I don’t have any appetite for old cars or old planes. There are some that do. I don’t really have the bandwidth for sourcing parts, fixer uppers or anything like that. Maybe one day. I think there are a lot of people out there like that. But then we are the ones replenishing the used market, so we definitely have a role in the food chain. . Heck my car gets a squeak or sometimes even needs an oil change, it is going back to the dealership in trade

Indeed, to each their own and somebody DOES need to supply the used market with new purchases. I think I’m on the other end of the spectrum: my Mitsubishi is 51 years old and I just rode my bike into town from the ranch to pick up my ‘88 Jeep that I dropped off for some preventative belt and hose changes, then fed the horses with the 40yo backhoe.

Are there any single pilot jets with reverse thrust besides the 501? Obviously there aren't any modern day ones.

Chip-

I love TR’s, they are fun and effective. That said, I was pleasantly surprised by the deceleration from the ground flaps setting on landing on the CJ3.

Landing the CJ3+ on my demo flight was one of the most impressive demos I've had, the de-acceleration was almost GT3 level. Our Phenom 100 typically gets .25-.29gs when braking and that's not quite pushing it, doing the max brake landing in the CJ3 had to have been double that.

Thrust reversers are great if you are constantly flying from snow and ice, but for 99% of flights they are just added weight, complexity and cost. The seconds it takes to deploy them on landing has to negate the overall dry runway length "advantage" when each second costs 175' in the 560. Especially so if you floated the landing in and a squat switch hasn't triggered. And since you can only use them down to 60kias they become even less useful.

Having lower landing speed negates the need for them as well as stronger braking systems with ABS as well as FADEC to lower ground idle. We typically land at 92kias in the 100 and are stopped in less than 2000 or so without sending everything in the cabin forward. But if it rains 3 towns over, you can triple that distance...I can forget about ever landing on snow or ice, but I wouldn't anyway.

There's no free lunch of course, without thrust reversers you'll spend more on brakes, but with thrust reversers...you'll spend more on breaks.

Chip-

TRs greatly reduce brake and tire wear on normal flights. They pay for themselves.


You have normal brakes during this time, so no worse than a 525. You can choose to land without using the TRs if you want.


That will also reduce braking effectiveness which makes having TRs more critical since your tires are not getting the downforce they need.

I've never had the squat switch not trigger, BTW. That sounds like someone is way above speed or has a rigging problem.


The speed from touchdown to 60 KIAS is most of your energy and distance on landing.

The 60 KIAS limitation is only for power reverse, you can leave them out below that speed and it kills idle thrust. They do have usefulness below 60 KIAS, including reducing brake wear on taxi.

I can stop without using an brakes at all. Don't try this in a 525, it won't work.




Only when you have reliable ground friction and the brakes work. I have both not be present, including a dispatch on solid ice on 5,500 ft runway. Your 525 would have been grounded until the runway was fully clear (about 10 days).




You also have to consider takeoff. You are stuck until the runway is clear and dry.


TRs are relatively low maintenance items and they save more than they cost.

My dispatch reliability is higher with TRs since I am less sensitive to runway condition that you are.

On that one day the TRs prevent a runway excursion, they save everything.

Mike C.

FWIW, the brakes on the CJ3+ are substantially better than the brakes on the M2. When I made the transition, I was pleasantly surprised at the difference.

I can't wait for Mike C. to buy a CJ3!

I have a Phenom 100, so may not apply to the 525, but...

Not sure about that, my brakes have "cost" $4800 in 4.5 years how much have the thrust reversers cost? Any FOD damage on any blades from them?


A 525 will stop without brakes. It might not be flyable again, but it will stop.


Stuck where? I'm already at my destination!


That's a slippery slope (no pun intended), if you're doing something you wouldn't do without them. If they don't deploy, can you go around once on the ground?

I think there's a huge use case for them, I'm not sure light jets is one of them. And every manufacturer seems to agree for some reason.

Chip-

FWIW, the brakes on the CJ3+ are substantially better than the brakes on the M2. When I made the transition, I was pleasantly surprised at the difference.

The Citation IISP (551) has TRs - basically any JT15D variant was available with TRs.

I was glad to not have TRs when I bought my plane - one less thing to deal with on the already the steep learning curve I was on going from an SR22 to the 501. Now that I am comfortable in the 501 I wish I had TRs to minimize brake usage and help with contaminated runways. But not having them makes my plane lighter (and therefore faster). Plus brakes are cheap on my plane (IIRC Tarver said that hot pacs are $2k). I also don't have anti-skid - simple systems = less to go wrong.

In addition, I learned that I could start my second engine without losing my avionics. This allows me to do all of my checks, get my clearance, program my avionics, and then taxi on one engine which is the perfect amount of thrust for taxiing.

I have landed and taken off on snow a few times now. No different than your car - just be on speed and go easy. Snow has quite a bit of grip. 8,900' runway at KAXX and only used half of it:

My left brake is 13 years since OH, 1000 landings, and has more than half the wear life left. CJ owners will never reach that level of brake life, far from it.


In 34 years, not much. Every part except one is factory original. I just replaced the lower right door ($5K) due to a crack. So $5000 in 34 years, $0.50 per hour, essentially free.


Nope.


That's funny. And expensive.


You are stuck at your origination because you can't get the takeoff numbers to work if the runway had an ice or snow storm.

You would have been stuck at my home airport for 10+ days until the weather finally warmed up for the ice to melt. You are basically AOG due to weather.


How do you answer that question for your brakes? You perform operations all the time that critically depend on them to work. In my case, I depend on my TRs only in some circumstances and they provide backup to the brakes all the time. I've landed my plane 9 times with failed brakes (intermittent bad pressure switch) and having TRs made that a non event.


They get to build more planes to replace the ones going through airport fences.

I've had at least 4 flights that would not be doable with a CJ3 that my V can handle because it had TRs. It is an enabler for more capability and more weather tolerance. I have yet to have a single flight where the deice boots were necessary, so my TRs are more useful for mission completion than my deice so far.

Mike C.

The earlier planes are setup with dual boxes. If one fails, AOG.

My plane has two single boxes, meaning I have four on the plane. If at least 2 work, I can move them around to not be AOG. I don't carry a spare for this reason, figuring the failure of 3 of 4 boxes is so unlikely as to be not worth dealing with. I do carry spare ignitors.


It is checked on my 200 hour engine minor inspection.

For me, I can check it myself easily. Turn on the ignitors and listen up the tail pipe. Since my boxes are independent, they naturally fire out of sync and you can easily hear the two separate cadences. Thus you have two good boxes. If you hear only one cadence, you have one bad box.

In your case, the dual box is really one exciter with a switch to each port, there isn't two cadences. So you can't do the same test. When your box fails, you are AOG at the moment.

This is why they changed to the two single boxes. You can now suffer one failure and keep flying, even if undetected, and it will be caught at the next inspection. Even in the case you have two failed boxes, you have a good chance you can move one of the boxes from the other engine.

I've heard stories that someone started the good box engine, then removed the good box and put it on the bad box engine, started it, cowled things up, and flew away. Not for the faint of heart, but clearly doable in emergency circumstances.


Mine also works this way, very nice feature. The Garmin boxes are tolerant to fairly low voltages.

I also use EMER mode as a ground comm switch. Very nice, too.

Mike C.

I have also heard those stories. Not for me thanks. That's why I carry a spare exciter (along with spare igniters).

I did learn today that most have two exciter boxes, but some have just one. It’s random, no certain serial or year range.

I just happened to be somewhere that I could ask!