My Citation retrofit ditched the original Honeywell ADC. Everything runs from the Garmin ADC units, including RVSM certification. There is a data converter box that takes the digital data from the ADC and turns them into analog signals my SPZ autopilot understands.

When/if I can get a new autopilot, I won't have any of the original avionics in the airplane, except the CVR.

Mike C.

With an airplane of that class, you would be crazy to limit your search to only the US...

Yes, apparently Piaggio won’t give/sell the SSEC data to Garmin for some reason. I hear rumors they may do so soon. Then the Collins ADC could be eliminated.

I have had this discussion with myself multiple times. My kids are grown so the majority of the time it’s just me and my wife. TBM is hard to beat. The next jump is so expensive and I’m not really sure I gain that much? Going higher sometimes would be nice. We always want faster. The increased acquisition costs, training requirements and operating expense for myself I just can’t justify.

I don't think my STC for the V used Textron supplied data.

You have at least two ways to get the SSEC:

You can take an air data test set, applied precise static pressures, and read the corrections directly on the old instruments.

You can extract it from the data put into the ADC system. The old systems are more obvious and less obtuse in data encoding. I believe this is the way my system was done.

There is a third way, fly the airplane with a static cone test set and make your own SSEC table. This is likely the most precise way.


They don't need to wait for Piaggio, plenty of ways around that.

Mike C.

I can't justify a TBM when I can fly higher, faster, longer, for less money.

Your true costs are hidden in a high hull value so you don't see them, but they still exist.

Mike C.

Sure, I would guess it’s a matter of economics to do it vs size of market. There are 46 Avanti I on the US registry. Roughly 100 worldwide. No idea how much it would cost to do the data collection and certifying it vs buying it already collected and certified, but suspect it’s a lot less to buy already done.

We manage a TBM 700 amongst 8 citations. Personally, I will never own a TBM. I will skip that and go right to a mustang which meets my needs just fine. We had a streak of about 4 years where the TBM was the most expensive to maintain between all the Citations (Except the XL). This is on the TBM inspection program maintained at TBM service centers.

For your mission a CJ2+, CJ3 would work well. The CJ2 would be easier on the purchase budget but the zero fuel weight is limiting.

The biggest change to your budget will be the engine programs, however you do get something for that. If anything breaks, you are 100% covered. When the HSI and OH come, you are covered.

-The Citation Jet Exchange

I don't think my STC for the V used Textron supplied data.

You have at least two ways to get the SSEC:

You can take an air data test set, applied precise static pressures, and read the corrections directly on the old instruments.

You can extract it from the data put into the ADC system. The old systems are more obvious and less obtuse in data encoding. I believe this is the way my system was done.

There is a third way, fly the airplane with a static cone test set and make your own SSEC table. This is likely the most precise way.


They don't need to wait for Piaggio, plenty of ways around that.

Mike C.

I second the motion for a B200 with Blackhawk engines. Gets you close to 300 knots if not a tad over.

Have any Avanti I owners made a call to AeroMech? Might be worth the chat.

Showing my stupidity here: wouldn't using the delta between Collins and Garmin altimeters allow you to create your own SSEC curve?

Conduct a test like an ASE trial (high/low, fast/slow, heavy/light) and get a blended number. Garmin probably needs an endorsement from someone authoritative.

Terry, do you do work on projects like this?

If a CJ3+ is a possibility, I would encourage you to do a deep analysis on it. It's a surprisingly efficient airplane. A year ago at the CJP convention, there was a presentation on the operating economics between a Mustang, M2, CJ3+, and a V. The CJ3+ was only slightly more to operate than the Mustang. They used pilot data instead of Textron material. It's not a difficult airplane to fly, and the type rating will make you a better pilot. Also, once you start flying a jet, you'll fly more hours. It's just the way it is.

If you don't count the cost of money.

The CJ3 goes for a pretty penny right now.

It is a very nice airplane. Since you fly in headwinds more than tailwinds, the faster airplane is actually better than the numbers for still air would suggest. Also, if it skips a fuel stop, that's a pretty large cost driver, too, since it is cycles, fuel, and airframe time.

Mike C.

Yes, I don’t count CAPEX in OPEX. There’s a reason they’re separated.

Self delusion?

CAPEX is a major factor in the total economic impact of an airplane especially in modern times with high inflation and interest rates.

Mike C.