20 Apr 2024, 10:12 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 22 Jun 2018, 22:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Citations are cool because you can do this easily Amazing, a pilot who can land without a touch down marker wasting 1000 ft of runway. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 23 Jun 2018, 08:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/29/13 Posts: 13587 Post Likes: +10972 Company: Easy Ice, LLC Location: Marquette, Michigan; Scottsdale, AZ, Telluride
Aircraft: C510,C185,C310,R66
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Citations are cool because you can do this easily Amazing, a pilot who can land without a touch down marker wasting 1000 ft of runway. Mike C.
Getting in is only half the battle. Getting out with enough fuel leagally is the other half. #onlygottobewrongonce
_________________ Mark Hangen Deputy Minister of Ice (aka FlyingIceperson) Power of the Turbine "Jet Elite"
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 23 Jun 2018, 08:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/05/09 Posts: 4963 Post Likes: +4796
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
|
|
KMVM, parked next to my friend's V. TR thrust came out at 60kts but buckets stay out at idle. Used 1,800ft at 9,500lbs, book is 2,100 no TRs. I have 1,600lbs and my friends V has 3,000 which is plenty to get me 12 minutes to gas up.
Could a CJ1 or CJ3 do 2,900ft safely ?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 23 Jun 2018, 08:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/16/10 Posts: 2031 Post Likes: +886 Location: Wisconsin
Aircraft: CJ4, AmphibBeaver
|
|
Username Protected wrote: KMVM, parked next to my friend's V. TR thrust came out at 60kts but buckets stay out at idle. Used 1,800ft at 9,500lbs, book is 2,100 no TRs. I have 1,600lbs and my friends V has 3,000 which is plenty to get me 12 minutes to gas up.
Could a CJ1 or CJ3 do 2,900ft safely ? In my CJ with calm winds, 9500 lbs the app says 2740'
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 23 Jun 2018, 08:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/29/13 Posts: 13587 Post Likes: +10972 Company: Easy Ice, LLC Location: Marquette, Michigan; Scottsdale, AZ, Telluride
Aircraft: C510,C185,C310,R66
|
|
Username Protected wrote: KMVM, parked next to my friend's V. TR thrust came out at 60kts but buckets stay out at idle. Used 1,800ft at 9,500lbs, book is 2,100 no TRs. I have 1,600lbs and my friends V has 3,000 which is plenty to get me 12 minutes to gas up.
Could a CJ1 or CJ3 do 2,900ft safely ? from APG.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Mark Hangen Deputy Minister of Ice (aka FlyingIceperson) Power of the Turbine "Jet Elite"
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 24 Jun 2018, 15:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/11 Posts: 213 Post Likes: +106
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here are some real world engine numbers for a 1A at 370 at MCT, TAS was 340kts I know it's a Cessna vs Cessna thread, but I couldn't help noticing that you're burning almost twice as much as you used to when you owned an Eclipse, Mike, but now you're going slower : I like the video you posted. Ken
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 24 Jun 2018, 16:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I couldn't help noticing that you're burning almost twice as much as you used to when you owned an Eclipse, Mike, but now you're going slower The Eclipse is the most efficient jet ever made. That includes even comparing it to the SF50. Maybe someone in the future will design and build a viable twin jet of similar parameters. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 24 Jun 2018, 20:05 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/05/09 Posts: 4963 Post Likes: +4796
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here are some real world engine numbers for a 1A at 370 at MCT, TAS was 340kts I know it's a Cessna vs Cessna thread, but I couldn't help noticing that you're burning almost twice as much as you used to when you owned an Eclipse, Mike, but now you're going slower : I like the video you posted. Ken
No doubt the Eclipse is super efficient!! Apples to Apples, my picture was -40C so it was rather toasty up there, it would definitely do a little better on the TAS at -59C.
What the 501 lacks in fuel economy, it offers:
1) baggage space (severely lacking on the Eclipse) 2) Human being space to stretch out 3) Flushing toilet (fortunately not used yet) 4) Cheap parts. In 90 ish hours of flying, I have spent about $200 in parts on a flux gate compass and a Hobbs meter. That compass is $10K on the Eclipse. -90 hours is probably $12-15K more in gas in the Citation versus the Eclipse. I am pretty sure something at least equally pricey would have failed on the Eclipse more than "Eclipsing" the Citation's appetite for fuel. 5) Citation is a better short field airplane with the reversers. 6) Zero dependence on software or proprietary parts.
Both great airplanes! Fly on!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Citation 500 Series vs Citation Jet 525 Series Posted: 24 Jun 2018, 23:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/11 Posts: 213 Post Likes: +106
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 5) Citation is a better short field airplane with the reversers. Do thrust reversers reduce the AFM landing distance in your plane? In most planes, they do not. In any event, your 2900-foot runway at 95 MSL is within the capability of the Eclipse without the complexity of reversers and paddles. Rollout at ISA would be about 1800 feet. As you recall, a number of Eclipse owners are based at fields *shorter* than KMVM. I do agree with your point that you have a lot more space in your plane. If you're actually using it, that makes considerable sense. If you're paying twice the fuel to haul around an empty cabin, not so much. You wouldn't be alone in doing that--lots of folks pay to haul around more space than they're routinely using. Ken
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|