Mike C.,

Another thing you might start thinking about, since you are intent on being the poster boy of past TBO operations, if the Biffle Citation II had past TBO engines, what kind of criticism would he be facing posthumously right now?

Sometimes it’s better to let people make their own decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions.

TBO Extension thinks they can do it, so you need to figure out where they get it done:

https://atlanticjetpartners.com/tbo-ext ... 35-series/

If there is a past TBO HSI option, then the strategy can be implemented.

Mike C.

TBO Extension thinks they can do it, so you need to figure out where they get it done:

https://atlanticjetpartners.com/tbo-ext ... 35-series/

If there is a past TBO HSI option, then the strategy can be implemented.

Mike C.

That makes no sense at all. Why would Pratt enable a company to take their revenue?

Pratt being behind is just artificial scarcity, something a monopoly can do at will to disempower their customers.

TBO Extension STC never made any sense, costs way too much for what it is. You have to pay for their STC development costs, their profits, and their monitoring gizmos, which is why it cost way more than just an HSI.

An owner operator doing an HSI without the STC does make sense.

Mike C.

That makes no sense at all. Why would Pratt enable a company to take their revenue?

Pratt being behind is just artificial scarcity, something a monopoly can do at will to disempower their customers.

TBO Extension STC never made any sense, costs way too much for what it is. You have to pay for their STC development costs, their profits, and their monitoring gizmos, which is why it cost way more than just an HSI.

An owner operator doing an HSI without the STC does make sense.

Mike C.

You’ll get less reroutes when you go faster.

Chip,

I'm normally on your side but this is a low blow. Engines fail for lots of reasons. A member here on BT had a -1A fail on takeoff a few months ago. The engine had a cycle-limited disk that failed before it hit its cycle limit so he was doing everything right. He handled the engine failure correctly, came around, and landed the plane safely. All the evidence we have in the Biffle crash points to the pilot borking the engine failure, not the engine failure itself. Besides, if the HSI was done properly, it should have identified and replaced any out of tolerance parts. What would an OH do that the HSI would not?

Chip,

I'm normally on your side but this is a low blow. Engines fail for lots of reasons. A member here on BT had a -1A fail on takeoff a few months ago. The engine had a cycle-limited disk that failed before it hit its cycle limit so he was doing everything right. He handled the engine failure correctly, came around, and landed the plane safely. All the evidence we have in the Biffle crash points to the pilot borking the engine failure, not the engine failure itself. Besides, if the HSI was done properly, it should have identified and replaced any out of tolerance parts. What would an OH do that the HSI would not?

No, the answer would start with, "Federal Aviation Regulation X (can't be bothered to look it up) states that overhauls are not required for Part 91 (personal) flying. We dutifully follow all Federal Aviation Regulations that apply to our flights. Furthermore, there is no evidence that an overhaul would have decreased the chances of the engine failure beyond what was done during the Hot Section Inspection. During that Inspection, all parts of the engine are Inspected and if any are out of tolerance they are repaired or replaced. The Inspection was performed on X date by X shop and all inspection steps and remediations were completed according to the manufacturer's guidelines."

I would then compare it to a car (which a jury could easily understand). Do you replace all of the guts of your car engine every so many miles whether it needs it or not? Of course not, throwing away perfectly good parts is stupid. Instead you inspect the engine at the manufacturer's recommended intervals and if anything is found to be out of spec you repair or replace it. An engine is an engine.

Chris, I don’t know or recall what your professional qualifications are, therefore don’t know if you are a lawyer or not.

My father was and practiced until he was 80 (now retired at 85). He always said the only answers to questions under cross-examination were “yes”, “no”, “I don’t recall”.



Both you and Chip make good points. I just see Chip saying he cannot recommend to his clients because of liability issues (think I got that right), even though he basically agrees with you.

It doesn’t matter to me if one overhauls their engines or just does hot section inspections. But I think there are a lot more things to look at that the hot section inspection don’t call out.

Robert T

<inspection DOESN’T call out.> Geez, I’m brain dead.



Robert T.

The speed and range are not as different as I thought. Both CJ4 and Encore+ can do basically the same missions.

A decent Encore+ is $4mm ish. A good CJ4 is close to double that.

One pro the Encore has is Thrust reversers. For small fields in the Rockies that matters.

For sure the CJ4 is newer and nicer. But feels thinner and less durable. The Encore feels like a tougher heavier duty aircraft. Sure the age matters but is it worth double the cost if you don’t care as much about aesthetics.

It’s been an interesting process to learn about them both.

For me the biggest concern is what’s going to happen to SPE. One dumb move from the FAA could kill the 560 value.

Mike

Not by much, less than 10%.

FL450, ISA, MCT, 14,000 lbs:

Encore: 399 KTAS, 883 pph, 45.1 nm/100 lbs.

CJ4: 430 KTAS, 978 pph, 43.9 nm/100 lbs.

At MCT, Encore is better fuel specifics, more miles per gallon.

If you slow the CJ4 to the same fuel flow, it is 409 KTAS, 2.5% faster.

If the TRs on the Encore allow you to use an airport closer to your destination, or avoids a diversion due to rain, snow, or ice, the Encore might be faster than the CJ4 effectively.


Time to climb to FL410 at max gross, ISA:

CJ4: 19 minutes

Encore: 16 minutes

For FL450:

CJ4: 28 minutes

Encore: 26 minutes

Encore climbs faster so it can get to altitude faster. Both can go to their ceiling at max gross in ISA conditions. Seems like the Encore wins the "stays higher" contest to me.


Far less downside risk in hull value with the Encore, less money at risk, and less insurance and taxes related to it as well.

The capital you saved on the purchase makes a ton in investments that more than compensates you for any possible market value changes.

Mike C.

CJ4 is still in production, and appears it will be for some time in the future as the Gen 3 comes to market. Encore is not. Both are fine aircraft. Encore advantage is reverse. The CJ4 has excellent brakes, but nothing is good on ice where reverse would be a welcome addition.

CJ4 has a more desirable and redundant electrical system and with the alternators that power the elec windshields, which can keep a lot of systems normal with both gens off. The spoilers on the CJ4 are infinitely adjustable from retracted to full deployment. The Encore spoilers are retracted or fully deployed with no intermediate adjustability.

The CJ4 is a joy to fly single pilot with the 4 screen proline 21. The CJ4 will cost more because it’s newer and still relevant and still in production. The Encore will do most of what the CJ4 will do for 60-70% of the capital outlay, and stop better on contamination.

I’m biased having flown the CJ4 now over 600 hrs.