Mark, seriously amend that order and go the plaid. It’s so much fun. Penman is right.

Andrew

I'll agree that ISA is everything. We manually log trends once per day. TAS at 35,000 feet has ranged from as low as 325 to 351 depending on temps. Same with climb performance. We bought the plane in cooler temps and I was genuinely amazed with the performance over the winter. That faded a bit when summer came, but all in all a great plane.

Does Cessna publish two engine operative takeoff roll and takeoff over 50'? I've got a Mustang performance excerpt from the AFM, but what I have is all OEI data. I'm curious what the numbers are for those two distances at gross at sea level at ISA and 6,000' at 30*.

70k. Then $100/hr unlimited. 5 devices

If they did, would it matter? Would you actually rely on it for a short field takeoff?

They don't publish it because the FAA wouldn't allow it, and Cessna doesn't want pilots to have those numbers in their heads. What if you lost an engine at Vr? If you've done your OEI calculations you'll be fine, which is why they only publish OEI data. If you're relying entirely on two-engine normal performance, you're about to die in a plane crash after losing the engine. Thus, the normal two-engine takeoff roll and 50' clearance becomes moot and simply isn't important in a jet.

The exact same logic applies to any twin engined airplane. Yet they publish those numbers for (at least some) twins with a propeller.

So I agree the result makes jets have a better safety margin. But it comes at a cost of reduced potential utility if one is willing to allow additional risk in some situation.

If they did, would it matter? Would you actually rely on it for a short field takeoff?

They don't publish it because the FAA wouldn't allow it, and Cessna doesn't want pilots to have those numbers in their heads. What if you lost an engine at Vr? If you've done your OEI calculations you'll be fine, which is why they only publish OEI data. If you're relying entirely on two-engine normal performance, you're about to die in a plane crash after losing the engine. Thus, the normal two-engine takeoff roll and 50' clearance becomes moot and simply isn't important in a jet.

Why? It would be meaningless. Apples to oranges

The additional risk in those other situations simply isn’t worth it. Life or death scenario. I know that can be hard to grasp, but that’s the reality.

Why? It would be meaningless. Apples to oranges

I like data too. I understand what you’re saying. The FAA just doesn’t want data published that pilots could use against themselves. They go to great lengths to define “legal takeoff.”

Are you guys with mustangs comfy on a 3500 ft runway?

It depends on conditions. Low elevation, normal temp, usually 3,000 will work. As you you get higher and/or warmer, you need more.

I‘m going to EDAQ about 4 times a year. 3675 ft, ELEV 350. Usually 2 or 3 adults. Last time 5 adults, but only 1500 lbs of fuel. No problem at all. EASA requires me to have a 20 % surcharge on landing distance above 50 ft obstacle (part NCC OPS).

At that day with 5 POB, 1500 lbs, 20 C, no wind, that were LD 2,400 ft + 20 % and TOD (BFL) 2,800 ft, dry runway. But even wet would be easy to do for a well trained pilot.

2700 ft would have been fine for me back in my mustang days (sea level of course and standard temp)