banner
banner

19 Jun 2021, 14:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 1264 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 ... 85  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 May 2021, 16:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/02/13
Posts: 35
Post Likes: +32
Location: Salt Lake City KSLC
Aircraft: C414, C501SP
Mike Tarver-
Do you know if Jettech or Columbia Avionics are starting the STC work to put the Garmin GFC 600 into a 501? My SPZ 500 autopilot does do a good job 98% of the time, but replacing the autopilot along with adding the G600Txi would turn the 501 into a truly modern aircraft. The 2% of the time the autopilot does go wonky it is on approach when I am transitioning from GPS or heading mode into ILS and approach mode. For whatever reason the autopilot doesn't capture correctly and starts me off course. This is usually when Salt Lake approach has me keeping my speed up to stay in sequence so maybe I am just blowing through the ILS signal too fast and it can't capture. Anyway a modern autopilot would be the finishing touch to all the other great Garmin avionics we can put into these part 23 aircraft.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 May 2021, 16:54 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4073
Post Likes: +3461
Aircraft: G44, R44, C501, A109
Username Protected wrote:
Mike Tarver-
Do you know if Jettech or Columbia Avionics are starting the STC work to put the Garmin GFC 600 into a 501? My SPZ 500 autopilot does do a good job 98% of the time, but replacing the autopilot along with adding the G600Txi would turn the 501 into a truly modern aircraft. The 2% of the time the autopilot does go wonky it is on approach when I am transitioning from GPS or heading mode into ILS and approach mode. For whatever reason the autopilot doesn't capture correctly and starts me off course. This is usually when Salt Lake approach has me keeping my speed up to stay in sequence so maybe I am just blowing through the ILS signal too fast and it can't capture. Anyway a modern autopilot would be the finishing touch to all the other great Garmin avionics we can put into these part 23 aircraft.


Jet tech definitely has it in the works. I’d say it’s a year away


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 May 2021, 17:37 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 13363
Post Likes: +16329
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEVV
Aircraft: MU-2B-26, C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I’d say it’s a year away

At least 2 years.

They are going to start at the top of the legacy series, 560 and work down. 560 might be done 2H2022.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 10 May 2021, 10:05 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/06/20
Posts: 74
Post Likes: +63
Location: KRVS
Aircraft: G6 SR22
Username Protected wrote:
I’ve got plenty of barrel seats (yes, you can mount one where the galley is). I also have 2 full swivel ultra seats, an extra avcon side and aft divan too. I really like the barrel with the extra bench .

Has anyone done the avcon side divan but left the rear alone? I believe that would get you to 8 seats while retaining the refreshment center and aft lav. I liked that setup when I was looking at long-body MU-2s.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 18 May 2021, 00:39 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 02/03/13
Posts: 439
Post Likes: +80
Location: Caldwell Tx
Aircraft: Cheyenne I, 501 SP
Username Protected wrote:
Why did you take your type rating ride as a crew?

Insurance requires sim initial at Simcom or Flightsafety. This seemed to be the rule for any zero jet time guy regardless of other experience.

Neither Simcom nor Flightsafety offers a CE-500 initial course with embedded SPE.

Best they can do is CE-500 crew initial, then an entire SPE recurrent separately afterward.

Since I need 50+ hours mentoring, I chose to do CE-500 crew initial now. I thought it best to start with mostly crew ops and then gradually become more single pilot as the time progresses. Once I have fully transitioned to single pilot ops with a mentor, then I will be ready for the SPE course. This way I maximize my training value since the SPE recurrent resets my 61.58 clock instead of that already counting down.

Further, the SPE requires 3 takeoffs and landing in the actual airplane, which I wouldn't have at the initial, so I didn't meet the eligibility requirements for the SPE course.

Mike C.


Falcon Ins will insure SP if you have previous turbine or turbo prop time even if minimal time
I had 326 turbo prop time prior to 501 SP
Most all DPE 's will not give SP lic without 3-12 months as crew first is my experience if no Jet time
our 501SP has no lav and 2 barrell seat with 4 club, belted lav in back (bucket and kitty litter never used yet)
First time tried non stop
11R to MYEH 3 weeks ago 1181 KM at 37-39K 3:01 hrs none stop landed 1200+#
Different story coming home
The 501 for me is a great travel machine, we have 12,500 wt mod
Very pleased! GTN750xi and roll steering last yr, new interior!
All squawks and plane is up to my standards. next is paint maybe next yr

No REGRETS with 501SP for my use!
_________________
Have A Great Flight !!!

Gary


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 19 May 2021, 14:57 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/11/20
Posts: 21
Post Likes: +2
Company: Ace Welding
Aircraft: PA32, 55 Baron
Gents -
I've lurked all 80 pages of this wonderfully informative thread, and you guys have me thinking about a 501.

