Plug and play EIS coming soon for old tape gauges

LIKE +1

All I have to say is..

Mike do you have a site showing Citations for sale. I looked at the Cypress site online but last update was 2019. Boss says the wife is making noises suggesting a jet so wanted some options. Kingair 90 working fine now but I guess I should start window shopping for a Single pilot capable Citation.

Have any figures to share for Wet contaminated runway distances at sea level? I have 3100ft paved. Good condition crowned runway with no puddle spots. No obstacles. But steeper approach capability is welcome in the hills. Home airport has good well drained grass taxiways I'd like to use if possible. No issues on the grass holding Kingair 200 with standard mains, 421 or the E90 loaded.

Trips are 76N to Marco island FL. 1034 NM. We do the same with the Kingair E90 typically stopping on the way down but sometimes nonstop. Depending on winds.

Know the takeoff and approach flyover DB noise figures for the Williams engines vs Pratt?

Town will freak out if I end up bringing a jet here. A CJ1 landed last summer and many calls to 911 center for airliner crashing. Extending the runway to 3100 from 2000 involved many meetings with town powers to assure we would not become an international airport with Jets landing all the time etc. So I have to tread carefully on that one. Thanks

Have 500 hours turbine time? That opens up SPE capable Citations like 550 and 560.


Landing no problem, wet or dry, heavy or not. Takeoff will be weight limited based on wet runway and/or temps.


501SP main tire pressure is 100 PSI so it needs firm ground.


There will be days you can't make that non stop, particularly if you are weight limited on takeoff. On a cold day (when you want to go to FL) with a dry runway, shouldn't be a problem if the winds are not terrible. Wet or warmer, and your are weight limited.

If this is the critical test mission, the 501SP is on the fringe, a little more range would make a difference here.


If it happens routinely, then maybe it won't be a problem. Or it will be a bigger one.

Mike C.

@Charlie Gay I am just up the road from you I grew up flying in Towanda. Got my private in an Arrow when Towanda was 1900 ft and not very wide. 50 years later I hate to tell people this but I was taught night landings with a few car headlights on the runway. Point is I am not fearful of a short runway. I have landed in Tunkhannock a few times but that was long ago.

I have no trouble operating my Mustang on 3100 ft but I would not want to be based there. It just doesn’t leave room for %#$@ that happens. Your airport is surrounded by terrain and has no runoff. That’s why you have no instrument procedures. Sounds like you might get one with a runway extension? You will always have high minimums, like Towanda is 1100 AGL. The 4300 runway in Towanda and terrain a bit farther away gives a lot more options.

You are at Tunkhannock already so none of that is news to you. I would not be happy operating any of the proposed aircraft there including a King Air. All I can say is an engine failure and subsequent climb are much easier in any twin jet versus any turboprop. The Mustang doesn’t have room for your people needs but it does have very low landing speeds. Vref at typical landing weight is 85kts. The brakes are amazing, same parts as C560XL which is 3 times the weight of a Mustang.

I relocated to Elmira airport about 20 years ago because we moved to another house half way between. My Mustang makes it from Elmira to Naples about 80 percent of the time. When it doesn’t it’s a 100kt headwind or very high temperature altitude. A C500 or C501 has a very similar range profile.

I suggest you consider basing the aircraft at another airport, then pick up the boss in Tunkhannock only weather permitting.

The 501 is fine on grass. I've landed them on my grass strip. I don't update our website and I don't advertise much; virtually never on trade a plane or controller. These airplanes sell word of mouth. I'm at 8 six three 8 nine 9 one 6 one 7.

Mike

Thanks Mike, Don. yes this airport has it drawbacks for sure. I always keep AVP as an alternate and go there empty when it's hot / heavy. about 950 hrs in the Westwind and typed should be helpful for insurance.

I've been flying the E90 and 200s from here since 2012. Before that Queenair and Beech 18 always heavy with Jumpers or stuff. Before that 310Q, 421, Apache, Barons, 414, 340 etc. Much happier now with 3100 vs the old 2000ft length. Long battle to get it correct on the map but hopefully soon. Google earth shows it. Trying to buy land in the trailer park to correct this further to 3300-3400 long end to end.

My hangup to go beyond the Kingair is that dark no moon nights windy and with contaminated runway the Kingair is no problem. It just really does not care what condition the surface is.
Tired and coming back from FL in the winter that is nice to know.

Yes no approaches. We can get down to 3400ft. But below that I head for AVP. I own the airport and hangars so I'd be the one working on any approach later. But it would only be to pattern altitude from the north to work.

Don I agree. I tried sitting in the Mustang at Oshkosh. Sadly it is just to small. But come see us sometime. I'll admit it is a dump but I am slowly paying it off. Courtesy car is here anytime if you want to go to town.

I'd probably keep it someplace else for a while. AVP initially. Then like you say maybe nice days come up.

Thanks Michael. If this gets more serious I'll give a call.

Running that flight southbound right now leaves you ~300lbs short. The return is good, showing 875lbs remaining. So you'd need to stop on the way down, not on the way back (with today's winds). That is also at MCT. There may be ways to slow down a little and make it. That is for a JT15D bird. A Williams bird may get you there as they are a bit more efficient.

I get the optics of jet vs TP but I am incredibly happy with my choice.

Here are the numbers for landing on contaminated surfaces with two functioning reversers. I also attached the relevant landing data applicable to 76N so you can run the numbers.

Not a lot of margin for error.

How much faster is a 501SP than a B200 with -52's? I would think the King Air is better suited to your strip.

These landing distances are with 50 ft TCH (threshold crossing height). That means 1000 ft of runway is wasted before you touch down. The ground roll is about 1000 ft shorter, in other words.

If you adjust TCH to be, say, 10 ft, which gains you 800 ft of runway you can now use. Even a generous 25 ft TCH gains you 500 ft more effective runway.

The key is to be on speed and on target. It really isn't that hard. If your home base is short, it will become routine and well practiced.

Mike C.

What about take off/stop distances? Those seem to always be a black box of calculations as it’s never written out in terms of reaction times. Having been through a high speed near V1 abort you’d be amazed at the runway eaten up by seconds.

Chip-

All jet takeoff distances are accel stop and accel go, sometimes called "balanced field".

Accel stop has no margins, it is the distance to get to V1, decide to abort, and stop.

Accel go is the distance to reach V1, engine fail, and continue the takeoff, crossing 35 ft high at the runway end. The airborne part of that is about 1000 ft long on a typical takeoff, so there is some runway surface you aren't using.

501SP numbers at 0 MSL, no wind, takeoff:

15 C, 11,850 lbs: 2930 ft
35 C, 11,850 lbs: 3800 ft

15 C, 10,500 lbs: 2320 ft
35 C, 10,500 lbs: 2960 ft

Mike C.

Thanks for the info. Yes everything has the 50ft threshold crossing number. 50ft is very high for landing here. I like to think I can be on target a lot better than that.

The trouble with the B200s is too little useful load without a gross weight increase. Even the light 79 200 with -41s I was operating previously was limited and I could haul the same cabin contents farther with the E90 but slower. I didn't see an advantage to the much higher purchase price and the smaller E90 fit on the taxiways at some of the airports we go to and was easier to fit in my hangar. I did think the early 200 flies better though. If I had my choice for handling qualities I'd fly an early 200 with -42s and 4 blades. no other mods. I flew the Raisbeck wing B200 for a little while and didn't care for it much.

If Citation I think only the Williams powered airplane would work for our trips. I did get the chance one night to fly a CJ2 left seat one night. It was ok but wouldn't work unless at a bigger airport.