Yes, basically true. The "new" wing allows faster cruise speed and slower takeoff and landing speeds, improvement at both ends, when compared to the 500/550 wing.


That's exactly why you should buy the orange, it works better than the apple.

The main downside to a V versus an Eagle II is the extra fuel it burns. But that isn't as large as delta as one might imagine, maybe 10-15% more per trip, due to better aerodynamics and higher altitude capability.

I looked seriously at Eagle II. The cruise speed impact of the fuel hump plus being a Williams slave turned me off. On a test flight at FL410, the example airplane couldn't go over about mach 0.64. That was uninspiring.

I think I can operate the V cheaper than an Eagle II. One, I don't over pay Williams for engine work and can shop that around, plus do HSI instead of full OH being part 91. Two, being faster means less airframe hours per trip which reduces maintenance costs. Three, I have a Textron provided low utilization inspection program which doubles my inspection intervals, the FJ44 modified legacy Citations don't get that option. Four, on at least a few flights, the V will go non stop and the Eagle II, despite the extra fuel, will require a stop. The west coast of the US is exactly in that range where this is an issue for me.

Mike C.

Outside of "home grown" versions of inspection programs, the only widely used other program is Bacon. Entry price is $20K plus $1500/year for "maintenance". The program splits a lot of things up into A and B segments of each phase (Textron doesn't). Also, when you sell, the plane instantly becomes unairworthy per FAA guidance since you are out of the factory inspection program intervals. You also have to get Bacon FSDO approved, which varies from district to district, the Textron one doesn't need FSDO approval since it is recommended by the OEM.

The Textron LUMP program is vastly superior to Bacon in every respect.


Have not done it actually yet, so can't speak to "real world", but based on experience so far and book numbers, expect it to be in the range of 1900 nm still air using long range cruise.


1043 lbs with full fuel (5814 lbs). The avionics upgrade really lightened my plane up. If you off load fuel to match Eagle II range, then I carry as much if not more.

If you get the gross up STC, then you get 400 lbs more to use. The STC basically gives you Ultra weights, 16,500 lbs max ramp, to use on a V. Downside is that it shortens main gear life. I don't have that STC since I doubt I will need it.

Mike C.

About mach 0.64, about as fast as an Eagle II can go.

Works out to:

365 KTAS at 730 pph, 2.00 lbs/nm

From the book at mid cruise weights and FL450, Cessna says:

MCT: 379 KTAS at 869 pph, 2.29 lbs/nm

LRC: 361 KTAS at 798 pph, 2.21 lbs/nm

Right in the range of 10-15% more fuel per mile. I have been besting book by about 2-3% but don't really know what it looks like at FL450 yet, so perhaps the book numbers are optimistic there.

If we stay at FL430:

MCT: 390 KTAS at 967 pph, 2.48 lbs/nm

Mid: 364 KTAS at 843 pph, 2.32 lbs/nm

LRC: 357 KTAS at 818 pph, 2.29 lbs/nm

We start to get a meaningful spread between MCT and LRC. Even at MCT, the fuel burn is 24% more, but the speed is 25 knots faster, too. At the same speed (Mid above), 16% more fuel.

I really expected a much lighter plane with an FJ44 to do better than that. The issue is the fuel hump on the Eagle II is just bad aerodynamically at high mach numbers, the air is being asked to change direction too quickly as it flows over it which essentially lowers critical mach number and creates a barrier to going faster. The Stallion (FJ44 but no fuel hump) does a lot better on fuel specifics, but you do have less range with stock fuel.

Mike C.

Sorry Mike, but.....

Yes, basically true. The "new" wing allows faster cruise speed and slower takeoff and landing speeds, improvement at both ends, when compared to the 500/550 wing.


That's exactly why you should buy the orange, it works better than the apple.

The main downside to a V versus an Eagle II is the extra fuel it burns. But that isn't as large as delta as one might imagine, maybe 10-15% more per trip, due to better aerodynamics and higher altitude capability.

I looked seriously at Eagle II. The cruise speed impact of the fuel hump plus being a Williams slave turned me off. On a test flight at FL410, the example airplane couldn't go over about mach 0.64. That was uninspiring.

I think I can operate the V cheaper than an Eagle II. One, I don't over pay Williams for engine work and can shop that around, plus do HSI instead of full OH being part 91. Two, being faster means less airframe hours per trip which reduces maintenance costs. Three, I have a Textron provided low utilization inspection program which doubles my inspection intervals, the FJ44 modified legacy Citations don't get that option. Four, on at least a few flights, the V will go non stop and the Eagle II, despite the extra fuel, will require a stop. The west coast of the US is exactly in that range where this is an issue for me.

