banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 16:50 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 1769 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 ... 118  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2021, 19:40 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
Username Protected wrote:
The PC-24 is certified under part 23 and uses 1.14 Vso for Vref

@14,000# F33 Vref is 93kts

At 16,000 lbs, flaps 33, the PC-24's stick pusher fires at 78 KIAS. Adjusted for 14,000 lbs, that would be about 73 KIAS. 93/73=1.27. And 73 KIAS is above actual stall, of course.

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2021, 22:39 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Totally random data point:

The Robertson STOL-equipped Cessna 337 uses 1.06!!!! Vso for an approach speed for "utmost performance." I think it's totally nuts and terrifying. The plane flies like a piece of living room furniture at that speed, but the chest of drawers has better forward visibility.

Vref 53 mph, Vso 50 mph.

That speed is "For the professional pilot who requires the utmost performance from his Robertson STOL Skymaster consistent with safety when operating from austere or high altitude strips or during emergency conditions."

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2021, 09:42 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/23/09
Posts: 1067
Post Likes: +560
Location: KSJT
Aircraft: PC-24 Citabria 7GCBC
Username Protected wrote:
The PC-24 is certified under part 23 and uses 1.14 Vso for Vref

@14,000# F33 Vref is 93kts

At 16,000 lbs, flaps 33, the PC-24's stick pusher fires at 78 KIAS. Adjusted for 14,000 lbs, that would be about 73 KIAS. 93/73=1.27. And 73 KIAS is above actual stall, of course.


Ian,
Splitting hairs here but I see 74 KIAS as the pusher activation speed 14,000#s. Pilatus likely calculated the 1.14 based on aerodynamic stall vs the "stick pusher stall" in the charts. Actually, Pilatus does not publish the 1.14 x Vso in the AFM. The 1.14x is in the Honeywell ACE Pilot Guide which per the AFM is required to be aboard the aircraft.

Quote:
The dynamic speed bug is shown as a green arrowhead ( < ) adjacent to the speed tape and is calculated approximately as 1.14 * VSTALL. The dynamic speed bug may be used by the pilot to provide a safe approach speed in all configurations (all flap settings, ice mode 1 and 2, corrections for air brake extended, and steep approach configuration) without the need to calculate the correct speed according to the aircraft mass.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2021, 18:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/01/15
Posts: 225
Post Likes: +185
Location: Kcrq
Aircraft: KA F90, Premier 1A
That seems contrary to certification regs which state not less than 1.3 Vso. This would also mean an AOA of greater than 0.6.

Can you give a numerical example at some landing weight and configuration?

Mike C.[/quote]

The Premier has 2 angle of attack sensors, but it does not display a percentage of lift. It only displays a green line on the airspeed indicator that represents 1.23 times the stall speed in the current configuration. This works out to be very close to the calculated Vref, like 1-3 knots. It is used as a backup for the Vref. If they are not close then there is something wrong.

Bob


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2021, 23:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1914
Post Likes: +1167
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
I know its somewhere in this long thread... but I have several specific questions:

Legacy Citation Overhaul is due at 3500 hrs (corecct?).
How often is hot section due 1750 (correct?)

Does part 91 have to overhaul at 3500?
I find this:
https://skyway-mro.com/flex-program-ove ... its-jt15d/
Looks like 25K + cost of a hot section to get to 5250 hours.

What is the price range low/high for a hot section?
How much would it cost to buy a used engine with 1000 hrs remaining?
How much to do an overhaul?
How much to put a G600 and GTN750 into one of these with an old steam panel?
Rough interval for phase 1..5 and costs?
Annual cost?
Liability only insurance for someone with 500 hrs of pressurized twin time but no jet time?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 08 Aug 2021, 08:13 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4946
Post Likes: +4781
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
I PMed you but brief answers below

Username Protected wrote:
I know its somewhere in this long thread... but I have several specific questions:

Legacy Citation Overhaul is due at 3500 hrs (corecct?). Right
How often is hot section due 1750 (correct?) right (50 he grace)

Does part 91 have to overhaul at 3500? NO
I find this:
https://skyway-mro.com/flex-program-ove ... its-jt15d/
Looks like 25K + cost of a hot section to get to 5250 hours.

