I agree with everything you said except for this. If you do the GFC600 also then weight savings will be same or better than a G1000 install.

There are a lot of positives for upgraded legacy Citations and they provide good bang for the buck. There are some draw backs to consider with flying an older airframe and systems that you may want to research and understand (the AC system for example). SP certification may also be something to consider if you do any international flying since the SP LOI is a bit of a grey area.

I have flown my G1000 CJ for 7 years and 2000 hours+ and for my mission it has provided exceptional and reliable service with no complaints. I have TRs in our Hawker 400xp and don’t have them on the CJ - I don’t see a need for them if you fly on speed. Can’t say I would prefer having the weight complexity and expense for minimal benefit. I’ve flown in all kinds of weather to Quebec, Indy, Eagle, Aspen and Telluride and haven’t encountered a situation where I wish I had TRs in the CJ.

On the Hawker it’s a different story - with hotter landing speeds they are almost essential. If you look at all the runway over-runs on the BE400, a disproportionate number of them were Nextants with Williams engines.

Best prepurchase you can do is a Doc-10. It will also be the cheapest Doc-10 you will ever make since AW items will be on the seller and you’ll get 3 years/1200 hours until the next Doc-10.

Things to look for are precooler conversion to SS, AC conversion to R414 from R12, and the obvious engine stuff. Other than that it’s a stupid simple and easy to maintain airframe with no surprises. If the airplane you are considering is N525HA, I think it has a pretty good pedigree.

Does that include Wyoming winters to high altitude airports with short runways?

Your list are high end airports with well cared for long runways, not some little municipal airport serving a small town somewhere with patchy snow or ice left on the runway.

TRs provide more assurance you can stop and if you encounter wet, snow, ice, that is helpful.

If you fly into your listed airports, I agree, TRs not required, but I don't think that is the mission.

Mike C.

Maybe the only one being you need J Paul Getty on speed dial at each fill-up.

Both my vapor cycle ("freon") and air cycle machine systems were kind of screwed up when I bought my airplane, so I can understand why people worry about such systems.

The vapor cycle was fixed just with some minor tweaking of expansion valves and using a proper gauge set to get the pressures right. Like 2 hours labor.

The ACM was worn out since it was 5000 hours since last overhaul, a recommended TBO, so I was expecting this. Got it and the primary heat exchanger overhauled, and put back in the airplane for about $15K all in labor and parts. Now it will work well for the next 5000 hours.

These legacy AC systems scare people, but they really aren't that hard to deal with.

On the 525 series AC units, have been some issues with parts and there are precoolers that have been an issue as well.


Some countries recognize the US SPE, most don't. The single pilot "out of the box" feature is a good one for 525 series, but an SPE for the 500 series is not particularly onerous domestically. If you are going to do a lot of international flying, getting a single pilot plane would have benefit if you don't have handy SIC.


TRs pay for themselves in reduced tire and brake wear. I hardly use any braking at all and my brake wear indicator is near new even after several hundred landings since they were last overhauled. One of my brake stacks has about 1000 landings and it looks like it has at least 2000 more left, maybe 3000. The CJ brakes tend to last about 800 landings per Textron, but some owners report getting only 300-500 landings (this from the brake thread on CJP). Based on those reports and my observations, my TRs easily save more brake and tire money than they cost to maintain.

Mike C.

Does that include Wyoming winters to high altitude airports with short runways?

Your list are high end airports with well cared for long runways, not some little municipal airport serving a small town somewhere with patchy snow or ice left on the runway.

TRs provide more assurance you can stop and if you encounter wet, snow, ice, that is helpful.

If you fly into your listed airports, I agree, TRs not required, but I don't think that is the mission.

Mike C.

If you think brakes are expensive, wait until you get the bill for replacing parts and fixing TRs.

Flying on speed and with proper technique and aerodynamic braking, I can get the CJ stopped in less than 2500 feet without ever touching the brakes. In 2000 hours I’ve changed brakes once. Even on the Hawker I try to go easy on the TRs and treat them kindly. You’ll pay dearly if you grow accustomed to rely on them by coming in hot.

Because Williams (and Honda) don't offer them on their engines, and they want to sell cheaper airplanes without them.

They make more money selling brake overhauls that way, too.

Lots of things have been designed out of current products, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. TRs are very useful for dealing with short or contaminated runways.


They already are in the AFM with landing penalties for wet, snow, and ice.

