I never used CAMP. Just sierratrax. Seems great. All the citation operators I’ve queried said that CAMP is a waste of money.


If flown less than 200 hours a year one can use one of several low utilization programs. Cessna has one as well.


No shortcuts. No eBay parts. Just due diligence with regards to troubleshooting, parts replacement, where said parts are purchased and which shop does the work. For example I just replaced both starter/generators. Overhauled units from Consolidated in Islip. Work was done at my home field by a shop that maintains several citations and some other turbine birds. Total cost for both including labor was under 7k. At the service center it’s 2-3x that. Same with phase inspections. And they’re more likely to throw parts at an issue rather then a deep dive troubleshoot.



I don’t believe my airplane is any less safe or reliable because I make an effort to be involved in the Mx. If anything the opposite is true.

But how about that Meridian fuel efficiency!? Makes me want one or a Jetprop! How can I put an aux tank on a Meridian?

Isn't there some old engineer adage like anyone can build a bridge that stands, only an engineer can build a bridge that barely stands...?

I've been tinkering with making moulds and building carbon fiber RC flying wings and my first iteration was 4 layers of pre-preg, ribs, spars, beefed up areas for servos, elevon hinges, motor mounts etc. The thing needed 800 watts of power just to get off the ground and then it flew like a falling leaf. Iteration after iteration and finally I went simple with just two layers of pre-preg, one strip of uni and it came out feather light, just as robust if not more, and only required 250 watts to actually fly around.

Most things on our Meridian seemed awfully flimsy as a component but put together it was one tough machine. 275,000 miles in 8 years and it never once let us down. Now when I walk around the Phenom it brings me back to that 4 layer flying wing and how repeatedly hard I crashed it trying to get it to fly.

Chip-

You can learn a lot about real world engineering from building and flying RC. Especially failure propagation.

In this market, one never knows.

I'd be curious what your mentoring time requirements were for a 0 turbine pilot.


441 is a great airplane.

Only real negative is that it is a bit too lightly built, maybe even a bit "flimsy". Upside is it is light weight for its size, downside is not quite as robust as one would like. My MU2 had 1000 lbs more aluminum in it and it was SMALLER, but that is definitely at the opposite end of the spectrum, too beefy really.

I think RVSM isn't worth it on the 441. If you have a tailwind, FL280 is just fine and you have the range. If you have a headwind, going to FL350 will make it worse, so your range doesn't really increase that much. It basically helps on the still air days, which are rare.

Mike C.

In this market, one never knows.

I'd be curious what your mentoring time requirements were for a 0 turbine pilot.


441 is a great airplane.

Only real negative is that it is a bit too lightly built, maybe even a bit "flimsy". Upside is it is light weight for its size, downside is not quite as robust as one would like. My MU2 had 1000 lbs more aluminum in it and it was SMALLER, but that is definitely at the opposite end of the spectrum, too beefy really.

I think RVSM isn't worth it on the 441. If you have a tailwind, FL280 is just fine and you have the range. If you have a headwind, going to FL350 will make it worse, so your range doesn't really increase that much. It basically helps on the still air days, which are rare.

Mike C.

I don't say much when folks talk about crazy low maintenance costs. They have their opinion. I just wouldn't recommend anyone rely on it!
Let's see, buying replacement parts for a plane that cost how much new?
Anyone know what gear leg replacement will be if there's corrosion on inspection?
What's a replacement engine cost if one fails? Some things are insured, but not all.
One gets an electrical issue that takes 100 hours to troubleshoot (old plane). Then, one has to fix the problem.
On most inspections it's not big stuff, but a lot of little things that really add up on an old plane. Some of the inspections alone call for a lot of hours of labor before you fix anything.
I'll just end here.

Let me introduce some perspective as I see it.

Only about 25% of the 441 fleet is RVSM, so that limits your choices. There are on going costs to maintain it and some of the equipment involved is expensive if it needs replacement.

To make use of RVSM, you have to fly with high cabin altitudes due to limited pressurization, and to fly long durations in time since it would only be needed on long range flights. Flying 11,000 cabin for 6 hours is tiring and not ideal for visual and mental acuity. Passengers will end up fatigued at the end of such a flight. This is the sort of thing that looks okay on paper, but isn't so great in real life. The 441 really needs higher pressurization to fly in the 30s.

It is easy to get excited about the still air range of RVSM. But at FL350, the air is rarely still. My modeling of a 1600 nm trip from KEVV to KBFI showed that I almost always could make it non stop east bound without RVSM, and going west bound, RVSM rarely helped since higher altitudes had higher winds. Other city pairs may have different results, but it was really a very low probability of RVSM being helpful. This is one reason I focused on a Citation rather than a 441 as getting into the mid 40s caused winds to die down somewhat and the higher airspeed made winds less impactful.

As to Europe, you won't be flying the NA tracks above FL280, it just isn't worth the equipment and approval process to do that. So RVSM doesn't help with that. It is not very much further to use the more northern "blue spruce" routes where the range of the 441 is not an issue. Your proposed plan just isn't doable when you get into the actual operational procedures. They aren't going to allow a 441 to cross all the NA tracks at FL350 out in the ocean.

If you do KRAC BGBW EINN LEBL, that is only 0.42% longer than KRAC BGBW LEBL. You'll want a break anyways and Ireland is a nice place to do that.

