BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jul 2021, 02:28

Username Protected wrote:

I normally cruise at 430 w/b and 410 e/b but on a shorter leg last week I was at 370.
11.2k lbs. 382kts TAS on 960pph. Not terrible.

Ok. WTH is it upside down??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jul 2021, 08:44

Username Protected wrote:

I normally cruise at 430 w/b and 410 e/b but on a shorter leg last week I was at 370.
11.2k lbs. 382kts TAS on 960pph. Not terrible.

My flight yesterday was FL400, starting weight 14,500 lbs, cruise was 420 KTAS, 1150 pph, 2.74 lbs/nm.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N61 ... /KSRQ/KEVV

Your numbers work out to 2.51 lbs/nm, 9% better, which doesn't seem like as much improvement as I would expect for a lighter airplane equipped with FJ44 versus a heavy airplane with JT15D. I was operating at max thrust (104% N1).

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jul 2021, 09:00

Username Protected wrote:

I normally cruise at 430 w/b and 410 e/b but on a shorter leg last week I was at 370.
11.2k lbs. 382kts TAS on 960pph. Not terrible.

My flight yesterday was FL400, starting weight 14,500 lbs, cruise was 420 KTAS, 1150 pph, 2.74 lbs/nm.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N61 ... /KSRQ/KEVV

Your numbers work out to 2.51 lbs/nm, 9% better, which doesn't seem like as much improvement as I would expect for a lighter airplane equipped with FJ44 versus a heavy airplane with JT15D. I was operating at max thrust (104% N1).

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Jul 2021, 09:06

Mike did your avionics turn out as expected?
Any glamour shots of the completed project?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jul 2021, 00:00

Username Protected wrote:

Isn't 400 low for a 2 hr flight?

Maybe.

As I gain experience and confidence in the aircraft, I may go higher, but for now I went for speed over economy and to be slightly lower.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jul 2021, 11:06

Whats your ceiling on the V.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jul 2021, 12:37

Username Protected wrote:

I normally cruise at 430 w/b and 410 e/b but on a shorter leg last week I was at 370.
11.2k lbs. 382kts TAS on 960pph. Not terrible.

My flight yesterday was FL400, starting weight 14,500 lbs, cruise was 420 KTAS, 1150 pph, 2.74 lbs/nm.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N61 ... /KSRQ/KEVV

Your numbers work out to 2.51 lbs/nm, 9% better, which doesn't seem like as much improvement as I would expect for a lighter airplane equipped with FJ44 versus a heavy airplane with JT15D. I was operating at max thrust (104% N1).

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 00:00

Username Protected wrote:

Whats your ceiling on the V.

FL450.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 00:25

Username Protected wrote:

But he was flying lower (more fuel) and slower (less fuel), so not a direct comparison.

It is a fair comparison if you have enough power to use the higher altitudes.

One reason I bought a V over an SII is that the V has essentially equal range but more speed and power. For example, here is the cruise speed versus fuel flow chart I made comparing the two at one specific operating point:

Attachment:

560-vs-S550-cruise.png

To make things fair, the S550 is operating 500 lbs lighter and the V is operating 2000 ft higher. Both are reasonable adjustments relative to their actual characteristics.

As you see, the 560 is actually faster for the same fuel flow. The data comes from the Cessna operating manuals. My limited usage so far indicates I am outperforming book.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 09:11

Username Protected wrote:

But he was flying lower (more fuel) and slower (less fuel), so not a direct comparison.

It is a fair comparison if you have enough power to use the higher altitudes.

One reason I bought a V over an SII is that the V has essentially equal range but more speed and power. For example, here is the cruise speed versus fuel flow chart I made comparing the two at one specific operating point:

Attachment:

560-vs-S550-cruise.png

To make things fair, the S550 is operating 500 lbs lighter and the V is operating 2000 ft higher. Both are reasonable adjustments relative to their actual characteristics.

As you see, the 560 is actually faster for the same fuel flow. The data comes from the Cessna operating manuals. My limited usage so far indicates I am outperforming book.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 09:21

Username Protected wrote:

Mike did your avionics turn out as expected?

Mostly.

Overall, very nice. Three sources of weather: FIS-B, SXM, GWX 75 radar. Having charts on the PFD is very nice, hardly use my tablet any more.

Quote:

Any glamour shots of the completed project?

My plane has no glamour, it is meant to be functional.

Attachment:

n61gk-panel-2.png

Garmin wanted $1K more per box for gray bezels, so I went with black saving $4K. I think the black looks just fine. I guess a gray panel means you have more money to burn? It doesn't cost Garmin a penny more to make a gray bezel, of course.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 09:24

Awesome Mike who did the work for you.

Gary

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 09:37

Username Protected wrote:

That's interesting about the 560 and S550. Don't they have the same wing, except that the 560 has boots and the S550 has TKS?

Yes, basically true. The "new" wing allows faster cruise speed and slower takeoff and landing speeds, improvement at both ends, when compared to the 500/550 wing.

Quote:

But I still say the 560/Eagle II comparison is apples and oranges. 560 has 5 feet more wingspan, so of course it will compare favorably at only 2,000 lbs more TOW.

That's exactly why you should buy the orange, it works better than the apple.

The main downside to a V versus an Eagle II is the extra fuel it burns. But that isn't as large as delta as one might imagine, maybe 10-15% more per trip, due to better aerodynamics and higher altitude capability.

I looked seriously at Eagle II. The cruise speed impact of the fuel hump plus being a Williams slave turned me off. On a test flight at FL410, the example airplane couldn't go over about mach 0.64. That was uninspiring.

I think I can operate the V cheaper than an Eagle II. One, I don't over pay Williams for engine work and can shop that around, plus do HSI instead of full OH being part 91. Two, being faster means less airframe hours per trip which reduces maintenance costs. Three, I have a Textron provided low utilization inspection program which doubles my inspection intervals, the FJ44 modified legacy Citations don't get that option. Four, on at least a few flights, the V will go non stop and the Eagle II, despite the extra fuel, will require a stop. The west coast of the US is exactly in that range where this is an issue for me.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 09:39

Username Protected wrote:

Awesome Mike who did the work for you.

Columbia Avionics, KCOU.

They recently got bought by Blackhawk.

JetTech is another choice, but I think the work Columbia does is higher quality. Not perfect, still have a few niggly details, but overall quite happy.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jul 2021, 10:16

Username Protected wrote:

Isn't 400 low for a 2 hr flight?

Maybe.

As I gain experience and confidence in the aircraft, I may go higher, but for now I went for speed over economy and to be slightly lower.

Mike C.

Citation 501sp