You can work with a VFR reserve of 600 lbs and IFR reserve of 800-1000 lbs for the M2.

It looked "nice", so mostly a cosmetic feature.

No Mach 0.63 airplane needs wing sweep. Just serves to make the wing structure more complex for no gain, especially at the exceedingly small sweep angle of the Mustang. The legacy 500 series and CJs are all straight wing and they go to Mach 0.75 on some models.

Mike C.

Wrong again. Certainly he didn’t say it was “cosmetic.” It’s not about speed. Where did the design originate? What did the engineer tell you about it?

micro market?

micro market?

Can't wait to see full year 2018 GAMA results. I'll bet 4th quarter was good.

yeah, my flight planning showed I would use 2700 to 2900 pounds. Some days 2500 to 2600. What is it, 3300 total usable. So I was concerned. Probably get more accurate numbers with the Cessna app.
I must have an error somewhere, I'll try some more. Winter winds aloft are part of the problem.

Impossible... world is in chaos. Uncertainty everywhere.

gama gama is that french?!

I just out it in FF with the M2 profile for 1000nm leg, with 20kts headwind got 2350lbs. I think 2000 is probably a but light on.

Andrew

yeah, my flight planning showed I would use 2700 to 2900 pounds. Some days 2500 to 2600. What is it, 3300 total usable. So I was concerned. Probably get more accurate numbers with the Cessna app.
I must have an error somewhere, I'll try some more. Winter winds aloft are part of the problem.

I agree John, I have frequently checked Fltplan.com on ABE-OPF and most days it seems very tight. Cessna feels though it can be done almost every day.

Clint - Sure you didn't use Mustang data when you looked at this - I just ran the numbers on flight aware and with no wind the Mustang uses almost exactly 2000 lbs for an 1100 nm trip. The M2 will use about 20% more on that trip.

I've found the Fltplan.com data for the M2 to be pretty conservative. I was landing with over 200# more gas than planned repeatedly on maximum range trips. In a jet this small, that's a big deal and the difference between another passenger or a fuel stop or not. Because I'm a nerd, I looked at their raw data in the profile and compared it to the flight planning and performance manual. No idea where the numbers came from, but definitely not from raw Cessna data.

I started on a new Fltplan profile but as I started I realized they only allow one weight and temperature per profile. Cessna's EOM software has the full performance manual but is a standalone application with no filing/routing/briefing function and I find it cumbersome to use. As a compromise I put low/mid/high weight and ISA data into a Garmin Pilot profile (LOTS of typing/math since Cessna and Garmin don't use the same criteria all the time) to get a more usable and accurate planning solution. It's dead on (within 50#) barring ATC delays/unforecast weather.

The result of all my time in the performance manual was a realization that although the numbers Fltplan.com spits out are "close enough" for all the piston aircraft I've flown as well as the Caravan, and probably also close enough for a larger jet with more payload flexibility, for the M2 maximizing range requires more precision than it offers in my opinion.

Somewhat related tangent if anyone from Garmin's listening: Right now the Fltplan/Garmin Pilot integration is basically useless to me for this reason. I'd like to be able to use Fltplan for scheduling/department administration/etc and have trips push to my iPad. But, all I get on my iPad is the Fltplan navlog. I can't use the much more accurate Garmin performance model, or the integrated weight and balance I've configured. I also can't easily modify the route, loading, or anything else from the app. Hopefully in the future there's a melding of the best of both worlds.