NOT NEEDED PART 91.

What is the price range low/high for a hot section? $10-120k, $55 average
How much would it cost to buy a used engine with 1000 hrs remaining? $100-120k
How much to do an overhaul?
How much to put a G600 and GTN750 into one of these with an old steam panel? See my other thread, $265 all in.
Rough interval for phase 1..5 and costs? 1-4 is $7500, phase 5 is $15 ish
Annual cost? Not much more than an Aerostar
Liability only insurance for someone with 500 hrs of pressurized twin time but no jet time?
. Easy, $4-5k


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 08 Aug 2021, 11:26 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
NOT NEEDED PART 91.

Correct. Part 91 doesn't need this TBO extension STCs or programs, simply do the HSI and keep going. The STCs and other things exist for part 135 or other operators who aren't allowed to fly past TBO, or for part 91 operators who don't know the rules.

Quote:
What is the price range low/high for a hot section? $10-120k, $55 average

Credibility of this answer would be greatly enhanced with pointers to shops that can meet those prices. They seem optimistic from my research. It doesn't take replacement of many HT blades to easily blow up an HSI budget.

Quote:
How much to put a G600 and GTN750 into one of these with an old steam panel? See my other thread, $265 all in.

It varies with your choices and what you have to trade in. Mine was $234K. I didn't spend $4K extra to get gray bezels, for example, a way Garmin tries to tax higher end airplanes. I kind of like the black bezels anyway.
Attachment:
virb-view-1.png

I didn't go for TCAS 7.1 which would blow up the budget a lot, but limits my international footprint quite a bit. This isn't an issue for a 501 due to the rules excusing it from TACS 7.1. I did have two GTX 3000 units which I sold to offset some of the costs, and got GTX 345/335 units in return. The market for the old removed stuff is collapsing as more airplanes do this upgrade, so the credit for the old stuff will be less as time goes by.

Quote:
Rough interval for phase 1..5 and costs? 1-4 is $7500, phase 5 is $15 ish

Again, I find those optimistic based on my research. Pointers to a shop that can achieve those numbers would provide credibility.

Some numbers for BASE prices:

Phase 1-4:
Sierra 2012 catalog prices: $9,978
Textron 2020 prices: $15,730

Phase 5:
Sierra 2012 catalog prices: $23,749
Textron 2020 prices: $45,000

The Sierra prices are way old, so keep that in mind, I would multiply by 1.5 at least. The work often goes well above base prices.

Quote:
Annual cost? Not much more than an Aerostar

If you put the airplane on a LUMP (low utilization maintenance program), and have a good condition airplane, and find one of the most economical shops around, and the Aerostar is a maintenance hog, maybe.

My LUMP extends phase 1-4 to every 3 years, 450 hours (was 2/300) and phase 5 to every 6 years, 1200 hours (was 3/1200). That's a huge cost reducer. I fundamentally believe we over inspect our planes and cause more damage by doing so, thus I don't feel this is unwarranted. This means you are in for heavy maintenance only every 3 years.

A prime driver in maintenance cost is owner involvement. You can save a ton by helping to precisely debug what is wrong and finding parts. Most jet owners are "here are the keys, call me when ready" and most jet shops are "replace the most expensive part to see if that fixes it, and buy it from Textron at full retail or even with a mark up". That combination leads to breathtaking expenses, and often the problem is not solved.

Quote:
Liability only insurance for someone with 500 hrs of pressurized twin time but no jet time?
Easy, $4-5k

$1M/$100K liability only can probably be had for that or even much less. My policy with W Brown was for $2M liability smooth which was $3,000 premium, $900K hull which was $14,850 premium. I would assume a liability only policy would have a higher premium than bundled. The 560 V has more seats, so a 501 will be somewhat less.

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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 08 Aug 2021, 13:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1914
Post Likes: +1167
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
I have my A+P and would do all the non inspection and trouble shooting maintance myself. I don't believe I should be inspecting a plane I fly regularly, I don't see what I don't see.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 08 Aug 2021, 21:23 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 727
Post Likes: +340
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
>To find best endurance in any aircraft just pull the power levers back to whatever speed you feel comfortable above stall.

