BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jan 2024, 15:56

Username Protected wrote:

For me, absolutely want Garmin/Gamrin(ized) at almost all other factors. We fly a lot of single pilot and want to fly North/South a night, regularly.

I invested less than $1M.

It is Garminized.

I fly it single pilot.

I go 400 knots.

I can use short runways.

My low capital cost easily makes up for my extra fuel burn over other choices.

My maintenance costs have been very reasonable. Insurance and hangar also.

I can carry up to 9 people. I have done quite a number of flights with 6 or more, including 8 and 9 at times.

Where am I falling short of your goals?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jan 2024, 19:12

Username Protected wrote:

Hey John!
On the road today looking at a CJ2+, will respond when I have time to give you a complete answer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jan 2024, 21:13

Username Protected wrote:

Friend of mine has owned 5 Citations, and he said to me, stick to FADEC and factory Garmin models if you can.

FADEC is nice, but not really that big a deal. People have a lot of FADEC faults that cause AOG events. FADECs do not prevent all start issues either as a recent CJP thread on a Mustang demonstrates (start with locked N1 from inlet ice, led to engine damage, FADEC didn't prevent this).

As for OEM installed Garmin panels, those are really restrictive. Updates are expensive and don't come often. My retrofit panel has been updated 3 times with new code versions since I have owned it, G3000 owners wait years for things. My panels are part of the wider ecosystem that thousands of other planes are on, so I am not locked into an OEM situation where Garmin and Textron have to coordinate. Repairs can also be expensive for "jet only" things, too, where as my stuff can be in anything down to a 172.

I am always in favor of having more control of my equipment and not being captured as much by the vendors.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jan 2024, 22:56

FADEC is nice if you can afford it. I wouldn't limit yourself to it, but if you can it's great.

We manage 4 FADEC airplanes, never a grounding event. FADEC faults are usually caught at the TLD checks every 300 hours. They can be reset with a laptop that usually comes with the plane. You're allowed a certain number of faults before it displays a grounding message. The faults have usually been from not turning on the engine anti-ice quick enough and the temperature probe getting some ice on it.

G3000 is fantastic, there have been updates, but it didn't really "need" updating as it's feature packed to begin with.

I love the G1000 suite on the Mustang with the GFC700 and the physical keypad. A little dated, but I honestly can't think of anything I'd do differently. Haven't flown the G1000NXI but I'm sure that modernizes it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jan 2024, 23:22

Username Protected wrote:

We manage 4 FADEC airplanes, never a grounding event. FADEC faults are usually caught at the TLD checks every 300 hours. They can be reset with a laptop that usually comes with the plane.

There's a reason those laptops and adapters come with the planes.

BTW, the adapters are not cheap, here's a set for $2K for FJ44:

https://www.air-sync.com/products-2/air ... -1-engine/

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jan 2024, 23:40

Username Protected wrote:

We manage 4 FADEC airplanes, never a grounding event. FADEC faults are usually caught at the TLD checks every 300 hours. They can be reset with a laptop that usually comes with the plane.

There's a reason those laptops and adapters come with the planes.

BTW, the adapters are not cheap, here's a set for $2K for FJ44:

https://www.air-sync.com/products-2/air ... -1-engine/

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jan 2024, 23:57

Username Protected wrote:

We manage 4 FADEC airplanes, never a grounding event. FADEC faults are usually caught at the TLD checks every 300 hours. They can be reset with a laptop that usually comes with the plane.

There's a reason those laptops and adapters come with the planes.

BTW, the adapters are not cheap, here's a set for $2K for FJ44:

https://www.air-sync.com/products-2/air ... -1-engine/

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 09:06

Username Protected wrote:

We manage 4 FADEC airplanes, never a grounding event. FADEC faults are usually caught at the TLD checks every 300 hours. They can be reset with a laptop that usually comes with the plane.

There's a reason those laptops and adapters come with the planes.

BTW, the adapters are not cheap, here's a set for $2K for FJ44:

https://www.air-sync.com/products-2/air ... -1-engine/

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 09:09

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... t-aircraft

How much for a full Garmin panel?

Chip-

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 09:12

I am 6'1" and I can promise there is not a more comfortable cockpit in any small jet ( or even medium for that matter) than the Mustang, both for entering/egress and sitting!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 10:17

Username Protected wrote:

John,

The M2 is a great airplane, but it's actually just a CJ with a G3000... well actually more like a CJ1+ (Fadec) with the Garmin, but the airframe has been around since the early 1990's.

The Mustang was a clean sheet design and it was designed with tools that didn't exist in the 90's, Mike was picking on the windows, which is the most obvious but also one of the most important changes. He doesn't get it because as an engineer he clearly doesn't understand the science of ergonomics, anyone who has been a passenger in a 525 and a Mustang, gets it. Those windows are high and wide because passengers can look out the window without dusking their head down to do so, the cabin experience is enhanced noticeably by this one feature. Even though the Mustang is fairly small, it's still very comfortable.

Mike also ignores the cockpit because he's never been in one, but it's (IMHO) the best cockpit of any light jet.

Pratt engines... huge, for no other reason than having an option that isn't Williams.

What Mike and maybe his relative who works for Textron doesn't understand, is that a new series of jets that refined and improved the 525 line would have been a very smart move, they're lucky that Embraer seems satisfied with building an selling the Phenom 100 / 300, if they had built a Phenom 200 and gone directly after that middle of the 525 line it might have been ugly.

Mike's argument is that there's a limited number of them and they lack the commonality of the 525, he misses the whole point... if they'd kept the 510 line, they probably wouldn't be building 525's today. Was it cheaper to keep building the same 30 year old airframe, sure... apparently at least a few people thought that was a good idea, including Scott Ernest and the Textron share holders!