The KRAC to BGBW leg is a bit long, so perhaps KRAC CYYR BIKF LEBL works better (Greenland can be tough weather wise). This path is only 6% longer than KRAC BGBW LEBL, 238 nm longer, so not as much longer as one thinks. Given the higher speed at FL280, and maybe less winds, it might be the same flying time in actual air time.

I spent a lot of time thinking about flying to Europe. In the end, the equipment and effort isn't worth it, but fun to dream about.

Mike C.

Let me introduce some perspective as I see it.

Only about 25% of the 441 fleet is RVSM, so that limits your choices. There are on going costs to maintain it and some of the equipment involved is expensive if it needs replacement.

To make use of RVSM, you have to fly with high cabin altitudes due to limited pressurization, and to fly long durations in time since it would only be needed on long range flights. Flying 11,000 cabin for 6 hours is tiring and not ideal for visual and mental acuity. Passengers will end up fatigued at the end of such a flight. This is the sort of thing that looks okay on paper, but isn't so great in real life. The 441 really needs higher pressurization to fly in the 30s.

It is easy to get excited about the still air range of RVSM. But at FL350, the air is rarely still. My modeling of a 1600 nm trip from KEVV to KBFI showed that I almost always could make it non stop east bound without RVSM, and going west bound, RVSM rarely helped since higher altitudes had higher winds. Other city pairs may have different results, but it was really a very low probability of RVSM being helpful. This is one reason I focused on a Citation rather than a 441 as getting into the mid 40s caused winds to die down somewhat and the higher airspeed made winds less impactful.

As to Europe, you won't be flying the NA tracks above FL280, it just isn't worth the equipment and approval process to do that. So RVSM doesn't help with that. It is not very much further to use the more northern "blue spruce" routes where the range of the 441 is not an issue. Your proposed plan just isn't doable when you get into the actual operational procedures. They aren't going to allow a 441 to cross all the NA tracks at FL350 out in the ocean.

If you do KRAC BGBW EINN LEBL, that is only 0.42% longer than KRAC BGBW LEBL. You'll want a break anyways and Ireland is a nice place to do that.

The KRAC to BGBW leg is a bit long, so perhaps KRAC CYYR BIKF LEBL works better (Greenland can be tough weather wise). This path is only 6% longer than KRAC BGBW LEBL, 238 nm longer, so not as much longer as one thinks. Given the higher speed at FL280, and maybe less winds, it might be the same flying time in actual air time.

I spent a lot of time thinking about flying to Europe. In the end, the equipment and effort isn't worth it, but fun to dream about.

Mike C.

Merlin III series.

F-86 seems pretty stout. If you can't run FEA on it, just make it thicker.

I have crawled around a MU2 and I thought it seemed really heavy duty. Thats just my non engineer personal opinion.

My annual inspections on both of my Pipers were crazy and lots of things break during the year under normal use. I was flying more than average at at least 350hrs per year but my 421 flew the same trips less hours and when it went to annual very little was broke or wore out. So in my opinion the Cessna Product is built heavier duty than the Piper product. Thats not a slam on Piper, they have to build lighter planes.

I know Chuck is a fan boy of Piper but he also has only owned brand new Piper products. When you compare legacy Piper to Legacy Cessna there is a huge difference in build quality. Not sure what its like to compare a new Cessna product to new Piper product.

My bet is the MU2 is another level up from the Cessna legacy product. I also think the Beechcraft product is also very well built and a step up from Piper.

I am sure I would be very pleased with the quality if a new $3M Piper single TP, at least I would hope so.

Back to this thread topic I believe a TBM is higher build quality than the Piper product of same value. That being said there seems to be a lot more TBM accidents than M500. The TBM seems more complex and more expensive. But has more payload and heavier duty.

I know a salesman that sold Piper for a long time then switched to TBM he has a lot of experience in both. He thinks the TBM is a more capable aircraft but has more things that can kill you. I have sat in both and the TBM is much larger and feels better built.

So all things being equal I would pick the TBM over Meridian but I would expect to pay more for maintenance. But you get more for your money with range, payload, and feel.

Mike

You are comparing single engine planes with a twin engine plane in terms of strength. Of course the twin is "beefier". It has to be for two engines. Ever flown a Cessna 152? 172? 182? Those are singles. Compare those to the Meridian or Mirage. No comparison. This Cessna versus Piper build quality isn't a valid argument if you are trying to compare a cabln class twin to a single, IMHO.

Greg,

Fair point.

I have flown a Piper Seneca and its exactly the same build quality as my Saratoga. So not sure the twin vs single argument works here. Haha The Seneca and Saratoga are the same plane. The fact that one has twin engines does not change the build quality.

But I get your point and a Twin Cessna is built heavier than single for sure.

Actually I have flown some single Cessna products and its still my opinion that the Cessna product is higher quality than Piper. I also have been in a Single Beechcraft and I think its better than Piper. The twin Beechcraft product is built basically the same as the single Beechcraft product. So again twin does not make it better build quality.

I did make the point earlier in this thread that gross weight makes a difference. with my 501sp at Max gross of 12,500lbs it can be heavier duty than my Saratoga at max gross of whatever that was. So in that regard we agree, heavier is usually heaver duty.

Isn't the TBM heavier than the Meridian? :-) So really you should always pick the heavier option. Haha

Mike

I was surprised at the difference between a 421 and a 425. Looking at the tail it's obviously much more substantial, from the trim tab up, even though the planes (apart from the engines) look identical from 20 ft away. Same with a Malibu to M500/600.