18 Apr 2024, 06:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 13 Sep 2019, 05:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/11/11 Posts: 2252 Post Likes: +2215 Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
|
|
There is a reason for the CJ1 weight increase.
The airframe and engines are exactly the same, but the average BEW of the CJ1 fleet is around 400 pounds heavier than the CJ on account of the added weight of the PL21 package. If Cessna would have installed the PL21 without the GW increase, the useful load would have been unmarketable. The GW increase was achieved by changing a couple of actuators and components in the main landing gear - nothing else. According to John Hall of Premier Jet Aviation, at one point, Cessna was going to sell a GW increase kit to retrofit earlier CJ's, but marketing killed that effort because they feared it would undercut CJ1 sales (hopefully they will revive it some day).
The CJ1 also has a half baked PL21 with no FADEC which the CJ1+ does have (along with more power). My CJ's BEW is 6450 while a typically equipped CJ1 will be pushing 7000 lbs or more. The CJ has an MTOW of 10400 while the CJ1 has an MTOW of 10600, but they both have the same engine and power - and you know what weight does to performance. On my CJ I have a full fuel payload of 770 lbs, while the full fuel payload of a typical CJ1 is going to be around 380 lbs.
Further, maintaining that early generation PL21 is quite expensive especially if one of those screens goes blank. If you want to keep it cheap, the HW flight deck can be upgraded with dual GTN750's and you will have a more capable flight deck than the PL21 CJ1 with its dated FMS.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 13 Sep 2019, 05:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/09/13 Posts: 911 Post Likes: +449 Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Any other differences in engines or systems? Alex Nailed the comparison. As he said the PL21 is Frankenstein I’m the CJ1 with the UNS1 not the FMS3000. The only other thing I can think of is the fuel transfer system. The CJ (well most of them) pull the fuel from the tank selected to the engine, the CJ1 transfers it from the tank to tank. The price differential between the CJ to CJ1 doesn’t make sense to me. Andrew
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 13 Sep 2019, 20:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/11/11 Posts: 2252 Post Likes: +2215 Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Alex,
Thank you for your insight. What is the fuel capacity of the CJ?
John It's 3220 lbs (official) and it will go up to 3400 to the tabs if you overfill it but you cannot take this extra fuel into account for your calculations.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 14 Sep 2019, 16:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/16/10 Posts: 2031 Post Likes: +886 Location: Wisconsin
Aircraft: CJ4, AmphibBeaver
|
|
I have some bias but think a G1000 CJ is a really good value. Competes in similar territory price wise as a CJ1, but has much better avionics and usually a bit better payload by over a couple hundred pounds.
When I go train in the sim with PL21, I'm just amazed at how much more work it takes to get reacquainted with those avionics. Don't get me wrong the PL21 is solid and has a few things I like, I don't like how scattered it is.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 14 Sep 2019, 22:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6778 Post Likes: +7323 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have some bias but think a G1000 CJ is a really good value. Competes in similar territory price wise as a CJ1, but has much better avionics and usually a bit better payload by over a couple hundred pounds.
Just important to remember that as of now, that G1000 install is frozen in time. I would like to see the STC surrendered or supported. I actually think there should be a mechanism where an STC expires if not supported by the owner.
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 15 Sep 2019, 08:45 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/16/10 Posts: 2031 Post Likes: +886 Location: Wisconsin
Aircraft: CJ4, AmphibBeaver
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have some bias but think a G1000 CJ is a really good value. Competes in similar territory price wise as a CJ1, but has much better avionics and usually a bit better payload by over a couple hundred pounds.
Just important to remember that as of now, that G1000 install is frozen in time. I would like to see the STC surrendered or supported. I actually think there should be a mechanism where an STC expires if not supported by the owner.
And the PL 21 isn't frozen in time? The rev that the G1000 is in for the CJ is light years ahead of the early generation PL21 used in the CJ1.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 15 Sep 2019, 09:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/07/17 Posts: 7035 Post Likes: +5807 Company: Malco Power Design Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Just important to remember that as of now, that G1000 install is frozen in time. I would like to see the STC surrendered or supported. I actually think there should be a mechanism where an STC expires if not supported by the owner. They should be like patents. A certain number of years of exclusive use by the creator and then they go public and freely available.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 15 Sep 2019, 10:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: They should be like patents. A certain number of years of exclusive use by the creator and then they go public and freely available. Even if that was true, that still doesn't mean the STC magically is allowed to have updates. Somebody would have to spend the money to get the update approved. And who would do that if the STC is now public? What needs to happen is either the OEM figures out how to get the STC updated to allow updates, or somebody else seeks an STC on top of the original one to get updates. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation Jet vs. CJ1 Posted: 15 Sep 2019, 10:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/16/10 Posts: 8891 Post Likes: +1956
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Just important to remember that as of now, that G1000 install is frozen in time. I would like to see the STC surrendered or supported. I actually think there should be a mechanism where an STC expires if not supported by the owner. In a more perfect world !
_________________ If you think nobody cares about you. Try not paying your income tax.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|