Takeoff used about 1,700 feet of runway with 1,600lbs of fuel, 3 adults, 1 small child and 150lbs of baggage, temp about 75.[/quote]


How far are you going on 1600lbs? What is your reserve?

AFM numbers are based on no thrust reversers.

I suspect the only time TRs count are when you have contaminated runways and the AFM contains charts for TR use in those conditions. Only a few Citations have that (Ultra being one of them, 501 not that I can see).



75 F temp, no wind, 95 MSL, 2900 ft runway, max 501 weight is:

Takeoff: 11,000 lbs (850 lbs under gross, gross would be 3260 ft)

Landing: 11,350 lbs (max landing weight)


Is that ground roll, or landing distance from 50 ft?

The 501 numbers are takeoff, with engine failure at V1, to 35 ft, and landing from 50 ft. Roughly speaking, the ground roll distances are 1000 ft less than landing distance, so similar for a 2900 ft runway.

Landing is not a problem, especially if you use TRs and land before the touchdown markers, then you easily beat AFM numbers. Takeoff, on the other hand, has no similar tricks you can play and is limiting for runway length.

Typical 501 empty weight is about 7500 lbs leaving 3500 lbs for fuel and cabin if limited to 11,000 ft takeoff. If you don't need all the fuel, then being lighter is always better.

Mike C.

Takeoff used about 1,700 feet of runway with 1,600lbs of fuel, 3 adults, 1 small child and 150lbs of baggage, temp about 75.

AFM numbers are based on no thrust reversers.

I suspect the only time TRs count are when you have contaminated runways and the AFM contains charts for TR use in those conditions. Only a few Citations have that (Ultra being one of them, 501 not that I can see).



75 F temp, no wind, 95 MSL, 2900 ft runway, max 501 weight is:

Takeoff: 11,000 lbs (850 lbs under gross, gross would be 3260 ft)

Landing: 11,350 lbs (max landing weight)


Is that ground roll, or landing distance from 50 ft?

The 501 numbers are takeoff, with engine failure at V1, to 35 ft, and landing from 50 ft. Roughly speaking, the ground roll distances are 1000 ft less than landing distance, so similar for a 2900 ft runway.

Landing is not a problem, especially if you use TRs and land before the touchdown markers, then you easily beat AFM numbers. Takeoff, on the other hand, has no similar tricks you can play and is limiting for runway length.

Typical 501 empty weight is about 7500 lbs leaving 3500 lbs for fuel and cabin if limited to 11,000 ft takeoff. If you don't need all the fuel, then being lighter is always better.

Mike C.

In the Eclipse, you can takeoff at MGTOW; the AFM requires 2647 feet of runway to 50 feet. You can also land at maximum landing weight. I've yet to encounter a situation in which takeoff distance is restricting--normally, if you can land an Eclipse somewhere, you can count on legally taking off. Part of that of course is that under Part 23, we are not constrained by accelerate-stop distance.

Ken

In the Eclipse, you can takeoff at MGTOW; the AFM requires 2647 feet of runway to 50 feet. You can also land at maximum landing weight. I've yet to encounter a situation in which takeoff distance is restricting--normally, if you can land an Eclipse somewhere, you can count on legally taking off. Part of that of course is that under Part 23, we are not constrained by accelerate-stop distance.

Ken

I don't know jack about the Eclipse but I believe that jets have to be certified under part 23 or part 25 (with the exception of military, SE & experimental). Both have minimum first and second segment climb restrictions.

That's the apples oranges part of comparing numbers. The Eclipse numbers are based on fundamentally different criteria than the Citation numbers.

Mike C.

The Eclipse is under 6000 lbs maximum weight and that excused it from the rules that a Citation has to meet.

Mike C.

The Eclipse is under 6000 lbs maximum weight and that excused it from the rules that a Citation has to meet.

Mike C.

I’ve been told that’s the reason you can’t use APG with the eclipse.

Andrew

Curious. I think the OEI climb rate must be *determined* during certification, even under 6000#; it just doesn’t have to be greater than any given figure (including zero).

Eclipse is FAR 23 amendment 55 basis.

FAR 23.67(b) applies from amendment 55 as follows:

(b) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of more than 6,000 pounds maximum weight, and turbine engine-powered airplanes in the normal, utility, and acrobatic category--

(1) The steady gradient of climb at an altitude of 400 feet above the takeoff must be measurably positive with the--

(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps in the takeoff position(s); and
(v) Climb speed equal to that achieved at 50 feet in the demonstration of Sec. 23.53.

(2) The steady gradient of climb must not be less than 0.75 percent at an altitude of 1,500 feet above the takeoff surface, or landing surface, as appropriate, with the--

(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2 Vs1.

So there are some requirements for OEI climb, namely positive at takeoff power and flaps in takeoff, and 0.75% gradient at max continuous power and flaps up.

These are very weak standards and the Eclipse beats them by huge margins.

Mike C.

Spent 6 hours over 4 legs in a CJ2+ today. You jet guys are spoiled! I’m jealous.
Barring emergencies, the 421 is definitely more workload.

Not clear that is different during an emergency.

For engine failure, no contest, the jet wins.

Mike C.