BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 13:16

Username Protected wrote:

Dave,

What was your altitude on the short leg "down low"?

Only got up to 12,000 on the way in; 13,000 on the way back to and from Tyler.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 13:20

Username Protected wrote:

Dave, can you give me the airport codes for your legs that made up the 500 g? I would like to compare that with what my Merlin IIIC would burn.

KTYR is Tyler; to KADS is Addison.
First leg was between them.
Second leg was KADS, Texoma departure to KTUL (Tulsa), direct Fort Smith FSM; Jonex5 arrival to Addison.
Last leg Addison back to Tyler.
Instructor says to plane about 1,650 pph for flights at 12,000. Of course one usually has to slow or gets vectored around a bit coming and going to Addison which is Class D under Class B airspace.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 13:25

Username Protected wrote:

They don't need to know about your jet purchase the day after you close on the RE loan... :peace:

Normally, you'd certainly be correct. In this case, they are being a bit more aggressive and letting me collateralize some other assets to almost completely finance a new subdivision for me taking the builder deposit that's going in up front in consideration. Normally, I'd have to bring in a third party investor and pay high teens to a 20% return to that investor. So, it's very attractive to me.
In addition, I have another transaction in the hopper and will be going back to them and discussing with some new lenders. That is, lenders with which I haven't financed something before.

So, I need to be a good boy

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 13:27

Username Protected wrote:

Dave,
I would sure consider keeping the lenders happy and putting off an airplane upgrade until your business venture is rock solid. Moving up the airplane food chain is a lot more fun when you're not sweating the financial side.
We've been blessed being able to fly KA's. Nothing wrong with watching the props turn a little longer.
Em

Thanks Em. As my Ex once said, logical and emotional acceptance can be two different things!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 13:30

Username Protected wrote:

BTW, I greatly appreciate your realism that you are sharing the reality of turbine ownership with real world #'s, Dave. Most turbine guys you actually talk to only ever quote their best FF and efficiency #'s at cruise or LRC and neglect to tell the realities of what happens when ATC forces them down low or they have a short trip or a hundred other factors that occur to make the actual overall avg fuel burn and TCO much higher than 'best case scenario'.

Your reaction above to the jet 'short hop' is the same reaction I currently have when running #'s on TPs at lower than desired altitudes or short distance trips. You've probably grown accustomed to that in the KA but it's still shocking to me to see how badly a turbine wants to operate up high and the efficiency penalty you pay at lower altitudes. Of course, this is much more the case with turbofans...

I'd been told about the high fuel consumption low, but let the emotional side talk me into it

. Talking about it and getting the bill are two different things.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 13:36

Username Protected wrote:

They don't need to know about your jet purchase the day after you close on the RE loan... :peace:

Normally, you'd certainly be correct. In this case, they are being a bit more aggressive and letting me collateralize some other assets to almost completely finance a new subdivision for me taking the builder deposit that's going in up front in consideration. Normally, I'd have to bring in a third party investor and pay high teens to a 20% return to that investor. So, it's very attractive to me.
In addition, I have another transaction in the hopper and will be going back to them and discussing with some new lenders. That is, lenders with which I haven't financed something before.

So, I need to be a good boy

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 14:48

Your generosity exceeds you

Appreciate you thinking of me.

There is someone else that made a comparable offer that is in that business.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 14:53

Username Protected wrote:

A pet peeve of mine is the pilot who delays reverse until all three wheels are on the ground, then takes a breath, and slowly pulls the levers to reverse. He immediately sees he's too slow for reverse, and cancels it, thus getting a little acceleration from the momentarily high thrust.

When full reverse is no longer appropriate, I'll ease 'em forward, eventually to IDLE REVERSE. I keep IDLE REVERSE down to taxi speed, sometimes while clearing the runway.

As I recall, the CE-550 series has a limitation that says that all wheels must be on the ground before reversers may be deployed. My recollection is that this limitation is due to a certain situation where a momentary hydraulic pressure loss can occur as the TR's deploy, causing the nosewheel to collapse on landing, if not already firmly on the ground. That said, I do agree on going to idle reverse vs. simply stowing the reversers at 50 knots, or whatever minimum reverse speed the particular aircraft has.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 15:22

Actually, the Citation has an "open center" hydraulic system that only pressurizes when needed to actuate the TR's, Gear or Speed Brakes (flaps on later models as well). Once the gear are down, snap rings engage inside of the actuators and it doesn't use any hydraulic pressure to stay in the down position.

I believe the nose wheel down thing comes from directional control issues and the ability for the reverser to scrape the ground on extension if the nose is up. Additionally, the nose does want to rise on the Citation 500 series with TR activation on the ground with the nose wheel up still.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 15:47

I used to fly a Lear 31 from FTW to TYR and get to 17000. It was a lot of work for the two of us crossing all those sectors. Being based out of FTW we'd make ACT at 10000 and occasionally go to DTO. It uses a lot of gas down low but I was fortunate enough not to have to pay for it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 16:06

Username Protected wrote:

Actually, the Citation has an "open center" hydraulic system that only pressurizes when needed to actuate the TR's, Gear or Speed Brakes (flaps on later models as well). Once the gear are down, snap rings engage inside of the actuators and it doesn't use any hydraulic pressure to stay in the down position.

I believe the nose wheel down thing comes from directional control issues and the ability for the reverser to scrape the ground on extension if the nose is up. Additionally, the nose does want to rise on the Citation 500 series with TR activation on the ground with the nose wheel up still.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cf ... 502297.pdf
The above has more information on what I was referring to.

Are you are of the SB or AD number that fixes the above issue?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 18:13

Username Protected wrote:

Actually, the Citation has an "open center" hydraulic system that only pressurizes when needed to actuate the TR's, Gear or Speed Brakes (flaps on later models as well). Once the gear are down, snap rings engage inside of the actuators and it doesn't use any hydraulic pressure to stay in the down position.

I believe the nose wheel down thing comes from directional control issues and the ability for the reverser to scrape the ground on extension if the nose is up. Additionally, the nose does want to rise on the Citation 500 series with TR activation on the ground with the nose wheel up still.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cf ... 502297.pdf
The above has more information on what I was referring to.

Are you are of the SB or AD number that fixes the above issue?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 18:25

Interesting read on the report. I had never heard of this occurring. Yes, that would be a bad thing, as the TR's and Speed Brakes are usually used simultaneously. Difference being the TR's use constant hydraulic pressure, while the SB's and gear only use it to move either direction. I'm assuming the "new check valve" was installed in these aircraft and never heard of again? Maybe they found something more when the FAA delved into it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 18:51

Username Protected wrote:

Interesting read on the report. I had never heard of this occurring. Yes, that would be a bad thing, as the TR's and Speed Brakes are usually used simultaneously. Difference being the TR's use constant hydraulic pressure, while the SB's and gear only use it to move either direction. I'm assuming the "new check valve" was installed in these aircraft and never heard of again? Maybe they found something more when the FAA delved into it.

I have personal knowledge of one Bravo (550B) that this happened to on the landing roll out. In addition, I am aware of Netjets having at least one instance in an Ultra (560). I'm unable to find a SB or AD covering this issue that advertises itself as a fix, so I'm wondering what Cessna did in fact find.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2014, 18:56

The fact that it happened in 01' would lead me to believe that there was something different on the Bravo then on the earlier 500 & 550s. Maybe a different actuator supplier or part? Certainly there were enough operations of the 500 series prior to this that it would have been noted much earlier. Don't know where the other "five" cases were or when of course. The FAA might have found something completely different and squashed it, who knows.

Flying the Citation II