Depends mostly on the diligence of the installer. Might not save much weight is all they do it cut can cap the wires, maybe 30-50 lbs for one GTN.

The real weight savings comes when you do the PFD panels and ditch all the remote gyros and massive wiring that entails.

Mike C.

Maybe that's true for the 501.

For my 560, the prior owner complained about how nose heavy it was and having to add ballast in the tail baggage when cabin loading went up. That limited cabin and fuel loads.

Now I am tail heavy which is more easily handled with ballast only when I am lightly loaded. As the cabin load goes up the ballast goes away. Being near the rear CG limit gets you improved performance, faster climb, higher speeds.

I am now 400 lbs lighter than when I bought the airplane. Curiously, there is an STC to increase the gross weight of the 560 by 400 lbs to 16,300 lbs (same as the Ultra), so I have the effect of that STC on useful load, but without the extra weight. Lower weights mean better performance, faster climbs, shorter runway usage.

Less weight always improves an airplane.

Mike C.

Maybe that's true for the 501.

For my 560, the prior owner complained about how nose heavy it was and having to add ballast in the tail baggage when cabin loading went up. That limited cabin and fuel loads.

Now I am tail heavy which is more easily handled with ballast only when I am lightly loaded. As the cabin load goes up the ballast goes away. Being near the rear CG limit gets you improved performance, faster climb, higher speeds.

I am now 400 lbs lighter than when I bought the airplane. Curiously, there is an STC to increase the gross weight of the 560 by 400 lbs to 16,300 lbs (same as the Ultra), so I have the effect of that STC on useful load, but without the extra weight. Lower weights mean better performance, faster climbs, shorter runway usage.

Less weight always improves an airplane.

Mike C.

Well, no, it is actually 16,300 lbs max takeoff weight and 16,500 lbs max ramp weight, an increase of 400 lbs.

See attached STC.

This makes it the same weights as the Ultra. The Encore was increased 330 lbs over that.

My avionics upgrade basically got me the same useful load increase as this STC, but at lighter weight and without the negatives (such as increased runway usage, slower climbs, and lower landing gear life).

Mike C.

The 560 GWI puts a major downgrade on the landing gear in that you have to throw it away at 12,500 landings I think. Most of the pro-rata calculations in Cescom are done incorrectly so it probably won't affect anyone but I could imagine that coming up for someone.

Well, no, it is actually 16,300 lbs max takeoff weight and 16,500 lbs max ramp weight, an increase of 400 lbs.

See attached STC.

This makes it the same weights as the Ultra. The Encore was increased 330 lbs over that.

My avionics upgrade basically got me the same useful load increase as this STC, but at lighter weight and without the negatives (such as increased runway usage, slower climbs, and lower landing gear life).

Mike C.

Original GW (15,900 lbs): replace main landing gear every 12,450 landings.

Increased GW (16,300 lbs) and Ultra: replace main landing gear every 11,425 landings.

A new set from Textron (6641000-35, 6641000-36) runs about $260K for the set.

I've seen planes getting near these limits. A V that was for sale had only 200 landings left and the seller wasn't aware of this issue (or claimed not to be), so that will be a major issue facing the next owner.

Mike C.

I am unaware of this STC. If you get the STC number, pas it along.

Mike C.

How well would this work at 4500 ft runway.

Depends on the climate and elevation. Can also be affected by the terrain to assure single engine climb gradient. If you indicate which airport exactly that would help make the answer more precise.

Published data for ISA, sea level, zero wind, dry, flat runway, at max weights:

11850 lbs takeoff: 2950 ft

11350 lbs landing: 2270 ft.

4500 ft looks pretty good. The takeoff number is with an engine failure to 35 ft AGL, so the normal performance is better than these numbers and the chance the engine fails at the worst possible time is basically nil. The landing number is 50 ft AGL at runway threshold, so it has padding as well.

Higher elevations, higher temps, wet, snowy, icy runways make things worse, in some cases, much worse. Lighter weight, colder, and headwind makes things better. In the end, it comes down to a probability assessment that conditions will allow operation at the given airport and weight.

This plane lacks TRs and anti skid which means it is affected more by runway conditions. On the plus side, less weight and things to maintain. If you fly primarily to dry runways, then the lack of TRs and anti skid is not a big deal.

Mike C.

Sorry Mike kcnb. Flat, no obstructions either end once in awhile snow or ice.

Wet runway may be an issue at max weights, may have to lighten up.

Standing water, snow, or ice can make the runway numbers too big to operate there. May have to occasionally use KMML with 7200 feet in certain conditions. How often that occurs is dependent on your weather.

Dry should be no issue unless temps get above about 40C in which case may have to lighten up a bit, and I doubt that happens hardly ever.

Suggest you get a 501 AFM and review the takeoff and landing performance numbers and the adjustments for runway condition.

A plane with TRs and anti skid would improve things and would make me more comfortable in northern climates.

Mike C.

You are fine with 4500 in most normal circumstances. I keep mine at 3900 and full fuel 4 people is fine. Mike

Under contract

Sold