S&P and Nasdaq circuilt breakers tripped this morning. Elevator straight down in many markets. Hope everyone is O.K. There goes my jet money

No worries here. Work another 30!

Oh that's right the kids want me outta the way.

There's a conundrum.

Flew CE550 out of Telluride (9000 ft msl) to Phx today. 10 people. (5m5f). 12,500 lbs. 11C. 10 knot headwind. Balanced field was 5500. 0 flaps. Full power. Release brakes. Climbed like a champ. 2500 feet a minute. Never a doubt. Pretty good.

And gas is a giveaway. This is the perfect time to be flying a legacy Citation. Low entry and great fuel prices.

That is an impressive BFL for that weight and DA.

And gas is a giveaway. This is the perfect time to be flying a legacy Citation. Low entry and great fuel prices.

That is an impressive BFL for that weight and DA.

2975 lbs. we have the gross weight increase as well.

Great. My charts at home only go to 7,000 feet. I'd have to look at the STC to see what we could do at 9,000, but what you showed gives a lot of nice options.

For fun, I ran the same numbers for an SII (S550), takeoff distance is 4200 ft, 1300 ft shorter than the II. SII V1 is 92 KIAS versus II 108 KIAS which is the major reason.

This assumed the takeoff weight was the same, 12,500 lbs, which wouldn't be fair if the SII empty weight is meaningfully higher (I don't know that this is so).

To get 5500 ft takeoff distance, the SII could weigh 14,200 lbs, so it can carry more fuel or payload by quite a lot as the empty weight can't be that much higher.

The SII has a mixed reputation, so much so Cessna brought back the straight II due to customer demand, but the new wing is quite a bit better at both ends, takeoff/landing and cruise.

Mike C.

From two manual. Dave...you have to look in the section of the manual related to the weight increase to get ththe se charts. It is different than the standard section that assumes no weight increase.

For fun, I ran the same numbers for an SII (S550), takeoff distance is 4200 ft, 1300 ft shorter than the II. SII V1 is 92 KIAS versus II 108 KIAS which is the major reason.

This assumed the takeoff weight was the same, 12,500 lbs, which wouldn't be fair if the SII empty weight is meaningfully higher (I don't know that this is so).

To get 5500 ft takeoff distance, the SII could weigh 14,200 lbs, so it can carry more fuel or payload by quite a lot as the empty weight can't be that much higher.

The SII has a mixed reputation, so much so Cessna brought back the straight II due to customer demand, but the new wing is quite a bit better at both ends, takeoff/landing and cruise.

Mike C.

Yea, I agree. V or II with upgraded engines are great.

The V has the "new" SII wing design, though with "conventional" deice setup.

560 at 12,500 lbs, +10C, +10 headwind, 9000 ft, is 3310 ft runway, 90 KIAS V1. But that's not really fair as the V is likely 500 lbs heavier empty than the II. Upping it to 13,000 lbs, the runway distance becomes 3570, V1 92.

The less distance than the SII is due to high output engines.

The V can go up to gross weight, 15,900 lbs, and still beat the runway distance of the II at 12,500 lbs, under your conditions. 15,900 lbs, 9000 ft, +10C, +10 headwind, runway is 5360 ft for V.

Mike C.

Thanks Mark: I had those numbers. We have a gross weight increase STC and I was wanting to look at those to see where the limits were for our higher weight. What I had at home only went to 7,000 feet. Still appreciate what you posted. Shows the plane is quite capable at that altitude and temp with a reasonable flight distance. Last summer, I took off at full gross from Tampa with full full and flew to Madison Wisconsin. Landed with more than an ample IFR reserve even though it was VMC near the destination.
The V does climb faster and haul more but it's a medium jet to most. The II seems to be a light of small jet to most FBOs where I land which helps on fees. What I most like about the V is being able to fly at FL410 or 430. The II just can't get up there, especially, in warm or hot weather.

Flew my first SP trip on Sat in the 550. The stats:

KSDL Scottsdale 7 ABQ KSAW (Marquette Mi).
1409NM
Started at FL350 ended up at FL390
Winds variable 20 knots on tail
Time enroute: 4 hours even
Avg Ground Speed: 352 knots
Fuel consumed: 3930 lbs (586 gal)
Landing reserve: 1078 lbs
Fuel burn/hour 982lbs (146.6 GPH)
Flew it around 100% N1 vs 104% limit.
Fuel cost $796
Rental rate $900 hr
Total cost $4,400


In the 310 the same trip
9 hours including fuel stop
Fuel at 30gph = 240 gals
Fuel cost $960
Trip cost @$500/hr = $4,000

So $400 more expensive in the Citation but it saved 5 hours and I was in the clear most of the time.

Great trip! Sounds like you were light or it was cold. Heavy and hot I stay in the mid 30s. Tailwind sure helps a trip like that. Must have been VMC at destination. I'd sure want more fuel IFR with low ceilings and fuel to alternate.
These things are really great at times like this one!