The general hydraulic pumps are engine driven, one on each engine.

The brake hydraulic pump is electric and under the left side nose baggage compartment. It doesn't have or require any meaningful ventilation, so there are no louvers for it.

Putting a vapor cycle condenser and compressor up in the nose would require dedicated and significant louvers to handle the air volume required. An issue with any such system is making sure the louvers don't whistle or vibrate with airspeed, which could get annoying.

On ACM fog, that is most often an issue with the water separator sock or drain. The sock has to be put over the screen so it covers the ENTIRE screen, no bypass path for the air. it is easy to miss that or bump it while trying to put the cover on. The drain needs to be free and open. The condensed cool water is then sprayed on the heat exchanger to improve its performance.

Mike C.

The kids like it!

This was a warm humid day in Florida...

The kids like it!

This was a warm humid day in Florida...

I finally figured out MC’s goal: justification. I see 50-500 hrs working on a AC; ( what do you pay yourself per hour? Im guessing $20) fly to Alaska, Las Vegas. And By God Im saving money!

Emer on the Press Source would have heated the cabin up. I have had to use it twice on older Citations after a duct failure and partial loss of cabin pressurizing.

Watching the Juan Brown YT video of the 550 that just crashed got me thinking about my
Mic button for controlling airport lights. It seems like that guy was
Struggling to get the lights on.

Mine for some reason has a hard time and usually takes many try’s. I try different length clicks and it does not seem to help. One time I couldn’t get the lights on to depart and someone else listening did it for me.

Do others have issues with the slider switch controlling lights?

Mike

I never have had issues like that; however I often find it more convenient to use the hand mic PTT to turn on pilot controlled lighting, as it feels more natural to me to click that 3, 5, or 7 times rapidly.

I never have had issues like that; however I often find it more convenient to use the hand mic PTT to turn on pilot controlled lighting, as it feels more natural to me to click that 3, 5, or 7 times rapidly.

At my avionics upgrade, I had the slider replaced with a simple push button.

Much nicer than the stock slider thing.

Switch is Switchcraft 913X, $6.80 at mouser.com, they have 4500 in stock. You need to fabricate a spacer to make it work in the existing hole.

Mike C.

Can someone speak to landing and takeoff performance between the different mods of the 501sp? Specifically a straight 501SP with TR's, Stallion mod & Eagle II Mod. From what I can tell, not having the TR's on the Stallion or Eagle II don't particularly add that much to the landing distance required. Is this true in real life? I'm considering all the above models but want to make sure I can get in and out of reasonably sized runways. Thanks!

I’ll do 2900 ft with a 501 with TRs, 3500 ft with a gun to my head with a stallion, Eagle II or no TR Pratt. Add 500 to either for a stress free experience.

Those numbers are predicated on 2000 ish lbs of fuel and 5 normal people. Sometimes Ferry fuel around and if you’re coming in there at 3200 pounds of fuel and just me, I can really feel that and use up 3500 ft with TRs.

1-2 onboard and light fuel and my 501 feels like the space shuttle- it wants to go straight up and fast! But I love that I can fill it up with fuel and (normal sized) people and travel far away quickly and easily and reliably. I love my TRs and would rather have those than extra fuel. I love having brakes that I never need to use. This is all subjective but I've flown everything from a skyhawk up and this thread is what helped convince me that a 501 could work. And it has!

Well, sort of.

The FJ44 mod officially doesn't change the AFM landing distances. So legally they are "the same".

But the AFM is based on the JT15D-1A engine and NOT using the TRs if equipped. Given the FJ44-2A has lower residual idle thrust than the JT15D-1A, it stands to reason it will make the original numbers.

The difference comes if you do use the TRs on the JT15D-1A. On a dry runway, this means using less brakes and causing less tire wear. This can be a significant difference. For example, 525 owners do brakes quite often, my brakes on the V last for 1000s of landings. The FJ44 airplane depends on the brakes to stop, the JT15D airplane will stop with just TRs. I routinely make landings where I don't use the brakes at all.

When the runway gets wet, snowy, or icy, then thing get real interesting. The TRs give you a way to stop without ground friction.

Here are the landing distance adders from dry runway no TRs to wet or icy runways with TRs in the operation manual for a 501:

As you can see, the increase is not that much with using the TRs. For my V, the adders are miniscule, sometimes zero, for wet runways, and not bad for other surfaces.

If you look at the CJ1 numbers (same engine, FJ44-2A, as the Stallion, Eagle II), the wet, snow, ice numbers are really bad. For example, if the dry runway number is 2000 ft, the wet runway is 3150 ft, 0.125 inch water runway is 4050 ft, snow is 3900 ft, and the ice number is 15,000 ft. Yeah, no TRs means some difficulties when the runway isn't dry.

The CJ1 even has "thrust attenuators" which the Stallion, Eagle II don't have, so the results might be worse on those.

If you spend any time on non dry runways, the TRs are extremely valuable.

When I first got my plane, it had an intermittent brake fault. I ended up landing 9 times without brakes, sometimes not knowing until touch down. TRs sure were nice to have in those cases! A faulty pressure switch was finally located and replaced which solved the problem.

Mike C.