2400 ft runway is not out of the realm of possibility for the right jet.

Yesterday at X01 was about 20 C, 0 MSL, and about 10 knots down runway 33. I could land at 13,400 lbs (4,200 lbs useful) and I could takeoff at 13,400 lbs (4,200 lbs useful), oddly symmetric.

The landing distances are 50 ft threshold height and without TRs. If you cross the threshold at 10 ft and use TRs, you can knock at least 1000 ft from those numbers. At some realistic landing weight, I can make the midfield turn off, too. I have landed in 1400 ft before without being super aggressive.

The takeoff distances are assuming engine failure at V1 and reaching 35 ft AGL by end of the runway, or stopping on the remaining runway if the engine fails before V1. Did you meet accel stop and accel go for an engine failure at any time during the takeoff process? The Commander might, the MU2 wouldn't.


My takeoff being under gross means I wouldn't make it 1550 nm non stop departing X01, so that would require a fuel stop. For 1000 lbs cabin load, I'd have 3,200 lbs fuel which would be enough to go halfway in light winds.


You can't make any promises about what a Commander will cost to maintain, either.

I am WAY under $1500 an hour for maintenance. I suspect I will be about what my MU2 was, around $200/hour. The jet has longer inspection intervals (6 years for the major phase 5) which explains why it can be about as cheap as the MU2.

Mike C.

Hmmm…

He said he turned off at the half way point of a 2400’ runway.

And once again, you’re under $1500 an hour because you leave out engine reserves. That’s very misleading, I miss the Mike C. who valued accuracy over hyperbole.

I’m impressed that the parts on your plane last longer and cost less simply because you have a longer inspection interval.

It’s like the Williams engine that lasts longer when you write a check to Williams.

They do because the parts aren't constantly played with for unnecessary inspections and thus subjected to lower wear and less chance for maintenance induced faults. I'd say about a third of my squawks are maintenance induced.

If something fails between inspections, it gets fixed, but that's no different if the inspection is every 6 years or every 6 months.

Additionally, costs are reduced because the overhead of inspection disassembly is paid only once in 6 years.

Lastly, up time is increased by not having the plane in the shop so often. My up time in 2023 for scheduled events, when the plane was available for flight, was all but about hours. 8 hours was for the 10,000 inspections, 4 hours for phase 18 (safety), and 8 hours was phase 20 (transponder, static, RVSM). No service event lasted more than one work day. I was down 2.5 days for the hydraulic leak AOG event, so that's not ideal, but an inspection would not have caught that.

So the increased inspection interval leads to higher up time, lower costs, and less wear and tear. The MU2 had an inspection every 100 hours or 1 year, which was way too often.

We greatly over inspect our planes. Every year for a 172 is ridiculous when much of my jet can go 6 years. If I was king for a day, I change annual inspections to be every 2 years and I predict the safety record impact would be positive if anything.

Mike C.

They do because the parts aren't constantly played with for unnecessary inspections and thus subjected to lower wear

For sure many of my maintenance issues were inspection induced.

I just had to take my plane in to fix all the stuff that was wrong after the last major inspection. When you mess with things they tend to break.

My radar alt box broke because they were messing with the flaps for an inspection. lots of examples of this happening. My jet is built really well and very little issues between inspections.

Same Thing in my line of work. We go upgrade something in a system and usually something else breaks because we are there. Just how it is.

Mike

The old adage - "don't attack your plane with tools, unless absolutely necessary" rings true.

My oh my…

I'm still fixing the ones from the Textron service center, like the wrong ignitor leads on the right engine.

Any time you take apart an airplane, there is a chance things don't go back together properly or you do collateral damage to something.

One of my evaporator fan shrouds was busted because a mechanic stepped on it when the floor boards were up. It is a cheap blow molded plastic part but you can't replace it any other way than buying a whole evaporator assembly. We repaired it with a fiberglass wrap instead which will make it last a lot longer. We also fiberglassed the second evaporator assembly as a premptive measure.

Mike C.

Anything in the hydraulic system.

Hooking up a mule for ground testing, which occurs every 3 years or 450 hours on my LUMP as opposed to 2 years and 300 hours normally, creates the opportunity to inject contaminates into the system. The mule connections can never be perfectly clean, and the mule reservoir fluid may not be perfectly clean. Thus new fine particles can come into the system every time the mule is used.

This will wear out pumps, valves, actuators, etc, more quickly the more often you do it.

Another more obvious item are fasteners that hold things together since they get removed during disassembly. This leads to a lot of screw and nut plate replacements at each inspection since I insist on those being right. The first time we did this, the number of wrong screw sizes and nutplates we found was staggering. I spent a better part of one whole day replacing nutplates all over the plane.

The primary advantage of longer inspection intervals is less chance for maintenance induced failures, and lower labor costs for reduced amount of disassembly and reassembly. Once a plane is working well, nice to keep it that way for longer. The first hour after the inspection is vastly more dangerous than the last hour before it, so it is best to minimize those instances.

Mike C.

Anything in the hydraulic system.

Hooking up a mule for ground testing, which occurs every 3 years or 450 hours on my LUMP as opposed to 2 years and 300 hours normally, creates the opportunity to inject contaminates into the system. The mule connections can never be perfectly clean, and the mule reservoir fluid may not be perfectly clean. Thus new fine particles can come into the system every time the mule is used.

This will wear out pumps, valves, actuators, etc, more quickly the more often you do it.

Another more obvious item are fasteners that hold things together since they get removed during disassembly. This leads to a lot of screw and nut plate replacements at each inspection since I insist on those being right. The first time we did this, the number of wrong screw sizes and nutplates we found was staggering. I spent a better part of one whole day replacing nutplates all over the plane.

The primary advantage of longer inspection intervals is less chance for maintenance induced failures, and lower labor costs for reduced amount of disassembly and reassembly. Once a plane is working well, nice to keep it that way for longer. The first hour after the inspection is vastly more dangerous than the last hour before it, so it is best to minimize those instances.

Mike C.

The items in question last way longer than the inspection intervals. Textron says I can go 6 years between inspecting some items, yet a 172 can't. Makes no sense.

Some items are directly worn out by excessive inspection, nut plates are one of them. Every inspection is another opportunity to introduce maintenance induced faults as well.


He does because I can take care of fiddly things like nut plates, he doesn't have to assign someone to the job that was already committed to something else, and the plane gets out of his shop on time. They are not short on work.


Because it wouldn't have gotten done at the last inspection, I hate having any fasteners not exactly right, and I enjoy fixing things.

I also learn more about my plane every time I work on it. I am a frugal involved owner. The hands off owner is at the opposite end of the spectrum, which sounds like your customers for the most part.

I actually spend more time helping other owners with their planes than I work on mine, BTW. Today I researched part numbers for an inertial reel for a toilet seat in a 560 for someone, and I reviewed a JetTech Garminization quote for a new owner of a 550 to help him ask the right questions, and I made comments on the JetTech vs Columbia STC forum on CJP.

I like to learn from other people's problems. It is cheaper than learning only from mine and it generates good will for others. I like figuring out ways to keep airplane ownership costs down.

Mike C.

I have been a big beneficiary of Mike Cs knowledge philanthropy. He has saved me a great deal of worry, time, and money. An incredible asset to the CJP community. I could justify the annual fee just to read his comments. Which is great, because I could not afford his hourly rate.

Speaking of the Phenom 300E.

The advertised range is 2010nm with NBAA IFR alternate.

Does the aircraft do better than book, as in can you reliably meet that target of 2010nm at M0.74 which is just above LRC or do you need to slow right down to gat that specified range?