banner
banner

23 Dec 2025, 03:13 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 18:11 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/22/21
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +182
Aircraft: SF50
Username Protected wrote:
This week I am making one of my clients airline a family member on the CJ2 as they would put us over max zero fuel weight.


I'm glad I'm not going to be on that airliner!

Seriously though, before I bought my CJ3+, I looked seriously at Gamin-izing a CJ2. One of the planes I looked at, still with the Collins equipment had a BEW of 7,717. Isn't the ZFW of a CJ2 9,700 lbs? That is almost 2,000 lbs of available payload, to put in 8 seats, or an average of 250 lbs of body and bags per person. If one person made the difference, that must be a BIG family.

_________________
Mark Woglom


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 18:21 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/21/16
Posts: 188
Post Likes: +292
Location: KSYR
Aircraft: None currently
Snip:
Username Protected wrote:
The SB doesn't change anything about the structure of the airplane but lowers Vmo from 292 KIAS to 276 KIAS, a 16 KIAS loss. That seems weird to me, not sure how Vmo and ZFW are related, but that's the change in the SB.
Vmo is determined in part by the airframe's ability to accept specified vertical gust loads. If you load the aircraft to a higher ZFW than it was originally designed for (with no additional structure to support the higher weights), you may increase bending loads on the wing structure beyond design limits. By lowering Vmo when ZFW is increased, you are decreasing the potential bending loads from vertical gusts back to their original design limits.

Greg


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 18:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 7794
Post Likes: +5138
Location: Live in San Carlos, CA - based Hayward, CA KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
That seems weird to me, not sure how Vmo and ZFW are related, but that's the change in the SB.[/ quote]
As you probably could guess, it relates to gust load and structural limits. The faster you go with bumps, the more G load the wing is supporting. So raise ZFW, lower Vmo to keep the gust loads under limits.

Quote:
I am thinking of uninstalling the SB to get back to 11,200 lbs ZFW and Vmo back to 292 KIAS. I've never been over 11,200 lbs ZFW and it would be nice to have a little more Vmo on descents.

Piaggio has a SB that increases MZFW from 9800 to 10,200. The changes to apply are to update a couple pages in the AFM documenting the new limits. That’s it. So when I bought the plane, I said sure, why not “apply” that SB (manual pages got a fresh update anyway as they aggregate manual updates). No real cost or downside, it’s just a log entry. That much cabin load would rarely come up but… no downside.

The following year, they release a new SB saying that any airframe which had the new MZFW would required a new NDT inspection of some area of the wing structure. Of course it is repetitive if you keep operating with the higher ZFW, and you get some credit for “erasing” the change by documenting it as such in the mx logs. So I just entered an entry in the logs stating I was the sole operator since the MZFW SB was applied, and I attest that it has never been operated above the old ZFW. Which is all true. I believe that will relieve me from the repetitive inspection. So much for “no downside”. :doh:

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 19:21 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20932
Post Likes: +26413
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
So much for “no downside”. :doh:

Yup.

For my plane, a 16,300 gross weight increase is available. No change to the airplane, just paperwork. No downside, right?

Nope, the main gear is life limited to 1000 fewer landings if you had the mod at ANY time. My plane, thankfully, doesn't have that mod!

Quote:
The following year, they release a new SB saying that any airframe which had the new MZFW would required a new NDT inspection of some area of the wing structure.

As a part 91 operator, you are not required to comply with SBs or new inspections after you have selected your inspection program in your records. So that SB would not have affected you unless it became an AD or if it ended up in chapter 4 of the MM. But the next owner would be affected per FAA policy as it stands (which I think is illegal, but I digress).

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 20:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 2096
Post Likes: +2206
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Cj3 drivers. How often can u get fl450 flying west?

The range appears to drop way off if you are stuck at lower.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 20:08 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/08/13
Posts: 581
Post Likes: +339
Company: Citation Jet Exchange
Location: St. Louis
Aircraft: 58P C510 C525 Excel
I've never had an issue not getting fl450 in any of the planes. Very few people up there.

CJ2 zfw is 9,300. The 2+ bumped it up to a much more useable 9,700lbs.

_________________
The Citation Jet Exchange
www.CitationJetX.com
CJs, Mustangs, Excels


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 20:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 7794
Post Likes: +5138
Location: Live in San Carlos, CA - based Hayward, CA KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
As a part 91 operator, you are not required to comply with SBs or new inspections after you have selected your inspection program in your records. So that SB would not have affected you unless it became an AD or if it ended up in chapter 4 of the MM.

Yeah, agreed, but... A) Piaggio is under EASA, so many of these tend to become EASA ADs, which due to reciprocity become FAA ADs, and B) when they put it in the inspection program, even if not Ch 4, you gotta argue with your mechanics every year about whether it's really required...

I'd prefer to treat the airplane as if the MZFW was never increased and so have the whole thing not apply. Which physically is true.

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Yesterday, 21:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/23/22
Posts: 81
Post Likes: +17
Aircraft: 1986 PA46-310P
Username Protected wrote:
So much for “no downside”. :doh:

Yup.

For my plane, a 16,300 gross weight increase is available. No change to the airplane, just paperwork. No downside, right?

Nope, the main gear is life limited to 1000 fewer landings if you had the mod at ANY time. My plane, thankfully, doesn't have that mod!

Quote:
The following year, they release a new SB saying that any airframe which had the new MZFW would required a new NDT inspection of some area of the wing structure.

As a part 91 operator, you are not required to comply with SBs or new inspections after you have selected your inspection program in your records. So that SB would not have affected you unless it became an AD or if it ended up in chapter 4 of the MM. But the next owner would be affected per FAA policy as it stands (which I think is illegal, but I digress).

Mike C.


Mike when are we getting the EOY 2025 report on the V?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Today, 00:59 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20932
Post Likes: +26413
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Mike when are we getting the EOY 2025 report on the V?

When the year actually ends and I have a moment of clear free time to compile it.

This is supposed to be my "big" year, phase 1-5, which only occurs every 6 years under the LUMP. It doesn't feel particularly big, however. TR bucket was $5K, shimmy damper $2K, CBS28 exchange $2K, and everything else was pretty minor though it does add up.

So far, the shop hasn't billed me for the phase 1-5 inspections done in August. They are very slow about these sorts of things for some reason. if I don't actually get the bill this year, then it will be on next year's expenses, cash accounting rules. The parts I bought for the work will be on this year, though.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation CJ3+
PostPosted: Today, 02:07 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8747
Post Likes: +11318
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
Mike when are we getting the EOY 2025 report on the V?

When the year actually ends and I have a moment of clear free time to compile it.

This is supposed to be my "big" year, phase 1-5, which only occurs every 6 years under the LUMP. It doesn't feel particularly big, however. TR bucket was $5K, shimmy damper $2K, CBS28 exchange $2K, and everything else was pretty minor though it does add up.

So far, the shop hasn't billed me for the phase 1-5 inspections done in August. They are very slow about these sorts of things for some reason. if I don't actually get the bill this year, then it will be on next year's expenses, cash accounting rules. The parts I bought for the work will be on this year, though.

Mike C.


They haven’t billed you for work done in August?

That’s kind of a red flag isn’t it?
_________________
Recent acquisitions - 2021 TBM 910 - 2013 Citation Mustang - 2022 Citation M2Gen2


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9



PlaneAC

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.Aircraft Associates.85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.LogAirLower85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.sarasota.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.avnav.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.8flight logo.jpeg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.AeroMach85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.v2x.85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.Plane AC Tile.png.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.BT Ad.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.suttoncreativ85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.