Boss needs a jet

[Crockrocket94]

A local power company ownes a VII. They seem to get their use out of it but I haven't heard any pros or cons of it.

I used to fly a VII, and they are not E to W airplanes. You can get some range out of them, but not that kind of range. Keep in mind they are an older airframe, and cessna doesn't produce them anymore. In addition, the parts the plane used are fairly complex, which means expensive. Ours spend a ton of time in the MX hangar. Not saying it wasn't a good plane, but you have to be prepared for a ton of upkeep as well. If I remember right we saw about 1900lbs first hour burn then 1500ish the 2nd and so forth.

I recommend looking at a Hawker 900XP, if you can find one in the price range. That plane is a little better than the 800 with fuel burns and whatnot, can carry 8 people comfortably, 6 is the perfect number for it. Rides nice, has APU, etc. Burns about 1900 lbs first hour and has been good for us.

 

[rframe]

If only the Pilatus business jet were ready to roll off the lines! You'd still need the fuel stop, but you could dump the KA for the short stuff

 

[Cessnaflyer]

If you can PM CK ... he is really smart about all of this business jet acquisition/operating/management/flying etc stuff.

We've been in contact

 

[Cessnaflyer]

If only the Pilatus business jet were ready to roll off the lines! You'd still need the fuel stop, but you could dump the KA for the short stuff

Wish we could. The number one thing we are looking for is range which usually means the short field performance is nonexistent with those airplanes.

 

[falconvalley]

Not being versed on these "big jets", what's the downside to the Citation III/VII? I mean other than it being old and out of fashion, which of course just makes me like it more.

The III wouldn't be able to make the west coast without a stop. I'm not sure about the VII, but I think it has a little more range. You'd like the vintage III's. They are crap buckets with crappy Autopilots.

 

[WacoFan]

Anything else would be less than masculine.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

The III wouldn't be able to make the west coast without a stop. I'm not sure about the VII, but I think it has a little more range. You'd like the vintage III's. They are crap buckets with crappy Autopilots.

That's what our King Air was like until it was gutted.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Anything else would be less than masculine.

No Lodestar?

 

[WacoFan]

No Lodestar?

You said jet. The tailwheel makes it okay.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

You said jet. The tailwheel makes it okay.

I guess we can stuff them into that fuselage somewhere.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

A straight LR45 and a LR45XR are pretty much the same airplane. In fact if you bought an original 45 you can make all the changes to make your 45 an XR. It's some optional service bulletins/AD's and an engine software change that allows for higher temp ranges. I forgot the exact specifics, it's been a while since I flew a straight 45. The 40XR and the 45XR are still the same type but the 40XR is physically shorter by a row of seats (6 vs 8) and a little less fuel. Unless you're Walmart then you get full tanks and some other mods. (So I've heard any way)

Not sure if that's what you were thinking of. If not, just ignore me.

Ignorant airline pilot here, but doesn't that drive the overhaul cost or frequency up?

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Ignorant airline pilot here, but doesn't that drive the overhaul cost or frequency up?

Depending on application it might cause more wear. Our PT6-61's with 800 ITT is the exact same engine as the -52's with a 820 ITT. We've talked to a few people that operate -52 200's and they are having more wear issues in the hot section inspections than us. I would say that if possible it would be better to keep temps lower even if their is an upgrade that allows a hotter running engine.

 

[jskibo]

I guess we can stuff them into that fuselage somewhere.

Can't you hang Blivets on the wing and stuff them in there?

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Can't you hang Blivets on the wing and stuff them in there?

Well the bosses are fit and trim so we could hang them with no aerodynamic aiding and not lose too much speed.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Ignorant airline pilot here, but doesn't that drive the overhaul cost or frequency up?

I'm trying to remember the specifics in this case but the short answer is no. If I recall it stems from the engine being so de-rated, (to use a piston/turboprop term) that it isn't really an issue. It's a variant of the TFE-731 which powers a ton of different a/c in various thrust ratings. Plus it's really only about a five percent difference. I'm sure some one with a better memory and/or grasp of the differences can chime in. After all, I'm just an ignorant ex-airline pilot.

I'll try and see if I can come up with a better answer for ya if some else one doesn't. SteveC ZapBrannigan

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I'm trying to remember the specifics in this case but the short answer is no. If I recall it stems from the engine being so de-rated, (to use a piston/turboprop term) that it isn't really an issue. It's a variant of the TFE-731 which powers a ton of different a/c in various thrust ratings. Plus it's really only about a five percent difference. I'm sure some one with a better memory and/or grasp of the differences can chime in. After all, I'm just an ignorant ex-airline pilot.

I'll try and see if I can come up with a better answer for ya if some else one doesn't. SteveC ZapBrannigan

Ah, got it. I'm mostly curious, since at work, we observe a lower Climb T6 (ITT) limit for prolonged engine life, and generally speaking, more heat equals spending more money.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Ah, got it. I'm mostly curious, since at work, we observe a lower Climb T6 (ITT) limit for prolonged engine life, and generally speaking, more heat equals spending more money.

It's still kinda the same thing. The DEEC (FADEC with manual reversion) sets the power schedule based on OAT/P ALT etc. So no take off is really ever at 100% N1, closer to the mid 90’s. With the 45XR or 731-20BR engines you end up getting 100% N1 at a lot lower altitude on the climb out. So you can get to altitude quicker to get those lower fuel burns. I'm not quite eloquent/smart enough to explain it as thoroughly as I want. It's all PFM, that's what I'll stick with.

 

[GUNIT]

Looking at the highly scientific bang vs. buck plot, the Falcon 50 is hard to beat. With that said, the 601 is a really great airplane for coast to coast. Your principal will certainly love the the wide, airy cabin.

Knowing the way Bombardier builds airplanes, you're likely to see more maintenance "hang ups" with the Challenger, but Dassault parts are typically pricier (not to mention it's not easy dealing with the French). AOG with Dassault can be tricky. Fuel burn on the 601 should be slightly higher. Some of the Falcon 50's that are on the market have had very nice avionics upgrades, and it does appear the STC's are out for FANS/CPDLC on the converted Falcons, should you desire to head to Europe (Duncan Aviation).

 

[Autothrust Blue]

It's still kinda the same thing. The DEEC (FADEC with manual reversion) sets the power schedule based on OAT/P ALT etc. So no take off is really ever at 100% N1, closer to the mid 90’s. With the 45XR or 731-20BR engines you end up getting 100% N1 at a lot lower altitude on the climb out. So you can get to altitude quicker to get those lower fuel burns. I'm not quite eloquent/smart enough to explain it as thoroughly as I want. It's all PFM, that's what I'll stick with.

Sounds about right

 

[Jarvis]

Astra/Gulfstream SPx
Speed, Comfort, & Range.
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...EAM-SPX/1999-ASTRA-GULFSTREAM-SPX/1197853.htm