BeechTalk - BT - If the Mustang does your mission, it's darn near perfect!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2020, 12:56

Username Protected wrote:

If I have time I’ll start an M2 thread.

Would love that. And one for the Phenom 100 too would be nice.
When you have time..... :thumbup:

This Mustang thread has been hugely helpful and informative. Also was Mike's thread on Williams engines.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2020, 13:25

Username Protected wrote:

I am at one year under my belt with the mustang. My 1000nm commute had a 100% non stop success rate. Was close a couple times at just under 4 hours, but regardless, I am impressed. It performs as advertised, and then some. Never had to postpone due to weather, was always cruising in the sunshine, have carried a ton, and had minimal downtime for maintenance. Absolutely love the Mustang.

May I ask, how many pounds of fuel do you have after landing?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2020, 14:43

Username Protected wrote:

I am at one year under my belt with the mustang. My 1000nm commute had a 100% non stop success rate. Was close a couple times at just under 4 hours, but regardless, I am impressed. It performs as advertised, and then some. Never had to postpone due to weather, was always cruising in the sunshine, have carried a ton, and had minimal downtime for maintenance. Absolutely love the Mustang.

May I ask, how many pounds of fuel do you have after landing?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2020, 14:48

Username Protected wrote:

With Jet-A getting so cheap, it’s changed the flight planning strategy for SP jets. Now, you just flightplan for minimizing flight time and burn the extra fuel.

Very good point!!

Fast is fun too!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2020, 14:50

Username Protected wrote:

If I have time I’ll start an M2 thread.

Would love that. And one for the Phenom 100 too would be nice.
When you have time..... :thumbup:

This Mustang thread has been hugely helpful and informative. Also was Mike's thread on Williams engines.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jun 2020, 10:49

Username Protected wrote:

I would just change the title a little. I would reword it to if you have a jet mission, the Mustang is just about perfect. Might seem like semantics, but as someone who has really looked at getting a Mustang several times through the years....

My take on it, is it really shines when you need to fly far and fast, and can get high. The perfect trip is 750 nm from nice runway to nice runway. On short, low altitude missions which is the norm for an owner pilot, it is not so perfect. If your missions are mixed, like a lot of GA owner pilots, and involve shorter flights, Training flights, hamburger runs, short fields, high, hot, short fields, contaminated runways, it just not the best tool. Is a nice aircraft though. ;-)

.

Chuck, I’m curious, what is the best tool then? Because I am the GA owner pilot you speak of!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jun 2020, 11:19

Username Protected wrote:

I would just change the title a little. I would reword it to if you have a jet mission, the Mustang is just about perfect. Might seem like semantics, but as someone who has really looked at getting a Mustang several times through the years....

My take on it, is it really shines when you need to fly far and fast, and can get high. The perfect trip is 750 nm from nice runway to nice runway. On short, low altitude missions which is the norm for an owner pilot, it is not so perfect. If your missions are mixed, like a lot of GA owner pilots, and involve shorter flights, Training flights, hamburger runs, short fields, high, hot, short fields, contaminated runways, it just not the best tool. Is a nice aircraft though. ;-)

.

Chuck, I’m curious, what is the best tool then? Because I am the GA owner pilot you speak of!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 12:08

Flying into mountain airports in the summer, is a mustang (or any light jet) realistic? For example, Steamboat is 4450 feet long at 6,900ft. Today the high is 85. I know larger jets can, but you can’t leave out 10,000 pounds of fuel and leave 12 seats empty on a light jet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 12:48

KSBS could be done at up to 27 C (81 F), TOM 6,500 lbs, balanced field length.
6,500 lbs would be 420 lbs for pilot + pax and 750 lbs ramp fuel to a nearby airport with a longer runway for refueling (e.g. KHDN, KEGE).

Edit: These numbers are Flaps Up, for improved OEI climb out.
Considerably higher payloads are possible using Flaps 15. See data in Clint’s post below.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 14:32

Username Protected wrote:

KSBS could be done at up to 27 C (81 F), TOM 6,500 lbs, balanced field length.
6,500 lbs would be 420 lbs for pilot + pax and 750 lbs ramp fuel to a nearby airport with a longer runway for refueling (e.g. KHDN, KEGE).

It would probably make more sense just land in Hayden to start with. I suppose if you left early in the morning you could make KAPA, but with only one passenger? Doable solo or to pickup/drop someone off.

Would a straight CJ with winglets fare any better? I think that is the closest competitor. As cool as these jets are, a blackhawk 425 or C90/B200 seems to make the most sense as a step up from a pressurized piston twin for these missions.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 16:30

Username Protected wrote:

As cool as these jets are, a blackhawk 425 or C90/B200 seems to make the most sense as a step up from a pressurized piston twin for these missions.

Legally, yes. However, jet take-off data are balanced field length. Most MET operators just omit this part of safety calculation, if it should even be available in the AFM. Calculate Accelerate-Go for the C425 or C90B or GT for your example and you‘ll see.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 16:57

Username Protected wrote:

Shameless bump.

I’m sick of Covid. Let’s talk about Mustangs!

If I have time I’ll start an M2 thread.

Anything other AIRPLANE y’all want to talk about?

Dear God, yes, please!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 17:09

I ran the numbers for both SBS and HDN. At 80F and zero wind, you could legally depart VFR in a Mustang at 7268 lbs. With an empty weight of 5370, that leaves roughly 1900 lbs for fuel and payload. A short flight to a fuel stop.

For HDN, which is only 16.2nm west of of SBS, you could depart under the same conditions at 8,050 lbs, which is almost 800 lbs more. Then, you could do a 2-hour flight or more depending on your payload.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 17:16

Username Protected wrote:

As cool as these jets are, a blackhawk 425 or C90/B200 seems to make the most sense as a step up from a pressurized piston twin for these missions.

Legally, yes. However, jet take-off data are balanced field length. Most MET operators just omit this part of safety calculation, if it should even be available in the AFM. Calculate Accelerate-Go for the C425 or C90B or GT for your example and you‘ll see.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 17:32

Username Protected wrote:

I don't have performance tables for the mustang, what is the ground roll comparison? My thought was any turbofan is going to be on the ground much longer than anything with a propeller. C340A RAM VIII ground roll would be around 2700 ft at gross weight, zero wind, 86°F, 6000ft PA.

It depends. For the takeoff calculation I did above for SBS, I used takeoff flaps for the 4,452' runway. The balanced field length (full accelerate and stop) is 4,451. The actual takeoff roll will be somewhere just past midway of that distance (maybe 2,500?), but in the jet world we don't worry about takeoff rolls. We focus only on balanced field lengths.

For HDN, I calculated a zero flaps takeoff because of the 10,000' runway. In that example the balanced field length is 6,535. Again the actual takeoff roll would likely be somewhere just past midway of the balanced field length (maybe 3500?).

The rotation speed between the two examples differs by 24kts.