Why get a 550 when you can get a 560?

A meaningful move up in speed/range while losing minimal economy will mean a Williams powered citation. LRC in the old standard citations is barely faster than cruise in the MU2.

Yes, the S550 has my attention, but when I look at the planes doing long legs on flightaware, they struggle to get to the mid 30s and it takes hours for them to get above 40. That really eats into range and seems pretty marginal.

I'll have to decide if I want to trade off lower purchase price for wimpy engines, shorter range, and higher fuel burn. I'm also not a big fan of thrust reversers which seemingly all S550s have despite that being officially an option.

An S550 with Williams is a 2400 nm plane. You could go to Hawaii with that.

My feeling today is choosing between a 501SP with Williams and an S550. The 501SP will basically not go non stop to the west coast, but will get me home non stop. It is smaller, cheaper, lower cost to operate. The S550 with Williams will get me anywhere non stop and carry more people should I need it. I figure I will do about 8 west coast trips a year, so that is 16 extra fuel stops in the MU2, 8 in the 501SP Williams, maybe 4 in an S550 JT15, and none in an S550 Williams. The advantage of the 501SP is single pilot with no funny business.

Mike C.

A 560 is basically a 550 slightly stretched with higher thrust engines, but still JT15. Cabin profile is the same.

So not that much different. The 550 cabin is already more than I need.

Mike C.

Can you elaborate on the "event"?


What parts were subject to that much corrosion per year?

Mike C.

A 560 is basically a 550 slightly stretched with higher thrust engines, but still JT15. Cabin profile is the same.

So not that much different. The 550 cabin is already more than I need.

Mike C.

I realize the JT15D-4 (2500 lbf) and JT15D-5A (2900 lbf) are different, yet not that much.

The Williams FJ44-3A used on the S550 conversion is 2820 lbf, or almost the JT15D-5A thrust on the Citation V, yet on a lighter airframe, and the engine weighs 100 lbs lighter than the JT15D-4, and lighter still with no TRs. The FJ44 also has a much higher bypass ratio, 4.1:1, versus the JT15D, 2:1.

All in all, the FJ44 uses 18% less fuel for the same thrust per the SFC numbers I saw.

Mike C.

A 560 is basically a 550 slightly stretched with higher thrust engines, but still JT15. Cabin profile is the same.

So not that much different. The 550 cabin is already more than I need.

Mike C.

The JT15D-5 powered 560 is capable of climbing up to FL410 while the SII is stuck at 350 burning the same fuel and going slower so the fuel economy is probably better on the 560. There are more differences in those 2 engine models than the thrust rating. I think you have your bypass numbers backwards, the FJ44-3A is a low bypass engine with relatively poor fuel specifics at low altitude. It is amazing what it does up high though.
Having flown all models being discussed, I'd rather have a nice MU2 than an old 501 or 550. No way you're going to operate is as cheap as you think, I spend more than that on a much newer and simpler CJ.

Mark, what is the range of the 560 at the HSC of 425 you mentioned?

Erwin

Figure 1700-1800.

Want to be descending after 4 hours. Avg fuel burn on that type of trip 150-160 gph.

Love the V. The II not so much.

That said, I am relatively new to jets. Just 100 hours in the 550 and 100 hours in the 560 last six months. Still learning.

I have owned 3 different -10 Commanders. I would stick with the Commander over a 550. I would take the 560 over the Commander.

I have time 7 hours in a Sierra 501 and and .5 in a Sierra 550. Good performers. I still choose the 560.

That's only 1355 nm, which isn't very impressive, especially considering you don't always make it with 861 gallons of fuel.

According to the TCDS. fuel capacities are:

550: 742 gallons
S550: 863 gallons
560: 861 gallons

The S550 actually has more fuel than the 560.

The straight 550 is not really a contender for me.

Mike C.

I have heard back from ICAO regarding validity of the single pilot exemption. Below I have posted the ICAO response and the referenced FAA document is attached.

This exemption would only be valid within the U.S. A. It only applies to U.S licences (because the training/checking is by FAA approved training organization and personnel). Outside the U.S.A., pilots are required to respect the AFM limitations including the 2-pilot crew requirement. This exemption cannot change the certification of the aircraft.

When operating outside the USA, a U.S. registered aircraft must comply with its AFM, which stipulates a 2-pilot crew. The exemption is only valid where the FAA has jurisdiction, and where another State accepts the exemption.

Anyone whose interest runs deeper on this issue pm me and I can get you the contact info of the person at ICAO.

The above is what I have been led to believe all along, and is the reason that I decided to pass by the SII Williams aircraft. I would hate to spend all the money and effort only to be hasseled about the two crew issue depending on where I go.

Wow. That's a huge negative. Who wants to buy a long range jet you can pretty much only fly in your own country?

Wow. That's a huge negative. Who wants to buy a long range jet you can pretty much only fly in your own country?