Removing the middle row will move the CG forward

Removing the middle row will move the CG forward

I threw away all the cabinetry in my Airplane. I don’t have a single piece of wood. I also threw the useless toilet away. It lost 168 pounds.

On my airplane's delivery file, the factory lists my seats as weighing 44.5 lbs (those on tracks) and 42.0 lbs (the ones mounted over the spar). These seats have the lateral slide capability (they can slide into the aisle), so may have more mechanism than the 501 seats, but I doubt it is 20 lbs more for that feature.

They weigh more than it may seem because they are large and you form an impression based on density.

The biggest weight items (everything 25+ lbs) on delivery file are:

226.2 lbs - avionics wiring harness
106.9 lbs - carpet
102.0 lbs - left hand forward galley
78.8 lbs - vapor cycle air conditioner
45.6 lbs - toilet
44.5 lbs - seats 3, 4, 5, 6, 10
43.3 lbs - cabin headliner
42.0 lbs - seats 7, 8
37.8 lbs - copilot seat
37.7 lbs - pilot seat
25.0 lbs - right hand storage cabinet

The comment I heard among the engineers is that they worked hard to save an ounce so the interior shop can waste 50 lbs. Devoting 107 lbs to carpet, for example, is ridiculous, and I can confirm the carper is quite heavy.

Most of the 226 lbs for the avionics wiring has been removed from my plane. This weight is just the wires, no trays, those are listed separately.

An aft CG has a lot of benefits in Citations. The plane goes faster and can take a large cabin load and stay in CG.

Mike C.

The 560/SII seats are insanely heavy compared to the 501.

I like my stripped down interior. Nobody in my family used any of the heavy "junk" and removing it gives the airplane a clean, open and modern look. I also found that no one wanted to sit backward which is why I moved them facing forward. I absolutely love not having a galley right in the entrance too. Not using a carpet runner and a bunch of floor mats saves weight too.

I've considered ditching my freon pallet in the rear to save another 65lbs and move my CG forward. A better overhead fan and a tight ACM is actually pretty adequate in most situations.

A lithium battery would also serve a similar purpose.

I'm at about 6850 now. I think it's possible to get a 501 to 6500lbs.

The ability to precool the cabin on a GPU is a game changer in the summer - I assume you would use that in Florida?

I'm at 7,151 but IIRC that's a calculated figure. Getting it weighed properly is on my list. I keep thinking I'd do it after a digital AP as I'd lose a ton of weight up front but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Maybe after I install the Jet Tech engine gauges next year.

How easy is it to reconfigure the 501? Can a pilot do it or does it require an A&P to remove and replace seats?

Sounds like those pesky engineers weren't so weight thoughtful after all if you were able to remove the wires. .

Chip-

Chip, the engineers that designed the 560 didn't have the luxury of modern, much lighter avionics and the wiring that accompany them.

Ha, I know, I forgot to put that text in green!

Chip-

501 vs MU2.

seems like they'd be similar cost to operate? I know the MU2 burns less gas (and a little slower), but from a phase inspection comparison, similar?

anybody ever move from 1 to the other?

Both JD and I had MU-2s and 501s. The 501 is unquestionably less expensive to maintain and an order of magnitude safer, more capable and enjoyable. I like the MU-2 but it's in a different league than a jet.

My Citation V is about 30% more cost per mile than my MU2 was.

I spend less on maintenance per mile (LUMP has a big effect here), but more on fuel.

The speed, range, capability, seat count, comfort, and safety are hugely better, so the cost increase is worth the improvements.

Mike C.

Others with direct experience have already chimed in but I will give my $0.02. I looked hard at MU-2's during my research on what to move to from the SR22. One thing to keep in mind is that the MU-2 has a mandatory 100-hour inspection and a 12-month inspection. Depending on how much you fly you could get out of sync with those and (if you don't have local service) spend a lot of time shuttling back and forth to service. I am local to IJSC so that wouldn't have been a problem but it's something to think about. Details in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=113774

I ended up choosing the 501 both for safety (more margin to get over weather, more docile handling, fewer failure modes that can kill you) and ease of use - that fuel system is a cluster (you must be present for all fueling operations). With the 501 I just give the FBO my fuel order and roll (of course I check the fuel caps as part of preflight). Also with the 501, if you stay under 150 hours per year, there are (effectively) no hourly inspections - everything is calendar-based so you can easily plan for maintenance.

Finally, since I actually use 8 seats, a Marquise was pushing $1M back in 2021. I paid dramatically less than that for my 501.

If you can keep the line monkeys from resting the fuel hose on the deice boots. I catch them doing that all the time.

Fueling an MU2 was no fun, but I trusted some FBOs to do it right.

The Citation is much simpler to fuel. The only problem is the time it takes to get that much more fuel into the tank. I've actually done more self serve in the Citation than I did in the MU2.

Mike C.