EK,
Or a lady friend..........

Video of a CJ2 landing at KSDL. Nothing dramatic. Just first CJ2 video post.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/JvYtoayfjAI[/youtube]

Good video Mark. I still don't get a modern multi-million dollar jet needing all those gadgets on the glare shield to fly a trip. Maybe it's because as we get older, we need more help?

Good video Mark. I still don't get a modern multi-million dollar jet needing all those gadgets on the glare shield to fly a trip. Maybe it's because as we get older, we need more help?

Gadgets help a SP. not alot of room to juggle lots of paper charts and checkists. MH has one device for his electronic checklists. Another for charts and weather. He has built a nice nest with everything within reach.

Actually the 796 position is really good. I can run checklists and be “heads up”.

The charts and syn viz up there make a lot of sense too.

Easy to get heads down in a jet. Not good. Especially SP.

Nails the Captain's bars!

Audio must have been connected to Copilot audio panel? Lost you wh n you switched to tower and audio stayed on approach.

Nails the Captain's bars!

Audio must have been connected to Copilot audio panel? Lost you wh n you switched to tower and audio stayed on approach.

The CJ2 is a pretty cool but if you add the Tamarack winglets, it would be amazing. I wouldn't normally believe this but I flew the prototype at CJP last year. We climbed right to FL450 fully loaded at ISA plus 8. To put this into perspective, the CJ2 fuel burn at FL250 is about double what it is at FL450.

Tamarack says it can add 300NM range - I suspect that's corner case but even if 200nm is more realistic, it would still be amazing.

The best part is I don't think it is looked at as a "franken-plane" after the mod. I'm hearing that sellers are getting 100% back on their 250K investment.

The CJ3 has bigger engines than the 2 but it only burns a little more fuel. The reason it is only a "little" more is the bigger engines help it get to higher initial altitudes - if you flew the 3 on a trip at the same altitude profile as the 2, the difference would be more substantial. The CJ2 won't usually go all the way up to 450 so you have to fly lower (at higher burn rates) for some of the flight. If you bolt-on the winglets and can go all the way up, you'd get the savings of the smaller engines and the FL450 burn rates. This is the reason they are saying that the straight 2 is the best airplane for the winglets.

My concern is the large blind spot the 796 on the glare shield creates that makes it more difficult to scan for traffic. I just don't like anything obstructing my view.

If you believe the marketing material.

Winglets help, but not as much as Tamarack has said. They help less and less on planes already reasonably optimized for high altitude flight, like the CJ2+ and CJ3. CJ2 will get some benefit, but if you are expecting 300 nm more range, you will be disappointed, 100 nm would be more reasonable.

Note that Textron recently decided to stop installing the Tamarack winglets. Tamarack shifted to other providers, but the original plan was they would be sold through the Textron service centers.

Mike C.

I have a portable GPS in about the same place, Aera 560. The visual shadow of the GPS aligns with the windshield center post, so the true net loss of external vision is minimal in my setup.

Until you see it from the pilot's point of view, it can look like it obstructs the view, but that may not be significantly the case in actual fact.

Having a completely independent source for navigation, weather, mapping, and crude instruments is a good idea, IMO. If all else fails, the GPS will operate on internal batteries and get you home.

Mike C.

Besides at 450 there is little chance upi will encounter any 747’s for the like.

I'm more concerned about below FL180 where the bug smashers are flying VFR. A concern for the 747 is running over Citations. "Caution, slow moving target 12 0'clock."

747 max cruise altitude - 45,100

I made some good money from Citations....in overtime pay flying the 747. ATC - "747, reduce speed 100 knots, you're following a Citation to the airport."

Rarely, if ever, seen in domestic US airspace.

Few 747s do passenger duty any more, mostly cargo, where they do shorter legs, less fuel, more cargo weight/space. Check out PANC to see that in action. They are so heavy they never fly at FL450, most of them are in the low 30s.

Mike C.