I'm glad you're finally to the point I tried to make pages ago and not telling stories about overnights and the proper pronunciation of your employers name. (don't care)

I'm trying to get my iPad to turn on with my Pilatus app. Standby.

Absolutely no hostility from my side. Let's see the numbers. You're already backpedaling from your original claim (full fuel, 8 passengers with bags).

Not backpedaling at all. You have no idea what my passengers weigh or what bags they’re carrying. I already told you I’m not hauling a 8 men. Never have.

You respond to 1/3rd of my posts. If anyone is backpedaling it’s you.

You made it sound like you travel with normal human beings carrying normal bags. Sounds like your case is very much an exception.

A PC12 can not take full fuel and 8 normal passengers with average bags and be legal with full fuel. I believe we agree with this?

(Another funny thing with a PC12 is, that you cannot take full fuel with just the pilot in the plane without some serious payload in the back).

My Pilatus has seats for 11. So does the ones you fly. 8 people and bags is not overweight. You’re being ridiculous. I need to re-load my Pilatus app. I’ll get back with you. Probably won’t be tonight.

My PC12NG has 1200lbs useful with full fuel.

The ones you’re flying must be broken with 1070.

Not being ridiculous, still waiting for your numbers.
And we have seats for 10, not 11.

You have a very light NG. 1200lbs full fuel payload means 150 per person including bags. I guess I have bigger friends than you do

Real world numbers are closer to 1000. Just as an example, the heaviest NG we have is 6753 BEW. That's sub-1000lbs full fuel payload. And these are real world numbers from actual airplanes. The range I see is between 6650 and 6750. All are 8 pax seat executive configs. Some have electric gear, some hydraulic.

So, when you make a general statement that a PC12 can haul 8 adults and full fuel, that only applies to a very narrow use case.

Just to give actual numbers: One of our NG's, with full fuel, you can have 8 people weighing 120lbs each, 0 bags, and be 37lbs under MTOW. And you can't have anyone in the first two seats in the cabin, that would take you off CG.

Plane would fly just fine even if you are over a bit. Something tells me if you actually ran the numbers, you'd see you're flying it slightly overweight...

Not being ridiculous, still waiting for your numbers.
And we have seats for 10, not 11.

You have a very light NG. 1200lbs full fuel payload means 150 per person including bags. I guess I have bigger friends than you do

Real world numbers are closer to 1000. Just as an example, the heaviest NG we have is 6753 BEW. That's sub-1000lbs full fuel payload. And these are real world numbers from actual airplanes. The range I see is between 6650 and 6750. All are 8 pax seat executive configs. Some have electric gear, some hydraulic.

So, when you make a general statement that a PC12 can haul 8 adults and full fuel, that only applies to a very narrow use case.

Just to give actual numbers: One of our NG's, with full fuel, you can have 8 people weighing 120lbs each, 0 bags, and be 37lbs under MTOW. And you can't have anyone in the first two seats in the cabin, that would take you off CG.

Plane would fly just fine even if you are over a bit. Something tells me if you actually ran the numbers, you'd see you're flying it slightly overweight...

JC is allergic to numbers, so you will wait a long time.

You can expect more character assassination instead. Knocking people down is his standard tactic. Best defense is to ignore anything directed at you personally and only address the holes in his arguments. Trust that the other readers of this thread are smart enough to figure things out and know who to believe. That is, if there are any left after this thread pollution.

Mike C.

JC is allergic to numbers, so you will wait a long time.

You can expect more character assassination instead. Knocking people down is his standard tactic. Best defense is to ignore anything directed at you personally and only address the holes in his arguments. Trust that the other readers of this thread are smart enough to figure things out and know who to believe. That is, if there are any left after this thread pollution.

Mike C.

Back to 500 versus 525...

How much of a difference is having thrust reversers versus not?

Specifically, do you find there are situations where the the JT15D airplane with TRs can get in and the FJ44 plane without TRs cannot?

Mike C.

I've flown various turbojet airplanes with TR's including a 500, and only the CJ without. TR's certainly are effective and provide real additional help in slowing down. I don't think you will find any factual date (i could be wrong) with regards to how much they help on 500 vs a 500 without them.

The dilemma with TR's is that you aren't able to calc the stopping distance with them. All distances are based on no TR's. However they do provide real additional effectiveness at slowing down......to a point. What I mean is that on the 500's (not CJ's) my perception was that at initial deployment the drag produced was felt immediately. The Rohr buckets are big and also act as thrust attenuators. Then when the spool up and actual reverse thrust (really transverse) comes into play you get another noticeable deceleration, but shortly thereafter it just become noise.

They are not nearly as effective as reversing propellers are on your turboprop.

With my 525 I've not yet had the sick feeling that it was going to be close or I wasn't going to be able to stop. (I've had that in my baron). But then in the winter I pay close attention to ficon ratings because all I have is brakes. If it's below average, I check, double check and re-check the charts for contamination and braking distances. Also, when you deploy flaps to 60 degrees at touchdown, and the speed brakes deploy, it is a good feeling of deceleration felt in the seat of your pants.

Do I wish the 525 had TR's? I don't think so. There would be a weight penalty for sure, and the maint they would likely require vs the benefits would irritate me.

Are you allowed to use TRs in the computation of distance in the case of a contaminated runway? Wet, standing water, snow, ice?

The Citation Ultra AFM gives numbers using the TRs. For example, picking a point in the tables:

Takeoff:

Dry: 4000 ft
Wet no TRs: <not easy to find>
Ice no TRs: off the chart, more than 15,300 ft
Wet with 1 TR: 4665 ft
Ice with 1 TR: 5710 ft

Landing:

Dry: 3000 ft
Wet no TRs: 4400 ft
Ice no TRs: off the chart, more than 16,600 ft
Wet with 2 TRs: 3040 ft
Ice with 2 TRs: 3990 ft

Sure looks like having TRs changes the numbers a lot, so it seems to be an operational advantage to the TR equipped airplane if you land on wet, snow, ice sometimes.

I've read more than one Citation pilot who said TRs saved them from an overrun.

Mike C.