Costs as much per mile as the 501SP.

Especially when you factor extra miles for headwinds and weather.



You can spend $150K on a King Air, too. The difference is that the jet is worth it.

Mike C.

I took the short field out of the equation because there isn't any plane that will meet all of the requirements. The reason I picked the Citation II over a I is the additional seats, range, added speed and better climb capabilities. A Citation SII, is even better but may cost more than the 500-600k for a good one. There are a bunch of really good Citation IIs out there in that price range. If you get a good clean one, the maintenance will be the same or less than most turboprops.

As Mike said, there is no comparison between the safety of a jet versus a TP. A jet is so safe, especially the Citations which are not only safe, they're very easy to fly.

I think a Citation 550 or possibly a 1SP would be a good choice. Sure, you eliminate some runways that are <4,000’, but the gains are more than worth it. Lots of qualified pilots, good range, speed, altitude choices, etc.

On a std day the difference between SE performance on most SP jets and particularly the older sp jets is not much different than some TPs

Then consider the affect of DA on the jet and the difference becomes much greater in favor of the TP

Except you don't have to feather the prop and deal with the drag and missing lift of a big piece of metal sitting out on the wing. The jet will easily out perform the TP with very little effort.

NTS and autofeather has negated much of that. Centerline thrust is better though.

Whatever drag you think the prop induces is already baked into the numbers.

I don’t know a lot about these questions and answers except that the need to use a 2,500’ to 3,000’ runway will be really really rare....there aren’t that many around ! Oh, maybe he is talking grass strips

You speak of numbers, but you haven't used any.

How about giving numerical examples to back up your point.

Mike C.

When Steve speaks of the "numbers" he is referencing the POH SE performance numbers. When you are in the left seat those are your life-lines after a thrust failure.

Also, what makes people think there is drag from a dead-engine prop but none from a dead-engine jet? There is a LOT of air-flow obstruction from all the various compressor and turbine wheels, and they don't feather.

A feathered prop represents a very small drag profile - in fact the engine cowl and frontal profile is much higher in air resistance.

And remember that all this drag is an exponent (or square-law) factor, so the usually faster jet speeds would have an exponentially severe affect. The drag from a dead jet engine at 50 kts faster (jet speeds) could be 10 times the drag profile from a feathered prop/engine profile. Thats 1/2 rho Vt Squared.

You don't need to do math in your head - just rely on the POH numbers. But all the while keep thinking about how an extra 20 kts carries a HUGE profile drag factor. There's more than one way to run out of rudder authority.

Bob

58p--tight in the back.

Seems to me that you can look at who is still in the market, and see which airframes have stood the test of time and vetting of the market. You get what you pay for. I think this individuals mission and price just don't match up. So he needs a different mission, or a different price range.

58p--tight in the back.

He claimed the TP was similar to the jet, so I am awaiting real numbers to judge.


There are several reasons why the dead engine jet is better.

First, the pilot doesn't have to do ANYTHING to the engine to get the least drag.

Second, the pilot can't feather the wrong one.

Third, the jet engine adverse yaw is FAR less being much closer to center line.

Fourth, the operating engine is closer to center line as well.

Fifth, the jet engine is simply more powerful, so the operating engine gives you more power to handle the situation.

Sixth, the jet engine frontal area is relatively small and its non operating drag is relatively low.


That's not entirely clear to me since the blades have substantial twist and therefore there is drag from that.

In any case, the cross section area of a jet engine is not much different than the cross section area of a turboprop.


But jet speeds aren't really faster. 550 is lifting off at 106 KIAS and during initial climb (engine out) is at V2 of 114 KIAS (which one can think of as Vxse). The 980 Commander Vxse is 97 (which is unusually low due to excessive wing area). Just not enough different to matter, and those effects are baked into the numbers already. The extra drag from too big a wing cancels the reduced drag of low Vxse.


That's bogus.

You can see that in the single engine cruise charts for the jet. At FL230, the 550 is doing 241 knots, single engine. I absolutely guarantee the Commander 980 isn't doing anywhere near that on one engine. Your theory would say the jet should be slower from much higher drag, and it isn't, by a long shot, at high speeds.


But higher airspeed is a great reduction in induced drag. That's all factored into the numbers and the design of the aircraft.

Mike C.

Or the four most important?

Ha, says the man who flies left seat in his own Mustang! Funny guy!