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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 22:28

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 22:49

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. This leaves about 800lbs for pax+bags and about 800nm of range.

John, what is the C340 RAM takeoff distance over 50’ under those conditions?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 23:01

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. This leaves about 800lbs for pax+bags and about 800nm of range.

John, what is the C340 RAM takeoff distance over 50’ under those conditions?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2020, 23:48

Username Protected wrote:

Clint, could the balanced field length of 4,451’ be an accelerate go distance? Is that information available in the manual?

The balanced field length is the greatest of either accelerate/stop, accelerate/go, or normal takeoff to V2 at 35’ agl at the end of the runway. They don’t give you each factor. Just the longest one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2020, 01:47

Username Protected wrote:

Clint, could the balanced field length of 4,451’ be an accelerate go distance? Is that information available in the manual?

The balanced field length is the greatest of either accelerate/stop, accelerate/go, or normal takeoff to V2 at 35’ agl at the end of the runway. They don’t give you each factor. Just the longest one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2020, 03:41

Username Protected wrote:

Right, but does the manual tell you which factor was the constraint?

The nature of BFL is that V1 is given in a way that ASD and AGD are equal, so both factors are limiting. That‘s why V1 is varying with conditions.

Usually only for aircraft with more than 2 engines the normal 115 % TOD (+ 15% margin, to 35 ft) will be limiting. In normal cases for twin jets ASD = AGD, thus balanced.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2020, 10:13

Username Protected wrote:

Right, but does the manual tell you which factor was the constraint?

The nature of BFL is that V1 is given in a way that ASD and AGD are equal, so both factors are limiting. That‘s why V1 is varying with conditions.

Usually only for aircraft with more than 2 engines the normal 115 % TOD (+ 15% margin, to 35 ft) will be limiting. In normal cases for twin jets ASD = AGD, thus balanced.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2020, 13:12

Username Protected wrote:

Right, but does the manual tell you which factor was the constraint?

No, it doesn’t tell you which one was used, just the greatest distance.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2020, 23:05

hot, high, mountains, that's pc12 territory boys......
been doing that a lot lately.

Clint, how you been doing mate?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2020, 23:18

Doing well, Mike. And you?

Need to come drop in on you sometime. Haven’t forgot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Oct 2020, 14:24

Great thread and information guys...I recently got a type rating in the Mustang. I have since decided I want a Phenom 100. Both are great aircraft. I signed an LOI for a Phenom and it is in pre-buy. I will post more pics after I take possession of the aircraft. My wife and I are very excited! Thanks to Phil Ufkes and Clint Newell and Bill Stevenson for chatting with me and all the others for sharing your knowledge.

-Steve

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Oct 2020, 18:10

is the phenom 100 single pilot?

what about the 300?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Oct 2020, 18:34

Yes and yes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Oct 2020, 18:47

Username Protected wrote:

Great thread and information guys...I recently got a type rating in the Mustang. I have since decided I want a Phenom 100. Both are great aircraft. I signed an LOI for a Phenom and it is in pre-buy. I will post more pics after I take possession of the aircraft. My wife and I are very excited! Thanks to Phil Ufkes and Clint Newell and Bill Stevenson for chatting with me and all the others for sharing your knowledge.

-Steve

Why did you choose the Phenom over the Mustang?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Oct 2020, 19:08

Jay,

The speed, interior, flushing lav, entry door stairs, flexibility of the ESP engine programs, and the overall looks are really what sold me. Both are great aircraft, but the Phenom better suits my desires and mission.

-Steve