Citation Bravo Performances Charts

M

Million

Well-Known Member
Okay here's the deal!

I have a pilot looking for a Bravo Performance Supplement that contains the Landing and Takeoff Distance Charts at 1000' Pressure Altitude for a WET Runway for various temperatures. He is trying to convey to his boss that the airplane cannot operate full gross out of 3500 foot safely. He currently flies a B200 and doesn't have access to these charts but has heard they exists. I have no clue where or how to find this info. I have talked to aircraft owners and pilots and all they can give me is Cessna and Flight Safety Performance Charts for standard conditions. Do they make these type of charts for the Bravo? Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
 
I'm on a trip in a Bravo right now. I'll try to remember to look tomorrow, but I'm not sure I'll be somewhere that I can scan stuff.

Send me a reminder if I haven't posted here by tomorrow afternoon.

The Bravo numbers on wet pavement are ugly, by the way. 3500' is weight limited on a dry runway, nevermind a wet one.


edit to add:

In the meantime, here's some UltraNav perfomance landing numbers for the Bravo at 1000' field elevation, 29.92 barometer, 25 degrees C., at max landing weight of 13,500#:

bravo.JPG

Dry landing distance 3,460' (80% factored 4,325, 60% 5,767')
Wet landing distance 5,426' (80% factored 6,782', 60% 9,043')

135 regulations require the landing can be accomplished in 60% of the available runway (although we have a waiver to use 80% if we do a Destination Airport Analysis). I wouldn't consider using less than 80%.

Here's the same criteria as above, only I reduced the landing weight to get 80% (DRY, not wet!) numbers down to 3,500':

bravo2.JPG

That's a landing weight of less than 12,000 pounds to safely get into a 3,500' DRY runway. 1,500 pounds less than max landing weight.

To give a little more perspective, all of our Bravos have a Basic Operating Weight (includes two pilots and all of our aircraft stock, books, etc.) of right around 9,600#. We use a target fuel reserve upon landing of 1,200 pounds. That takes us up to 10,800#, leaving just under 1,200# of payload in the scenario above.

Now if the runway is Wet? Forget it:

bravo3.JPG

Look at those numbers. I've reduced the weight all the way down to B.O.W., which means landing with ZERO fuel left on board, no pax, no bags, no extra bags of pretzels, and the wet runway landing distance is STILL over 3,500' (3575' to be exact), and if we want a margin of safety, the 80% number is 4,469'. Ain't happening. At least not more than once. :cool:
 
A quick Google search found a chart (on a charter website) that shows that plane needing 3600' at SL and ISA for takeoff.

This guy's boss is an idiot with a death wish.
 
Might as well look at some TakeOff numbers as well, even though the landings will be more restrictive.

The first one is again, 1000' MSL, 29.92, 25 deg C., at max take-off weight of 14,800# with a DRY runway:

bravoTO1.JPG

Oops. Weight limited to 13,508#!!! Ouch. That's going to hurt range/payload.

Well, since the original question was about a WET runway, let's try that:

bravoTO2.JPG

Looks like TakeOff distance at max gross weight (other parameters as listed earlier) is 4,429' on a wet runway.

Hmmm. Let's see what we can do at minimum take-off weight (NO pax, fuel for 1/2 hour flight plus reserve) of 11,600#:

bravoTO3.JPG

Oops. 4,046' on a wet runway. Gues that isn't working either. So we can't land OR take-off on a 3,500' wet runway in a Bravo.
 
Wet numbers kill it.

Also the definition of wet is a reflective surface.

Now, question, if a runway is grooved, and it rains, it isnt reflective, so technically isnt a wet runway. Thoughts?


I know a crew that flies an Excel in and out of a 3500' strip but they go out part 91 empty and only repo to a larger airport with light fuel loads.
 
Crockrocket94 said:
Also the definition of wet is a reflective surface.

Now, question, if a runway is grooved, and it rains, it isnt reflective, so technically isnt a wet runway. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That is certainly a consideration. And that's all I'm going to say about that. :bandit:
 
Thanks guys! Yea you don't have to tell me the boss is an idiot. When he asked me if he could operate out of a 3500 ft runway on the edge of the great lakes I immediately said no and I don't even fly a Bravo.
 
Oh, and here are some typical Operating Weights for the Bravo (B.O.W. includes ALL our aircraft stock, pilots, books, etc.):
 

Attachments

Crockrocket94 said:
Wet numbers kill it.

Also the definition of wet is a reflective surface.

Now, question, if a runway is grooved, and it rains, it isnt reflective, so technically isnt a wet runway. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, that is the standard in the 121 airline biz, grooved runways are never wet, so for our little operation, I only have to concern myself with wet runway numbers when operating out of the US
 
SteveC

If you are ever in the DFW/ADS/DAL area I owe you a beverage of you choice. Charts were a big help.
 
Glad to help.

Is he looking at other airframes, or different base location now?


[changes gears]
On the wet runway/grooved runway dealio...the issue for our type of operations is that the long runways where wet distance isn't a factor are the ones that are typically grooved. It's when we're trying to get in and out of shorter strips that we find the ungrooved slippery asphalt runways that are 50 or 75 feet wide.
[/c.g.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top