jury is still outSo once(my main gripe) we have an updateable database with reliable, and updated navdata is available especially for a plane that has a G1000!. If I can convience myself that multiplayer isn't an issue, and pry myself away from some other addictive addons as of late and the patches start flowing then I will give it a go. But like most products now a days wait till the first service pack, or patches start coming out to kill those bugs before giving it a try. The one thing that does bug me though and I would like clarification on is... "I can honestly say that the Mustang offers a good deal more than was promised -- and several things that are first-time-ever features." Besides the icing effects and the WAAS approach stuff what else are you talking about? And does this alone make it a 'must have' for everyones hangar? Pretty only goes so far on prom night when your date has a wooden leg. (Laugh it's corny but funny)And I'll add in here again, I'm not bashing anyone I think it's a fine product and I'm simply throwing my view on things to help Flight1's developers make a better product that would make me HAVE to buy it! As of right now I'm still on the edge until I get some update/in-the-works news on what will be sqwashed with the first major update. Great job on what you have accomplished so far it just needs a glob of polish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites