That's what keeps me out of the JT15 powered 501s. Not enough more performance to justify the move. That's is what happens when you compare one of the most efficient and fastest turboprops to one of the slowest jets.


A 501 with FJ44 probably can, both the "Stallion" (no extra fuel) and the "Eagle II" (730 lbs more fuel in wing humps).

Sierra claims Stallion does 402 KTAS max, 385 KTAS cruise, FL430 ceiling in 25 minutes, 1581 nm "VFR" range (whatever that means). I'd assume these are "salesman" numbers, and real world is something less, but it will be faster, higher, longer range than stock by quite a bit. This comes from a trifecta of gains: climbs faster to altitude, cruises higher (FL430, stock is FL410), and has more efficient engines.

The Eagle II is somewhat less beneficial as the fuel hump affects the wing drag at higher mach numbers. I was somewhat underwhelmed by the one Eagle II ride I had, seemed unable to go above mach 0.64. The extra fuel wasn't enough to comfortably make west coast for me, and the Stallion was plenty to do it with a fuel stop, so if I was going 501, I'd get a Stallion and do the fuel stop. But the Stallion is rare, the Eagle II is more common.

Still thinking about an SII with FJ44, though. Long range, faster, bigger, and almost identical fuel burn for any given mission as the 501 + FJ44. I'm tied up with other matters right now, so my jet acquisition is on hold for now.

Mike C.

Can you tell me which N number/serial number plane that was? I've been trying to keep track of all the FJ44 equipped SIIs out there and it would be interesting to see if I know about this one or not.

Also, did you note the ISA and approximate takeoff weight for your flight that recorded 415 KTAS at FL410? That's a bit faster than the ones I flown in, so I am thinking you found some cold air and were light.

The downsides to an FJ44 SII:

Mid 1980s airframe, so getting old. I've been told that in the hardening insurance market, things that old are getting higher rates or being dropped entirely. The underwriters want to see planes 1990 and newer for the most part.

TKS system is widely hated and can be troublesome. Buying fluid away from home base can be an issue.

TKS system has a reputation for causing corrosion in the airframe.

Unique parts related to the TKS system. No other Citation has them. Lots of electronic bits that go bad in the TKS system.

Unique parts related to the FJ44 conversion. Both Innova (acquires Sierra) and Clifford are out of business.

The FJ44 has hotter bleed air (higher compression ratio) and tends to cause problems for a system designed for JT15D. Bleed air valves, in particular, don't seem to last as long as one would expect.

It is a major conversion, so you have a franken plane and that creates some issues here and there.

To operate single pilot, you have to have an SPE. Requires sufficient experience, commercial or better license, extra training every year, doesn't work outside the US (mostly), and the SPE could be withdrawn by the FAA at any time which makes it a bit shaky. The SPE problems also afflict the 550 and 560 as well, so this is not unique to the SII.

You become part of the Williams eco system. Pay $$$ now or pay $$$$$ later. No chance to fly past TBO, and buying used engines is far more difficult. The only viable plan is to pay the Williams per hour figure.

And, of course, the FJ44 equipped SII is way more expensive than the stock airplane. They have been losing value quite precipitously in the last few years, too. The older CJs are starting to get to prices that put pressure on them.

You have to accept or treat the negatives in some way.

Mike C.

A 501 with stock engines and an MU2 are both probably having a hard time getting a great climb gradient OEI out of Aspen, especially if the temps are warm.

Right now it is 12C, 54F. My 501SP FM says the second segment (gear up, 115 KIAS V2) climb gradient at MGTOW and 8000 ft would be ~1.5 degrees, about 200 FPM climb rate. There's no climb gradient first segment (gear down). This assumes the 501 engine makes rated thrust, something not all of them do.

For the MU2 (my model, stock engines), same conditions (MGTOW, gear up), book says 270 FPM. The speed is higher (150 KIAS), so the gradient is about the same. With my higher rated engines, I should do a little better since Aspen at 12C is just about where temp limiting of the stock engine occurs. My upgraded engines will maintain 100% from liftoff to about FL180.

Given a choice, I'd take the 501 because the engine out is easier to manage, but the resulting performance is not going to be much different. You are going to have to know where the rocks are and have a plan to not hit them. I'd have at least one GPS on a terrain page if this is going to be IMC. I would have studied the terrain and an escape corridor as part of the preflight. Aspen is hard to get into and hard to get out of. I've only ever done it in the sim and I'd wait for really nice VMC before going there my first time.

The other reason to take the 501 is that it will have a bit more two engine climb rate, so you get a chance to get higher before the engine fails and that means you are close to the ground for less time. I think the climb rate would be about 2500 FPM two engine 501SP, and about 1700 FPM two engine MU2.

Mike C.

Mike:

What do you know about N550WE?

Fair amount.

S550-0148.

Was for sale for a long time based out of Sweden, registration M-BULL (Isle of Man registry, how did a tiny little island with literally ONE airport get a whole ICAO letter to itself?). They wanted $2M for it, sat on the market for ages. Prior to Sweden, it was in Germany.

Was finally bought in late 2018 and brought back to the US, got painted, new interior, etc. Definitely work done for sale and it is for sale right now. Asking prices have varied, I bet $1.5M wins it right now, which suggests the prior owners didn't get anywhere near $2M for it.

http://www.planemarketinggroup.com/cess ... r-ii-cliff

Is a Clifford conversion (as opposed to Sierra). Not clear to me yet if that's better, the same, or worse.

Had a premature hot section (~1530 hours. should be 2500 hours) on both engines, not sure why and I'd want that explained. Hasn't flown much since (31 hours, and that included flying it from Sweden in late 2018). Seems to have only done demo hops in the last 6 months. No way the plane is making the Williams minimum 150 hours per year usage, so I'd be careful with the program transfer and if there are low use penalties coming to bear. Always, always check with Williams prior to purchase to see what the engine status is with them.

