banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 10:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 189 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2023, 14:01 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/30/15
Posts: 714
Post Likes: +740
Location: NH; KLEB
Aircraft: M2, erstwhile G58
Username Protected wrote:
Unless they figure out a way to keep them on the rwy insurance mkt could be a problem!


Yeh, runway & crosswind issues.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2023, 14:13 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/30/15
Posts: 714
Post Likes: +740
Location: NH; KLEB
Aircraft: M2, erstwhile G58
Username Protected wrote:


I’d say then that until someone builds and sells a 410 knot 6 passenger single pilot jet for $8 million (that splits it perfect between a 400 kt, 5 pax M2 and 420 kt, 7 pax CJ3), then there will only be a choice of M2/Phenom 100 or a CJ3+/Phenom 300. I think if there was a business case for an in between jet, both Textron and Embraer would be building it.




I predict that in ten years Textron will be wishing they had made very different decisions about the modernization of their light jets.


Two separate but related issues...

1) Is there a market for an $8mm, 6 pax, single pilot jet.... not so sure.

2) Should Textron/Cessna have don something else since 1971, other than stretch the original CJ tube, put more seats, bigger engines, and G3000 into it? Likely.

Over 50 years and essentially the same tube. Just stretched for Cj3+, CJ4 and bigger power plants, more seats, Garmin.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2023, 15:22 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
1) Is there a market for an $8mm, 6 pax, single pilot jet.... not so sure.

Citation M2 is a 7 passenger single pilot light jet for under $8M and sells decently.

Quote:
2) Should Textron/Cessna have don something else since 1971, other than stretch the original CJ tube, put more seats, bigger engines, and G3000 into it? Likely.

What would you change?

The FAA has basically said that larger cabin diameter means two pilots given how they treated the 560XL (which was aimed to be single pilot). The FAA basically said no.

Quote:
Over 50 years and essentially the same tube.

There are a lot of advantages. Pilots already have the type ratings. Mechanics already know the maintenance. The ecosystem already knows the issues and has dealt with them. The suppliers already make the parts. Insurance already understands the fleet, etc.

Quote:
Just stretched for Cj3+, CJ4 and bigger power plants, more seats, Garmin.

The CJ4 represents a pretty big change. New front windows, new door, new swept wing, are the major changes.

So if the FAA basically limits single pilot jets to small cabin diameters, what else would you change and keep it single pilot?

Fundamentally, there just isn't a lot wrong with the Citation design.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2023, 16:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/30/15
Posts: 714
Post Likes: +740
Location: NH; KLEB
Aircraft: M2, erstwhile G58
Username Protected wrote:
1) Is there a market for an $8mm, 6 pax, single pilot jet.... not so sure.

Citation M2 is a 7 passenger single pilot light jet for under $8M and sells decently.

Quote:
2) Should Textron/Cessna have don something else since 1971, other than stretch the original CJ tube, put more seats, bigger engines, and G3000 into it? Likely.

What would you change?

The FAA has basically said that larger cabin diameter means two pilots given how they treated the 560XL (which was aimed to be single pilot). The FAA basically said no.

Quote:
Over 50 years and essentially the same tube.

There are a lot of advantages. Pilots already have the type ratings. Mechanics already know the maintenance. The ecosystem already knows the issues and has dealt with them. The suppliers already make the parts. Insurance already understands the fleet, etc.

Quote:
Just stretched for Cj3+, CJ4 and bigger power plants, more seats, Garmin.

The CJ4 represents a pretty big change. New front windows, new door, new swept wing, are the major changes.

So if the FAA basically limits single pilot jets to small cabin diameters, what else would you change and keep it single pilot?

Fundamentally, there just isn't a lot wrong with the Citation design.

Mike C.


Bigger cabin cross section. Phenom 100 & Phenom 300 both are larger cross section cabins and both are single pilot certified. The Citation series interior not as roomy as either the comparable Embraer or Pilatus series. This is coming from a Citation owner.

Pilatus PC-24 also larger cabin cross section and are single pilot certified.
How did those three platforms sneak past the FAA as single pilot? All are larger cross sections.

When you get up into the $10mm plus range on the CJ4, Phenom 300, Pilatus PC-24, the major thing that the Citation has going for it is service network. The others have larger cabins, are just as capable, better systems integration due to clean sheet design. Roomier for pilots.

Type rating is an advantage in US. In Europe 100 and 300 share the rating, you just need to complete a differences course.

To be sure, Citations have very few bad habits. At the same time the Phenom 300 and the Pilatus Pc-24, in that category, have similar performance and real advantages in other areas.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2023, 19:38 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7250
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
The FAA has basically said that larger cabin diameter means two pilots...
Mike C.