I'm currently flying a colemilled B-55, and looking at the next airplane. I've been looking at Cheyenne III's, Conquests, and MU2's. My mission is family flying with my wife, two boys and family friends. I realize the jets will burn twice the fuel, but it sounds like on the LUMP program the maintenance wouldn't be excessively higher.

Can anyone tell me if I'm missing something, and what the performance considerations look like?

We tend to operate out of smaller fields, mostly on the west coast, and I'm hoping for some counsel. I'm based at a 4600 ft strip at 3000 ft elevation, and have an away hangar at Bandon, S05, which is 3600 ft at sea level. What field lengths are you guys willing to accept? Anyone regularly operate out of a 3 to 4000 ft strip? What's a balanced field at sea level with full fuel and four on board?

TIA!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 19 May 2021, 15:18 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +148
Username Protected wrote:
Gents -
I've lurked all 80 pages of this wonderfully informative thread, and you guys have me thinking about a 501.

I'm currently flying a colemilled B-55, and looking at the next airplane. I've been looking at Cheyenne III's, Conquests, and MU2's. My mission is family flying with my wife, two boys and family friends. I realize the jets will burn twice the fuel, but it sounds like on the LUMP program the maintenance wouldn't be excessively higher.

Can anyone tell me if I'm missing something, and what the performance considerations look like?

We tend to operate out of smaller fields, mostly on the west coast, and I'm hoping for some counsel. I'm based at a 4600 ft strip at 3000 ft elevation, and have an away hangar at Bandon, S05, which is 3600 ft at sea level. What field lengths are you guys willing to accept? Anyone regularly operate out of a 3 to 4000 ft strip? What's a balanced field at sea level with full fuel and four on board?

TIA!

Gabe, depends on your empty weight, but you can get an idea here:


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 19 May 2021, 15:28 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/11/20
Posts: 21
Post Likes: +2
Company: Ace Welding
Aircraft: PA32, 55 Baron
Thanks Ian


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 19 May 2021, 19:49 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4073
Post Likes: +3461
Aircraft: G44, R44, C501, A109
Username Protected wrote:
Gents -
I've lurked all 80 pages of this wonderfully informative thread, and you guys have me thinking about a 501.

I'm currently flying a colemilled B-55, and looking at the next airplane. I've been looking at Cheyenne III's, Conquests, and MU2's. My mission is family flying with my wife, two boys and family friends. I realize the jets will burn twice the fuel, but it sounds like on the LUMP program the maintenance wouldn't be excessively higher.

Can anyone tell me if I'm missing something, and what the performance considerations look like?

We tend to operate out of smaller fields, mostly on the west coast, and I'm hoping for some counsel. I'm based at a 4600 ft strip at 3000 ft elevation, and have an away hangar at Bandon, S05, which is 3600 ft at sea level. What field lengths are you guys willing to accept? Anyone regularly operate out of a 3 to 4000 ft strip? What's a balanced field at sea level with full fuel and four on board?

TIA!


I go into 2800 foot strips at 4300 ft elevation and keep it at a 3900ft strip taking off at gross. Easy.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 19 May 2021, 20:06 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/11/20
Posts: 21
Post Likes: +2
Company: Ace Welding
Aircraft: PA32, 55 Baron
[I go into 2800 foot strips at 4300 ft elevation and keep it at a 3900ft strip taking off at gross. Easy.[/quote]

Thanks Mike, I was hoping you would chime in. Any thoughts on skipping the TP step?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 20 May 2021, 07:18 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +148
Username Protected wrote:
Thanks Mike, I was hoping you would chime in. Any thoughts on skipping the TP step?

Personally, I would prefer to go with a bidet but I don't know how much water supply you could fit in the 501 lav, and whether a bag-type potty could handle the water runoff from a bidet.

Where are the French designers when you need them???

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 20 May 2021, 10:06 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 995
Post Likes: +992
Location: Hot 'n High
Aircraft: Various
Username Protected wrote:
Thanks Mike, I was hoping you would chime in. Any thoughts on skipping the TP step?

Personally, I would prefer to go with a bidet but I don't know how much water supply you could fit in the 501 lav, and whether a bag-type potty could handle the water runoff from a bidet.

Where are the French designers when you need them???

:coffee:

Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 20 May 2021, 10:52 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/06/20
Posts: 74
Post Likes: +63
Location: KRVS
Aircraft: G6 SR22
Username Protected wrote:
Thanks Mike, I was hoping you would chime in. Any thoughts on skipping the TP step?

