I might!

But the thing that has turned me off on the JT15 Citations is how wheezy they get climbing to altitude. One example, an SII like the above, took 43 minutes to FL370 and didn't make it to FL410 until 2 hours into the trip. I checked others, and that was pretty typical.

I've kind of gotten use to an airplane with ample power, climb to its ceiling directly, and this just feels lame. I wonder how it would be if this was in icing or some other situation that robs performance.

Mike C.

FIFY.

Mike C.

FIFY.

Mike C.

Welcome to the jet world. You will learn that temperature plays a huge role in performance flying a jet in the upper fight levels. My Lear will typically make it to FL390 from takeoff in around 13 minutes at 17,000 lbs. Climb performance drops off rapidly after that, and 410-450 is painfully slow. Don't even think about trying to go to FL450 until you get under 15,000 lbs. If it's ISA + anything, forget about 'climbing directly to it's ceiling.' It has nothing to do with having 'ample power.' This is a dynamic environment. Sorry if that feels 'lame' to you.

Another story, I did a demo flight in a Lear 60XR. Certified ceiling FL510. I had a Bombardier test pilot in the right seat. Just the two of us in an otherwise empty airplane, only around 2500 lbs of fuel left, and I tried every 'trick' possible to nurse the plane up to 51,000 feet. I got about 50,600 feet and 50,601 was not going to happen unless we burned down to our landing fuel. The factory pilot admitted to me that the only time he had taken them to FL510 was when they were green (without interiors installed). The plane was very happy at FL450, and I think there is nothing 'lame' about a Lear 60.

If you absolutely have your heart set on a williams powered legacy citation, I think the Super SII is the plane to have. Although, as others have already said, I believe you will find that a V does everything you would want it to do at a lower cost.

Whatever you choice, you will definitely enjoy flying a Citation. They are all much easier to fly than your MU-2 (or any turboprop really), and once you spend a few hours in one and you will never want to get back into anything with propellers.

Welcome to the jet world. You will learn that temperature plays a huge role in performance flying a jet in the upper fight levels. My Lear will typically make it to FL390 from takeoff in around 13 minutes at 17,000 lbs. Climb performance drops off rapidly after that, and 410-450 is painfully slow. Don't even think about trying to go to FL450 until you get under 15,000 lbs. If it's ISA + anything, forget about 'climbing directly to it's ceiling.' It has nothing to do with having 'ample power.' This is a dynamic environment. Sorry if that feels 'lame' to you.

Another story, I did a demo flight in a Lear 60XR. Certified ceiling FL510. I had a Bombardier test pilot in the right seat. Just the two of us in an otherwise empty airplane, only around 2500 lbs of fuel left, and I tried every 'trick' possible to nurse the plane up to 51,000 feet. I got about 50,600 feet and 50,601 was not going to happen unless we burned down to our landing fuel. The factory pilot admitted to me that the only time he had taken them to FL510 was when they were green (without interiors installed). The plane was very happy at FL450, and I think there is nothing 'lame' about a Lear 60.

If you absolutely have your heart set on a williams powered legacy citation, I think the Super SII is the plane to have. Although, as others have already said, I believe you will find that a V does everything you would want it to do at a lower cost.

Whatever you choice, you will definitely enjoy flying a Citation. They are all much easier to fly than your MU-2 (or any turboprop really), and once you spend a few hours in one and you will never want to get back into anything with propellers.

This is the reputation. Got any evidence or data from an actual situation?

I can see how it would be in Williams interest to spread such a belief. I just want to be sure it has a basis in reality.

With the prices Williams charges, they should give the engines free to the OEMs. Maybe they basically do...

Mike C.

If you wait two or three years you can probably get a used SF50 for $1.5.

10 minutes to 10,000 ft, 28 minutes to FL280, 45 minutes to FL370 feels lame to me.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N499 ... S/tracklog

One wonders about what the climb rate would have been with one engine out. This plane looks like it couldn't do a number of ODPs with an engine failure.

Nominal book figures for an SII are 3,040 FPM and 860 FPM OEI. I understand temperature plays a role, it affects me, too, but this feels like this is more than that. The departure temperature at KSJC was 29 C, or ISA + 14.

Put my current plane next to this one and I reach 10,000 ft in half the time and beat it to FL280 by a few minutes under the same conditions.

Mike C.

Or less when it sinks in that the SF50 is a short range, fuel guzzling, no useful load airplane.

If I want to go faster, higher, farther, more load, then many turboprops win, such as 441, Commander 1000, even what I got now.

The SF50 is not in play, EVEN IF it makes its numbers.

It also seems things are not progressing with the SF50 according to schedule. Cirrus said they'd have performance data in April. October and nothing yet...

Mike C.

10 minutes to 10,000 ft, 28 minutes to FL280, 45 minutes to FL370 feels lame to me.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N499 ... S/tracklog

One wonders about what the climb rate would have been with one engine out. This plane looks like it couldn't do a number of ODPs with an engine failure.

Nominal book figures for an SII are 3,040 FPM and 860 FPM OEI. I understand temperature plays a role, it affects me, too, but this feels like this is more than that. The departure temperature at KSJC was 29 C, or ISA + 14.

Put my current plane next to this one and I reach 10,000 ft in half the time and beat it to FL280 by a few minutes under the same conditions.

Mike C.

The problem I found with the small jets is the wing.

It's a compromise between landing speed and cruise speed. Without a more complex wing you end up with a slow landing speed that's great for getting you into the small airports but your cruise speed is 75 to 100 knots slower than it should be.

Or you can cruise at 450kts but your landing at 140kts.

It's seems more prevalent the older the jet.

Alex said:

We landed at Branson a couple of weeks ago, about 7pm. Had a squat switch miscompare, called our maintenance, they called Cessna. The next morning at 9am there was a Cessna truck there...downloaded data, trouble shot, and traced it to a broken ground crimp connector. Ready by about 2pm, departed on schedule.
Could not have been better service.

I thought the problem was, that I landed too softly to compress the squat switch....

Jeff H.

True with some...but the CJ4 is good for 440, and the reference speed makes King Air pilots nervous. (98-110)

(enjoying what I could never afford)

Jeff H.

The CJ4 has a different wing than the previous CJs which allows for a higher cruise speed and still a reasonable approach speed. It is part of the newer generation of small jets that have found some answers to the compromise between cruise and landing speed.

Even with that a 747 or 777 will blow right past a CJ4 in cruise.

Yeah, but they won't fit in my T-hangar