BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2016, 23:47

Username Protected wrote:

I meant officially.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna-Ceases-Production-Of-CJ2-Jet-225489-1.html

Thats old news. It was reported earlier on the thread and why someone asked why the CJ2+ was discontinued that I answered.

You can't buy a new CJ2+ with Collins Proline 21 cockpit anymore. I am not sure Cessna built any CJ2+ in 2015.

Cessna will sell you a CJ2+ Alpine Edition as I described. A used CJ2+ with the same G3000 cockpit as in the CJ3+. See http://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation-service/featured-parts/alpine

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2016, 23:57

Username Protected wrote:

Charles- I understand your point completely. Having a plane is a great Time saver we all love.

I would just look at cash is king. If i have 500k wrapped up in a plane with zero loan , then the 500k is not giving me a monetary return. If I have a loan then the not is costing me. So owning a plane has it's expense.

In my career, I've flown multi - Billionaires that prob own the jet out right or have a very low interest rate but a billionaire could care 1 bit.

I think capex is included in Charles's numbers.
The end expense (or profit) is the only number that matters, utilization is the biggest variable, remaining cash is the result.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2016, 23:58

The AIN article seems to suggest they'll build a 2+ if asked but no one is asking.

Also seems like manufactured news with a reporter seeking confirmation of already known facts.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2016, 00:04

Username Protected wrote:

The AIN article seems to suggest they'll build a 2+ if asked but no one is asking.

Also seems like manufactured news with a reporter seeking confirmation of already known facts.

Because the last CJ2+ was delivered in 2Q2014. See http://www.gama.aero/files/2014GAMAShipmentReport07312015.pdf

Cessna finally decided to state the obvious that there has been no demand for it in 18 months. If someone really wants a new one they can build it. Plenty of slightly used ones to choose from in the market.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2016, 00:06

Username Protected wrote:

I've run the numbers on a bunch of jets and turboprops. The biggest expense for the jets, particularly later model more expensive versions is capital carrying cost and depreciation. They tend to dwarf everything else and drive the per mile cost up for a lower volume flier. Obviously, like all fixed costs the capital expense gets cheaper per mile the more you fly - but not quite the same with depreciation.

With the older airframes the increased fuel burns and higher maintenance costs tend to come to equilibrium with lower capital and depreciation expense. There's no free lunch.

The other big issue, that doesn't get talked about much is cost of time. Tim points out that there is a 30 minute time difference on a short trip between the MU2 and CJ2+. If you're flying for fun that may not matter. But when you're flying for business, particularly with more than one person, the cost adds up. You can add hours to your day by working longer until you can't. Then that 30 minutes begins to matter. And if the plane is newer, breaks less frequently and is easier to operate that saves time which again, if you're managing the plane yourself saves money (in your time). The more your time is worth the bigger the issue is.

Tony-- The logic that the cash gets cheaper the more you fly I don't follow... Interest or cash expense is what it is regardless if you fly 10 or 1000 annual... I feel the capital expense is a fixed expense just like your hangar.[/quote]

Tim I think we are saying the same thing. Capital cost is a fixed cost. The more you fly the lower it's impact is on hourly cost (or per mile for that matter) because the fixed number is divided by more hours of course.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2016, 00:58

Username Protected wrote:

Thats old news. It was reported earlier on the thread and why someone asked why the CJ2+ was discontinued that I answered.

I'm sorry, I missed that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2016, 14:19

Username Protected wrote:

An engine out in a jet (if operated as it should be) is an inconvenience, not an emergency.

As long as it has 2+ engines.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2016, 21:51

Sorry to disagree with the statement that an engine failure is not an emergency but it is.. It's great you have confidence in a jet but 1 engine can be very critical..

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2016, 01:27

Username Protected wrote:

It's great you have confidence in a jet but 1 engine can be very critical..

Engine out in a jet is trivial compared to a prop twin.

Just fly.

No prop to feather. No huge asymmetric thrust. No feathering the wrong engine.

The book even provides numbers for exactly how to do it and achieve the required performance. Those numbers are not even given to the prop twin pilot.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2016, 09:32

Username Protected wrote:

It's great you have confidence in a jet but 1 engine can be very critical..

Engine out in a jet is trivial compared to a prop twin.

Just fly.

No prop to feather. No huge asymmetric thrust. No feathering the wrong engine.

The book even provides numbers for exactly how to do it and achieve the required performance. Those numbers are even given to the prop twin pilot.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2016, 09:43

Quote:

Just fly.

If on take off, just fly with one foot hammered to the bulkhead!

but, less stress than a piston twin failure.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2016, 12:30

Username Protected wrote:

How about system lost, How about pressurization lost with only 1 pack, how about over water with 1 engine, how about lost of a generator on that engine, lost of redundant system...

The remaining engine maintains pressurization, electrical generation, and propulsion.

A multiengine jet has all of the benefits of being multiengine (redundant propulsion, systems) with little to none of the negatives of prop planes (large asymmetric thrust, high Vmc, demanding engine out drill, possible feathering of the wrong one).

In comparison, that is trivial.

When is the last time you heard of a jet having a Vmc roll over? Think about it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2016, 13:37

Username Protected wrote:

It's great you have confidence in a jet but 1 engine can be very critical..

Engine out in a jet is trivial compared to a prop twin.

Just fly.

No prop to feather. No huge asymmetric thrust. No feathering the wrong engine.

The book even provides numbers for exactly how to do it and achieve the required performance. Those numbers are even given to the prop twin pilot.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2016, 13:55

Username Protected wrote:

lost of redundant system... 1 engine ops can be handled but it's not trivial or similar to loosing a radio :

Lots of folks here fly around with less reliable and non-redundant systems then a Citation with OEI.

I know of only 1 inflight engine failure with a Williams engine CJ. That problem is now known and the affected engines have been changed by SB.

There was a problem with CJ2+/CJ3 Fuel Control Units where an engine would flame out when power was reduced at altitude. In all cases the engine was successfully restarted. The FCUs have now been changed.

There have been a few precautionary shutdowns due to things like low oil pressure indications.

Williams reports annually on their fleet experiences at Cessna and CJP meetings. The reliability of the Williams engines has proven to be great.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2016, 14:15

It helps having engines close to the center line.

The systems designed to help with the rudder, do fail.

On the larger turbofan wing mounted engines, if the rudder assist fails and the engine seizes.

You have your hands full. Lots of drag and no help with directional control.

Two pilots helps tremendously.

Allen Wolpert's Magic Carpet