Pretty dam impressive flight N44VS made today. Can a flat wing CJ stay airborne that long without the pilot having to clean his drawers?

Unless there is a crosswind.

Weathervane tendencies are a bad thing in cars.

Mike C.

Yes if flown @ LRC - endurance will be 4:05 hours w/IFR reserves, 600 lbs of payload, full fuel.
No if flown @ MCT - endurance is 3:40 minutes, same payload, full fuel.
Max zero wind range is 1257 nm (LRC) and 1254 nm (MCT).

The flight today from E60 to KUSE was 1415 nm but they had a nice tailwind and it took them 3:55 minutes - don't know if they flew MCT or LRC (it appears MCT from the track log considering winds).

Yes, according to Cessna figures in the manual.

N44VS flight was 3:55, E60 to KUSE.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... Z/E60/KUSE

For the stock airplane, assuming MGTOW and ISA, taxi, takeoff, and climb to FL410 is 43 min and 597 lbs.

Descent is 21 min and 199 lbs.

Cruise is thus 171 min to equal flight time of N44VS. Long range cruise (LRC) fuel flow varies with weight, about 550 pph average, 1568 lbs.

Total 2364 lbs of 3220 usable, 856 lbs reserve, plenty.

Using max continuous thrust (MCT) results in fuel flow of about 620 pph average, 1767 lbs.

Total 2563 lbs of 3220 usable, 657 lbs, still a reasonable amount, more than an hour at cruise.

Things get better if the plane wasn't maxed out weight wise, or if there is more than 3220 lbs of fuel in the tanks (other have said the CJ can be overfilled by ~100 lbs).

Mike C.

It wasn’t bad considering it is a CJ1 not a CJ.

Looked like it was ISA+13 at 410 today on that route.

The CJ1 is a heavier plane empty, but allows for an extra 200lbs MTOW then a straight CJ to compensate. Bearing in mind it’s the same engine with a heavier plane.

So if they have the exact fuel and payload 4VS will be at a weight disadvantage.

Andrew

I’ve been able to consistently get an extra 80 in mine, so 3300. You can only use the 3220 for planning as per the AFM.

The M2 allows you to plan 3296 so guess the marketing department demanded they get the extra fuel as usable to make the numbers work with the extra output (read fuel burn) of the motors.

Andrew

To be absolutely fair, the bent wing airplane should be 80 lbs heavier at takeoff to account for the winglet mod weighing 80 lbs.

The CJ and CJ1 thus operate with identical airframes and engines otherwise (assuming the engines are in similar condition).

If your cabin payload reaches a certain point, the bent wing airplane has to load 80 lbs less fuel than the stock airplane, about a 3% reduction in trip fuel. You did use less fuel, but you didn't get much range improvement.

Mike C.

I’m wondering if they were LRC Alex. The winds showed about 70-75 I thought so around 320TAS.

I get at FL410, TAS324 and FF 550, I then pull power off as I burn fuel to end around 310 when operating LRC.

Andrew

I doubt they will fly along the coast line (to Georgia) then down the eastern Florida seaboard as ATC will push them pretty low, pretty far out. Straight over the water would be my real world route, but I don't know if that will get Tamarack the results they need. If this whole thing is about one plane needing to stop and the other continuing on, then maybe they will do the coastline route. But Florida loves you low early, so my money is on over the water. Maybe one diverts inland?

Would be great if they were livestreaming from the cockpits.

Chip-

Route filed is over the water direct.

That's the winglet plane. The other hasn't filed yet. If they file a fuel stop the game is over and we might as well go back to work.

I’ve been able to consistently get an extra 80 in mine, so 3300. You can only use the 3220 for planning as per the AFM.

The M2 allows you to plan 3296 so guess the marketing department demanded they get the extra fuel as usable to make the numbers work with the extra output (read fuel burn) of the motors.

Andrew

I’ve been able to consistently get an extra 80 in mine, so 3300. You can only use the 3220 for planning as per the AFM.

The M2 allows you to plan 3296 so guess the marketing department demanded they get the extra fuel as usable to make the numbers work with the extra output (read fuel burn) of the motors.

Andrew

The M2 would've done it a HSC in 3:23 and landed with 933#s of reserve assuming a 70 kt tailwind (which someone else posted).

I've heard that the Tamarac Active Winglets do not make as big of a difference for the M2 as it does for the CJ. Mike posted earlier that the CJ is under powered and has too small of a wing. I believe most of the issue with the original CJ is that it was a bit underpowered (we used to own one) which is the winglets make a bigger difference vs. the M2 which has a lot more thrust.

The biggest fuel savings is because the Tamarac CJ can climb directly to FL410 whereas the CJ cannot. The M2 can also climb directly to FL410 typically in about 24 minutes at MTOW.

Yes if flown @ LRC - endurance will be 4:05 hours w/IFR reserves, 600 lbs of payload, full fuel.
No if flown @ MCT - endurance is 3:40 minutes, same payload, full fuel.
Max zero wind range is 1257 nm (LRC) and 1254 nm (MCT).

The flight today from E60 to KUSE was 1415 nm but they had a nice tailwind and it took them 3:55 minutes - don't know if they flew MCT or LRC (it appears MCT from the track log considering winds).