Mike C.

Probably the least surprising statement of 2021 so far, but I was kind of hoping the interior at least looked a bit like this.

I mean, come on, it's a business jet and you have to impress potential customers. So in this sense glamour is functional.

What Garmin is really charging extra for is to keep spare gray boxes in stock.

Mike, that panel is gorgeous, however, it seems to violate your rule of always having a spinning hunk of metal for when the SHTF. What made you change your mind?

Mostly.

Overall, very nice. Three sources of weather: FIS-B, SXM, GWX 75 radar. Having charts on the PFD is very nice, hardly use my tablet any more.


My plane has no glamour, it is meant to be functional.

Garmin wanted $1K more per box for gray bezels, so I went with black saving $4K. I think the black looks just fine. I guess a gray panel means you have more money to burn? It doesn't cost Garmin a penny more to make a gray bezel, of course.

Mike C.

Outside of "home grown" versions of inspection programs, the only widely used other program is Bacon. Entry price is $20K plus $1500/year for "maintenance". The program splits a lot of things up into A and B segments of each phase (Textron doesn't). Also, when you sell, the plane instantly becomes unairworthy per FAA guidance since you are out of the factory inspection program intervals. You also have to get Bacon FSDO approved, which varies from district to district, the Textron one doesn't need FSDO approval since it is recommended by the OEM.

The Textron LUMP program is vastly superior to Bacon in every respect.


Have not done it actually yet, so can't speak to "real world", but based on experience so far and book numbers, expect it to be in the range of 1900 nm still air using long range cruise.


1043 lbs with full fuel (5814 lbs). The avionics upgrade really lightened my plane up. If you off load fuel to match Eagle II range, then I carry as much if not more.

If you get the gross up STC, then you get 400 lbs more to use. The STC basically gives you Ultra weights, 16,500 lbs max ramp, to use on a V. Downside is that it shortens main gear life. I don't have that STC since I doubt I will need it.

Mike C.

About mach 0.64, about as fast as an Eagle II can go.

Works out to:

365 KTAS at 730 pph, 2.00 lbs/nm

From the book at mid cruise weights and FL450, Cessna says:

MCT: 379 KTAS at 869 pph, 2.29 lbs/nm


Right in the range of 10-15% more fuel per mile. I have been besting book by about 2-3% but don't really know what it looks like at FL450 yet, so perhaps the book numbers are optimistic there.

If we stay at FL430:

MCT: 390 KTAS at 967 pph, 2.48 lbs/nm


We start to get a meaningful spread between MCT and LRC. Even at MCT, the fuel burn is 24% more, but the speed is 25 knots faster, too. At the same speed (Mid above), 16% more fuel.

I really expected a much lighter plane with an FJ44 to do better than that. The issue is the fuel hump on the Eagle II is just bad aerodynamically at high mach numbers, the air is being asked to change direction too quickly as it flows over it which essentially lowers critical mach number and creates a barrier to going faster. The Stallion (FJ44 but no fuel hump) does a lot better on fuel specifics, but you do have less range with stock fuel.

Mike C.

Hey Mike, does your V have an SPZ-500? Do you have VNAV? I have 2 G600s and 2 GTN750s so similar setup to yours.

My instructor and I went up for our first flight today. Everything worked perfectly except we could not get the VNAV button to do anything. We were flying an RNAV approach and the altitudes were listed on the 750 in White which is supposed to mean than can be VNAV'd.

Once at the FAF, Approach mode captured the glideslope just fine (same for the ILS we did as well) and it flew great. Just would not VNAV with the other fixes.

I have never used VNAV in the Cirrus as there is usually just one or 2 altitudes on an approach. But w/ the jet I know I will be doing STARs and such and having VNAV for those would be nice.

Pretty sure the spz doesn't have Modern vnav capability. When the G600 comes...

SPZ-500 VNAV is very rudimentary and only works with VOR/DME waypoints (you need a valid VOR TO/From signal and DME distance). Essentially you set up a vnav target altitude and distance offset from the VOR/DME.

Hi Terry. Thank you for the info. I figured since the Garmin could feed heading and altitude info to the SPZ-500 that it could feed in VNAV. Ok, Altitude bug it is until the GFC600 is STCd.