What?

:scratch:

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2023, 21:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/16/10
Posts: 156
Post Likes: +89
Location: Bozeman, MT
Username Protected wrote:
The FAA has basically said that larger cabin diameter means two pilots...
Mike C.


From what I know it’s weight driven. Part 23 Normal category aircraft is 19,000#s or less. Part 25 is for Transport category aircraft. My guess is Part 25 is 2 pilot requirement. The XLS is a 20,000# gross weight aircraft.

_________________
_________________
Bozeman, MT (KBZN)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2023, 22:20 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
From what I know it’s weight driven. Part 23 Normal category aircraft is 19,000#s or less.

Part 23 Normal Category limit is 12,500 lbs. Part 23 Commuter Category is 19,000 lbs. Commuter category was originally for heavier turboprops, those that typically were used for commuter service, but Cessna got the FAA to expand that to jets. Now days, hardly any turboprops are certified in the commuter category but just about every jet under 19,000 lbs is, so it became a business jet category despite the name.

But all that is off target anyway since the 560XL is a part 25 airplane and is even on the same type certificate as the 500, 550, S550, 560 series, A22CE. So the 560XL is a part 25 airplane.

Quote:
My guess is Part 25 is 2 pilot requirement.

Sort of. I don't believe there is an explicit rule that says "two pilots" but the requirements for redundancy and other factors basically make the requirements such that it is effectively two pilots.

Quote:
The XLS is a 20,000# gross weight aircraft.

At the time of 560XL certification, Cessna was trying to use the same rules as the two pilot small cabin airplanes were using to fly single pilot, namely the single pilot exemption. The weight, while over part 23 commuter category, really didn't factor into it directly since the 560XL was a part 25 airplane to begin with.

In the end, the FAA said no, among the reasons was a single pilot being able to see the right wingtip and reach the controls and breakers on the right side of the cockpit. In other words, the larger cabin size created some difficulty for a single pilot. Thus, no single pilot exemption.

The other single pilot jets with cabins that are larger than the 525 series Citations are not much larger, just a few inches. Get too large and the single pilot issues become problematic.

The 500, 550, S550, and 560 airplanes are part 25 only due to an accident of history. Had the commuter category been available for jets, they would have all been single pilot part 23 airplanes, like the 525 series is now.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2023, 22:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/23/09
Posts: 1067
Post Likes: +560
Location: KSJT
Aircraft: PC-24 Citabria 7GCBC
Username Protected wrote:

In the end, the FAA said no, among the reasons was a single pilot being able to see the right wingtip


What’s your reference or information source?

SP, I don’t think you can see the right wingtip in the P300 and I know you cannot in the PC-24.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2023, 23:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/02/12
Posts: 333
Post Likes: +100
Username Protected wrote:

In the end, the FAA said no, among the reasons was a single pilot being able to see the right wingtip


What’s your reference or information source?

SP, I don’t think you can see the right wingtip in the P300 and I know you cannot in the PC-24.



I was told the same thing from FlightSafety at initial as well as not being able to reach the circuit breakers on the right side. Also, the 560xl would be very difficult for a single pilot to manage with a pitch trim issue (stabilizer moves), the control forces can be very heavy.

Normal workload wise, it was no harder to fly than a citation v and it always had smooth landings.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2023, 00:20 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/07/11
Posts: 721
Post Likes: +392
Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
Can’t see the opposing wingtip in a P100 either.

Chip-


Last edited on 26 Mar 2023, 05:30, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2023, 00:31 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
What’s your reference or information source?

People I know at Cessna.

This is from 1999:

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 23771.
Petitioner: Cessna Aircraft Company.
Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 91.9(a) and 91.531(a)(1) & (2).
Description of Relief Sought: To permit Cessna Aircraft operators
of the Cessna Citation Excel Model 560XL, that otherwise meets the
minimum crew requirements of 25.1523 with a single pilot, to operate
those airplanes without a second in command.

I could not find an FAA response.

So we know at the very least that Cessna tried.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2023, 22:40 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7250
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
The FAA doesn’t decide which aircraft requires two pilots… the insurance company does!

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2023, 22:50 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7250
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
From what I know it’s weight driven. Part 23 Normal category aircraft is 19,000#s or less.

Part 23 Normal Category limit is 12,500 lbs. Part 23 Commuter Category is 19,000 lbs. Commuter category was originally for heavier turboprops, those that typically were used for commuter service, but Cessna got the FAA to expand that to jets. Now days, hardly any turboprops are certified in the commuter category but just about every jet under 19,000 lbs is, so it became a business jet category despite the name.