No not true....
Once you are below minimum sink it takes more power to maintain flight.
IE once you start getting really slow when practicing slow flight you need to add power to maintain altitude.
(Also some theoretical differences here between prop and jet, having to to do with the fact that the prop imparts the energy to a larger "Disk" of air vs the jet putting all the energy into a smaller disk. so the relative velocity of the accelerated air is lower and power imparted/lost to the air goes up as Velocity ^2)


If you need to add power to maintain altitude then you're no longer comfortably above stall...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 08 Aug 2021, 22:52 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
Username Protected wrote:
>To find best endurance in any aircraft just pull the power levers back to whatever speed you feel comfortable above stall.

No not true....
Once you are below minimum sink it takes more power to maintain flight.
IE once you start getting really slow when practicing slow flight you need to add power to maintain altitude.
(Also some theoretical differences here between prop and jet, having to to do with the fact that the prop imparts the energy to a larger "Disk" of air vs the jet putting all the energy into a smaller disk. so the relative velocity of the accelerated air is lower and power imparted/lost to the air goes up as Velocity ^2)


If you need to add power to maintain altitude then you're no longer comfortably above stall...

Israel, can you flight test it? Would be interested to know what your AOA reads when you are flaps & gear up at minimum fuel flow in level flight.
_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2021, 09:23 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 727
Post Likes: +340
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
>To find best endurance in any aircraft just pull the power levers back to whatever speed you feel comfortable above stall.

No not true....
Once you are below minimum sink it takes more power to maintain flight.
IE once you start getting really slow when practicing slow flight you need to add power to maintain altitude.
(Also some theoretical differences here between prop and jet, having to to do with the fact that the prop imparts the energy to a larger "Disk" of air vs the jet putting all the energy into a smaller disk. so the relative velocity of the accelerated air is lower and power imparted/lost to the air goes up as Velocity ^2)


If you need to add power to maintain altitude then you're no longer comfortably above stall...

Israel, can you flight test it? Would be interested to know what your AOA reads when you are flaps & gear up at minimum fuel flow in level flight.[/quote]

Does the altitude matter? I’m scheduled for a short repo flight tomorrow. Probably at 5-7k feet. I’ll report back the ff and aoa. But the ff is probably the variable as I won’t be comfortable beyond a .6 or so aoa.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2021, 11:41 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
Username Protected wrote:

Does the altitude matter? I’m scheduled for a short repo flight tomorrow. Probably at 5-7k feet. I’ll report back the ff and aoa. But the ff is probably the variable as I won’t be comfortable beyond a .6 or so aoa.

In theory the altitude shouldn't matter. To properly test if lowest fuel flow happens at 0.6, it will be necessary to fly at more than 0.6 (say 0.65) to see if fuel flow increases. But of course don't do it if you think it's not safe.

Also of course test at 0.55 to see if fuel flow increases compared to 0.6.

However, I just want to confirm you have the standard AOA gauge that claims to show best L/D at a reading of 0.6?

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2021, 18:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1914
Post Likes: +1167
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
More questions...
Called up the local simulator place to ask how much a C500 type would cost.

Short version...
13K but it will say SIC required.
The FAA sent a letter to ALL CE500 type sim schools telling them that and inital type
for the C500 would include the SIC required and as a result they have no process to
get a type without the SIC required.

They can do a type in the 525 without the SIC required, but they can't do a CE500 type without the SIC required tag.

They said it might be possible to get a CE500 inital type in an aircraft without the SIC, but it won't be possible to do in their level D sim.

(Just talked to someone that `does inital types in the actual airplane and they claim that the SIC is not an issue and that one can get an intial CE500 with as little as 4 hours in the actual plane.)

What gives?
What is the process to get an unrestricted CE500 type rating?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2021, 18:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/24/10
Posts: 8324
Post Likes: +6540
shoot, I wanna hear about the repo flight.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2021, 19:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/17/21
Posts: 87
Post Likes: +42
Aircraft: C550
Got my CE500 rating in the plane no SIC required .


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 1769 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 ... 118  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 2007-2024

.Marsh.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.