Has Collins PL21 screens and UNS-1LW + WAAS FMS which is kind of a franken setup. I would personally prefer Garmin stuff, easier, cheaper, lighter, less costly databases.

Has TCAS 7.1 which is not common, and KHF-950, so setup for international flight to some degree.

Not yet ADS-B, has MST-67A transponders, the numbers I was being told is $60K for TDR94D-501 transponders and installation. I'm skeptical of numbers a salesman says.

I had some interactions with the owner/broker, and the nominated avionics shop on the ADS-B upgrade.

Empty weight was less than average, 8767 lbs, which seems barely plausible. Arm 291.5, so a bit tail heavy (typical SII is 288-289), which becomes a significant issue when operating single pilot. I don't trust the W&B figures, I'd want it weighed, too light, too tail heavy.

Phase 1-4 due May 31, 2019, basically now, so perhaps it is in a shop somewhere getting looked at, so may be a great time to peer inside its innards. Last flight was May 2nd, a local hop to/from KFPR. Phase 5 due May 2020.

I'm always a bit suspicious of new P&I just for sale. If I'm ever in the area where it is (FL east coast), I'll drop in and take a look, but I'm not super hot about this one, mostly due to the PL21/UNS stuff, and the P&I for sale strategy.

What is your interest in this plane?

Mike C.

I don't think I've ever been to Aspen with two engines working! I've done the dreaded dual engine flameout VOR approach a few times, and I've taken off into low clouds on a summer day, lost an engine and followed the valley down to KRIL using the 530's terrain page. But I can't recall ever having both engines working...

I figure the sim is telling me that engines fail near KASE, another reason to avoid it.

Also, I'd avoid KORL, specifically runway 7. I've had over a hundred engine failures in that area. Most dangerous piece of sky I know.

I am sure when I die, I will awake sitting on runway 7 at KORL ready for takeoff. That must be what the afterlife looks like.

Mike C.

the range and speed. hard to beat SP. Love Proline but agree re Garmin. Wondered what the market was pricewise.

Thanks

You are a fountain of knowledge.

Can you tell me which N number/serial number plane that was? I've been trying to keep track of all the FJ44 equipped SIIs out there and it would be interesting to see if I know about this one or not.

Also, did you note the ISA and approximate takeoff weight for your flight that recorded 415 KTAS at FL410? That's a bit faster than the ones I flown in, so I am thinking you found some cold air and were light.

The downsides to an FJ44 SII:

Mid 1980s airframe, so getting old. I've been told that in the hardening insurance market, things that old are getting higher rates or being dropped entirely. The underwriters want to see planes 1990 and newer for the most part.

TKS system is widely hated and can be troublesome. Buying fluid away from home base can be an issue.

TKS system has a reputation for causing corrosion in the airframe.

Unique parts related to the TKS system. No other Citation has them. Lots of electronic bits that go bad in the TKS system.

Unique parts related to the FJ44 conversion. Both Innova (acquires Sierra) and Clifford are out of business.

The FJ44 has hotter bleed air (higher compression ratio) and tends to cause problems for a system designed for JT15D. Bleed air valves, in particular, don't seem to last as long as one would expect.

It is a major conversion, so you have a franken plane and that creates some issues here and there.

To operate single pilot, you have to have an SPE. Requires sufficient experience, commercial or better license, extra training every year, doesn't work outside the US (mostly), and the SPE could be withdrawn by the FAA at any time which makes it a bit shaky. The SPE problems also afflict the 550 and 560 as well, so this is not unique to the SII.

You become part of the Williams eco system. Pay $$$ now or pay $$$$$ later. No chance to fly past TBO, and buying used engines is far more difficult. The only viable plan is to pay the Williams per hour figure.

And, of course, the FJ44 equipped SII is way more expensive than the stock airplane. They have been losing value quite precipitously in the last few years, too. The older CJs are starting to get to prices that put pressure on them.

You have to accept or treat the negatives in some way.

Mike C.

Mike - FYI, for serial nos. 425 and later, the second segment climb gradient is 2 degrees for your parameters and zero flaps (as reqd.), which works out to 466.5 FPM per my calculations @V2=115 kts IAS (TAS approx. 132 kts). This is with JT15D-1A engines (not 1B).

As you noted, my numbers are earlier serial numbers.

What did they change? Increased temps for more power?

Mike C.

Is this about Jim and how cool it was he got a jet?

I looked at the Super SII when I was shopping. I didn't look as closely as Mike (wow!) but I came to the same conclusion. One of my big concerns was depreciation and Sierra. They've depreciated significantly since I was looking at them and Sierra went out of business so, in this rare case, I feel like I made a good decision not to buy one.

I had a baron with TKS and it worked amazingly well but was a PITA after being used. It dripped for days and made a mess of the hangar floor. I'd hate to have to think about that every time I turned it on.

The CJ2 cockpit is similar to the SII and not all that comfortable (at 6'5" I'm at the limits). CJ2 will stay in the air for somewhere between 3&4 hours and that is enough for me, a 2000 mile airplane with the same cockpit would be wasted on me most of the time because I'd rather stop and stretch.

Jim? Whose Jim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzBInHDx6RA

Impressive....

I have seen a 500 go in a few times at Mountain Air over the years but would't think of flying my CJ in there. I never even flew my 58P in there when I owned it.

We have a home there and a few weeks ago I met a guy in the pro shop that said he built the first home in Mountain Air. Flew a Piper Cherokee 6. He told me he has seen 20 crashes at MA over the years.

I have no problem with my T210 going in and out. A Pilatus regularly flys in and out.