I am heading down this path myself. Over the past several months I have been talking myself from a pressurized piston twin (Cessna 421C), to a turboprop (Cessna 441 or MU-2 Marquise), to a 501SP. All of my reading tells me that jets are safer at the expense of much higher fuel burn. When I say safer, I mean that OEI performance is better than a piston or turboprop and engine failures are easier to manage (engines closer to centerline, no huge prop windmilling, etc). Of course jets add their own complications. Altitude being one of them. As the only pilot in my family, I am a little nervous about the comfort of wearing an O2 mask for long periods. Plus everything happens faster in a jet so you have to be on top of your procedures and not get behind the airplane. Lastly, jets can't slow down like a turboprop so you have to be careful and not get too fast on approach and eat up all your runway floating.

The systems are different but I don't think they are any more complex than piston once you learn them. Heck they are probably simpler. Last flight I wasn't watching my CHTs and they ended up on the cold side. I started feeling a miss every 10 seconds or so. Added some mixture and it smoothed out. Pistons are pretty complicated, we have just learned how to run them - the jet will just be different.

I view the type rating/training aspect as a non-issue. I do annual training now and would do so no matter what I was flying. Sure, it's nice that I can do my training locally now, but I don't view it as much of a burden in exchange for much greater performance.

I am going to work on my MEL rating in a few weeks. After that I hope to start down the path. I have hangar space covered (Current FBO monthly increases $100/month for the larger plane). Need to find a mentor pilot, service center, figure out insurance (big one), where/how to do my type rating, etc.

Right now I'm having fun learning and dreaming!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 20 May 2021, 11:00 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 13363
Post Likes: +16329
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEVV
Aircraft: MU-2B-26, C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I go into 2800 foot strips at 4300 ft elevation and keep it at a 3900ft strip taking off at gross.

Before declaring this is a non issue, I'd take the AFM and run some numbers for various weights and temperatures to be sure it can do what you need it to do. Elevated temps, weights, altitudes can add significantly to runway distances.

I'd also note that the pilot is part of the system here, so you have to be on speed and precise to get the numbers in the book. You will also use more brakes and tires to get them as well.

There is quite a lot of margin in the numbers by design, however. On landing, it assumes a 50 foot threshold crossing height and no thrust reversers. Crossing the threshold lower and using TRs will make you land much shorter than book numbers. On takeoff, the numbers are to 35 foot height by end of runway with one engine failure at V1. Under normal circumstances, you have both engines and you will be off the ground well before book numbers.

All this is to point out that something can be "easy" when things are routine, but can be marginal when things are not. In reality, flying a 501SP out of a marginal field (per the AFM numbers) is going to be vastly safer than flying a Baron off any airport.

The most common jet mistake is too fast on approach. An extra few knots can add significantly to the landing distance. This has been my biggest adjustment, I am used to 130 knot approach speeds and stopping on a dime, that doesn't work in the jet.

There is no particular reason to fly a turboprop first if you have enough money to transition to the jet. If you have enough talent to fly the turboprop, you have enough talent to fly the jet. Expect at least 50 hours, maybe 100 hours to transition to flying it solo, however. Still cheaper than doing a turboprop step.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 20 May 2021, 11:13 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 13363
Post Likes: +16329
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEVV
Aircraft: MU-2B-26, C560V
Username Protected wrote:
As the only pilot in my family, I am a little nervous about the comfort of wearing an O2 mask for long periods.

At FL350 and below, 91.211 says you don't have to be wearing a mask. None of the passengers have to wear a mask generally, either. With two crew, one pilot needs a mask above FL410. This is the most busted regulation in jet flying, however.

A stock 501SP probably doesn't want to be above FL350 all that often. Gets kind of wheezy up higher.

Quote:
Plus everything happens faster in a jet so you have to be on top of your procedures and not get behind the airplane.

Not as much as you might think.

The busy time is takeoff out of busy airspace. But you can manage that by simply using less power. Approach and landing is quite serene, actually, compared to what I am used to in an MU2. Vref is going to be about 100 knots which isn't a whole lot more than a Baron and you aren't fiddling with a fistful of engine levers on short final, either.

Quote:
Lastly, jets can't slow down like a turboprop so you have to be careful and not get too fast on approach and eat up all your runway floating.

This is important. But it can be solved easily by doing one thing: if you are fast, go around. Don't try to force it down. Do that simple thing and you will avoid these problems.

Quote:
Pistons are pretty complicated, we have just learned how to run them - the jet will just be different.

Piston engines are VERY complicated. Nobody talks about LOP/ROP in the turbine world, for example (hint: all turbines are LOP!).

Here's an extreme example:
Attachment:
1280px-Let-200D_Morava_2010_03.jpg

14 levers, basically all the same shape, size, and color.

How is that simpler?

Mike C.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 1264 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 ... 85  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2021

.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Microkit_85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.southseas-85x50-2021.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.aspen-85x100.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Flaremeter_85x50_v2.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.SierraTrax_85x50.jpeg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.dynon-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-05-24.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.