But all that is off target anyway since the 560XL is a part 25 airplane and is even on the same type certificate as the 500, 550, S550, 560 series, A22CE. So the 560XL is a part 25 airplane.

Quote:
My guess is Part 25 is 2 pilot requirement.

Sort of. I don't believe there is an explicit rule that says "two pilots" but the requirements for redundancy and other factors basically make the requirements such that it is effectively two pilots.

Quote:
The XLS is a 20,000# gross weight aircraft.

At the time of 560XL certification, Cessna was trying to use the same rules as the two pilot small cabin airplanes were using to fly single pilot, namely the single pilot exemption. The weight, while over part 23 commuter category, really didn't factor into it directly since the 560XL was a part 25 airplane to begin with.

In the end, the FAA said no, among the reasons was a single pilot being able to see the right wingtip and reach the controls and breakers on the right side of the cockpit. In other words, the larger cabin size created some difficulty for a single pilot. Thus, no single pilot exemption.

The other single pilot jets with cabins that are larger than the 525 series Citations are not much larger, just a few inches. Get too large and the single pilot issues become problematic.

The 500, 550, S550, and 560 airplanes are part 25 only due to an accident of history. Had the commuter category been available for jets, they would have all been single pilot part 23 airplanes, like the 525 series is now.

Mike C.


It’s actually much more complicated than this. It all started with the King Air 300 back in 1982… Beech wanted to build a 200 series with a 14,000# gross weight. Same aircraft, just higher gross, no reason for it to be a part 25 aircraft. When I have more time I will explain to the best of my ability. In regards to the current SP jets, in a nutshell, I think it’s really as simple as the manufacturer would submit an aircraft as single pilot and the FAA approved or denied. From 2009 - 2016 the FAA worked through all of this, I assume it is less subjective now.
_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 27 Mar 2023, 03:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/17
Posts: 668
Post Likes: +335
Company: Cessna (retired)
The FAA position has changed from time to time, and hasn't always made sense.

On the original Citation, single pilot per Part 25 was denied. When the 501 and 551 were certified, it was per Part 23. The then 12,500 max weight was a real hit to the 551, which was why not many were built.

The Single Pilot Exemption came considerably later.

I think it was said that if the FAA position were applied to twin turboprops and the larger, more complex twin pistons, they could not be certified single pilot either.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Textron! We need an M3!! (Citation CJ2+)
PostPosted: 27 Mar 2023, 12:21 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7250
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
The FAA position has changed from time to time, and hasn't always made sense.

On the original Citation, single pilot per Part 25 was denied. When the 501 and 551 were certified, it was per Part 23. The then 12,500 max weight was a real hit to the 551, which was why not many were built.

The Single Pilot Exemption came considerably later.

I think it was said that if the FAA position were applied to twin turboprops and the larger, more complex twin pistons, they could not be certified single pilot either.


The problem started with the arbitrary 12,500# limitation for a "small airplane" it was obviously pulled out of thin air and didn't make as much sense as "small" aircraft grew and evolved.

As I mentioned, Beech opened Pandora's Box when they went to the FAA and asked why they couldn't put bigger motors on a King Air 200 and increase the gross weight 2000# and still be Part 23. The FAA was in a spot, because Beech's point was obvious, but they couldn't just up the weight limit for Part 23 because other aircraft had already been certified Part 25 because of their gross weight. Instead, they conjured up a temporary solution to a permanent problem and created a SFAR... I forget the number, with it they created the "Special Commuter Category" which allowed Beech to build the King Air 300, for a period of time, the SFAR had a ten year limit on it, that's why all of the 300's built after 1991 are 300LW's.

During this time, Beech developed the King Air 350, I believe to Part 25 standards (probably just in case) maybe Tom C. can weigh in... but by 1990 the FAA had created Part 23 Commuter Category and that's how the 350 is certified and that opened the door for the 525 series. However, the legacy Citation including the 560 were all certified prior to 1990, and when Cessna stretched the 525 line they were all single pilot. The 560 line was a lot trickier, with original certification being Part 25, so as that line stretched in length and width, the FAA eventually said no to the single pilot exemption on the larger aircraft.

Why are the Phenom 300 and PC-24 certified Part 23 and Single Pilot? Because they were certified after 1990 and they met the guidelines established by the FAA.

At this point, as I quipped above, it's probably a mute point, if things continue on the path we're on, the insurance companies will eventually mandate that all jets are manned by a crew.

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 189 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.