Please understand I think the M2 is a wonderful airplane, I'm not knocking it in the least, but some really smart people said we can do better, they did, a new line of a better designed airframe... and then a numbers guy came along and said heck with this 510 line, let's just put blinglets and a G3000 on a CJ1+ and call it an M2.

Chip, entire Citation line based on early 1990s. CJ3, CJ4, same tube just stretched. Phenom tube much better. Phenom 100 performance well behind the M2 in a lot of key areas. Cessna has no incentive to improve the Citation airframe beyond stuff like upgraded Garmin, seats, etc. Let's face it, only two companies really matter in the light, single-pilot, owner-flown jet market; Cessna & Embraer. Embraer has no intention of improving the areas where the 100 lags the M2; basically runway performance, especially wet, snow, etc.; hot wing for ice; single engine performance, climb performance, and a bit of a cruise speed penalty. Biggest issue runway performance. There are situations, hot, wet, snow, where Phenom 100 cannot get in or out from 5,000'. So, the closest competitor to the M2 is not a very strong competitor.

In the bigger light jets, the Phenom 300 gives Cessna a real run for its money. Cabin, airframe integration advantage Phenom 300. Service network, common type rating advantage CJ3+ & CJ4. Embraer delivers as many Phenom 300s each year as CJ3+ & CJ4 combined. Conversely, Cessna M2s outsell Phenom 100s by a factor of 4 or 5 to one each year.

I just don't see the external impetus for Cessna to significantly upgrade the Citation airframe platform. Cockpit is tight. Not as nice as Mustang. Tube is better than Mustang, but not as good as Phenom tube. Citation has no bad habits. Citation has limited competition. Don't see much changing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 12:32

Username Protected wrote:

John,

The M2 is a great airplane, but it's actually just a CJ with a G3000... well actually more like a CJ1+ (Fadec) with the Garmin, but the airframe has been around since the early 1990's.

The Mustang was a clean sheet design and it was designed with tools that didn't exist in the 90's, Mike was picking on the windows, which is the most obvious but also one of the most important changes. He doesn't get it because as an engineer he clearly doesn't understand the science of ergonomics, anyone who has been a passenger in a 525 and a Mustang, gets it. Those windows are high and wide because passengers can look out the window without dusking their head down to do so, the cabin experience is enhanced noticeably by this one feature. Even though the Mustang is fairly small, it's still very comfortable.

Mike also ignores the cockpit because he's never been in one, but it's (IMHO) the best cockpit of any light jet.

Pratt engines... huge, for no other reason than having an option that isn't Williams.

What Mike and maybe his relative who works for Textron doesn't understand, is that a new series of jets that refined and improved the 525 line would have been a very smart move, they're lucky that Embraer seems satisfied with building an selling the Phenom 100 / 300, if they had built a Phenom 200 and gone directly after that middle of the 525 line it might have been ugly.

Mike's argument is that there's a limited number of them and they lack the commonality of the 525, he misses the whole point... if they'd kept the 510 line, they probably wouldn't be building 525's today. Was it cheaper to keep building the same 30 year old airframe, sure... apparently at least a few people thought that was a good idea, including Scott Ernest and the Textron share holders!

Please understand I think the M2 is a wonderful airplane, I'm not knocking it in the least, but some really smart people said we can do better, they did, a new line of a better designed airframe... and then a numbers guy came along and said heck with this 510 line, let's just put blinglets and a G3000 on a CJ1+ and call it an M2.

Chip, entire Citation line based on early 1990s. CJ3, CJ4, same tube just stretched. Phenom tube much better. Phenom 100 performance well behind the M2 in a lot of key areas. Cessna has no incentive to improve the Citation airframe beyond stuff like upgraded Garmin, seats, etc. Let's face it, only two companies really matter in the light, single-pilot, owner-flown jet market; Cessna & Embraer. Embraer has no intention of improving the areas where the 100 lags the M2; basically runway performance, especially wet, snow, etc.; hot wing for ice; single engine performance, climb performance, and a bit of a cruise speed penalty. Biggest issue runway performance. There are situations, hot, wet, snow, where Phenom 100 cannot get in or out from 5,000'. So, the closest competitor to the M2 is not a very strong competitor.

In the bigger light jets, the Phenom 300 gives Cessna a real run for its money. Cabin, airframe integration advantage Phenom 300. Service network, common type rating advantage CJ3+ & CJ4. Embraer delivers as many Phenom 300s each year as CJ3+ & CJ4 combined. Conversely, Cessna M2s outsell Phenom 100s by a factor of 4 or 5 to one each year.

I just don't see the external impetus for Cessna to significantly upgrade the Citation airframe platform. Cockpit is tight. Not as nice as Mustang. Tube is better than Mustang, but not as good as Phenom tube. Citation has no bad habits. Citation has limited competition. Don't see much changing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 13:12

Username Protected wrote:

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/228064945/1991-cessna-citation-v-jet-aircraft

How much for a full Garmin panel?

Chip-

That's a Tarver bird. Wonder what he's asking?

IIRC Mike C spent $280k on his full Garmin panel including all dead wire stripping/removal of old stuff.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 14:01

Username Protected wrote:

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/228064945/1991-cessna-citation-v-jet-aircraft

How much for a full Garmin panel?

Chip-

That's a Tarver bird. Wonder what he's asking?

IIRC Mike C spent $280k on his full Garmin panel including all dead wire stripping/removal of old stuff.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2024, 14:12

I think it was more like 240k.[/quote]

In 2024? Doubt it.

The Best Light Jet is...