If you have a dry clear runway, no issue, but sometimes that just isn't what you get, especially for a business day trip with an early morning arrival, which seems to fit the intended mission.


Was the runway covered in snow or ice? Did you meet the runway distances in the AFM?

This is the key chart to show the TR advantage, relatively small runway increases on surfaces that greatly reduce the friction:

My plane, at maximum takeoff and landing weights, can operate at KEFK (5300 ft runway) even if the runway is covered in ice.

What does your AFM say for you for the same situation?

Mike C.

My plane has 10,000 hours and is 31 years old.

My maintenance tracking system tracks 12 separate TR parts (doors, valves, mechanisms, linkages, duct, etc). That's 24 parts/assemblies for a pair of TRs.

None of them have been replaced or overhauled since the plane was made in 1991. All 24 tracked items are original.

Sure doesn't feel like TRs are a maintenance burden based on that.


If so, why does the AFM give such large penalties for contaminated runways?


Nobody said TRs are for coming in "hot".

Mike C.

Third - You are misinformed. All aircraft have penalties for wet, snow and ice.

40 or 50 years ago when your 30-year-old airplane’s AFM was written, factored distances weren’t used or considered in preparing the landing data for jet aircraft. Today, all modern jets - light or otherwise - incorporate landing distance factors with the AFM data.

After 30 or more years of runway over-runs (the leading cause of jet-aircraft accidents), a special focus has been placed in Take-off and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) which includes determining landing factors to be applied to aircraft landing data and performance assessment by operators – this includes ALL aircraft - including your 30-year-old aircraft.

SAFO 19001 and TALPA guidance was written with blood and applies to all aircraft and operators – including Part 91. Most runway over-run accidents occur with TR equipped aircraft. If you are not using landing distance factors, especially for contaminated, wet or ice covered runways bless your heart.

TRs are effective at higher speeds and no one will argue they aren't effective. When you are touching down at 95 knots and have the risk of FOD at anywhere close to 60 knots, the benefit is marginal and aerodynamic braking and lift dump mechanisms can compensate their added complexity. If you are flying into ice-skating rinks all the time with medium to poor braking conditions - get something with TRs and go for it - I am deviating even if I have TRs- are they worth it? For light jets the industry and market say no.

For someone flying into rural airports in winter in Wyoming, yes, TRs will definitely help increase mission reliability and reduce runway issues.


Lacking TRs does not reduce your Vref speeds at all, still 1.3 Vso. Why do you associate having TRs with flying too fast?


How can I be misinformed when I show the chart for my plane with those penalties?

The statement is that the penalties are MUCH LESS for TR equipped airplanes. Indeed, check out how large your numbers get when you have these conditions:

What this chart means is that KEFK is off limits to a CJ for anything other than a fully clear and dry runway. You claim to use KEFK in winter, but that would only work if the runway is fully clear and dry.

A TR equipped airplane isn't nearly as limited. My plane will, per the numbers, work even with an ice covered runway, and even at max weights. Loaded to the same range and cabin payload as the CJ, my weights will be well under max.


I do not believe the takeoff and landing distances in your AFM include any factors. I looked in the CJ AFM and found no statement to that effect. You might want to check your understanding of those numbers. The AFM numbers for a CJ and a Citation V are based o the same criteria. Indeed, the first CJ rolled off the line in 1991, same year my V was built.

If mission reliability into short rural airports is important, then you really do want TRs. If you are using only long dry runways only, then TRs are not needed.


I showed you the chart for those factors already.


Exactly my advice, glad we agree on that.


That only works if you have reliable information of runway conditions before you get there. You may discovers lack of runway friction after you touch down.


Most people aren't trying to use a jet where a turboprop works best. This mission profile will require dealing with contaminated runways at times, even if that is just wet. With a CJ, they will have to take a turboprop, or cancel the trip, on days where it rains. Even worse, this will occur even on days with FOERCAST rain since you don't want to end up stuck at the remote destination. How dumb it will look that you can't go home because the 20% chance of rain happened to occur that afternoon. Thus the runway doesn't actually have to be contaminated to cause mission failure, it just has to be forecast. That's just stupid for having what is supposed to be a mission critical all weather airplane.

Mike C.

Yesterday, a CJ3 overran a 9000 ft long runway at KRTS (Reno, NV).

Mike C.

This is what keeps me out of a Mustang. If Mustangs came with TRs I'd own one.