A while back, I created a chart that attempted to “normalize” some of the range and speed claims of various aircraft. I did this by using Foreflight, using max cruise (or recommended cruise if one was published) figures. Foreflight uses book numbers to develop their performance numbers, and using book numbers helped to eliminate some of the anecdotal claims often made by owner pilots.

To normalize a fuel reserve, I determined the fuel burn for a 200 nm flight, takeoff to landing, at the most efficient altitude, but still using max cruise. The resultant fuel burn was what I used for a fuel reserve in my max range calculation. I did not attempt to determine the range at speeds lower than max/recommended cruise.

All of the numbers were done at ISA temps, at the most fuel efficient max cruise altitude, with zero wind, at max gross takeoff weight. Based on the above criteria, I get the following:

M2 - 1,242 NM @ FL410
CJ2 - 1,490 NM @ FL450
CJ3+ - 1,759 NM @ FL450

Speeds over a 1,000 nm trip, using the same criteria, were 2:45 for M2 and CJ2, with the 3+ being about 7 minutes faster. Fuel burns over a 1,000 NM trip were 319 for the M2, 338 for the CJ2, and 353 for the CJ3+.

I did not do numbers for a CJ2+. A CJ3 and a CJ3+ would be the same.

A while back, I created a chart that attempted to “normalize” some of the range and speed claims of various aircraft. I did this by using Foreflight, using max cruise (or recommended cruise if one was published) figures. Foreflight uses book numbers to develop their performance numbers, and using book numbers helped to eliminate some of the anecdotal claims often made by owner pilots.

To normalize a fuel reserve, I determined the fuel burn for a 200 nm flight, takeoff to landing, at the most efficient altitude, but still using max cruise. The resultant fuel burn was what I used for a fuel reserve in my max range calculation. I did not attempt to determine the range at speeds lower than max/recommended cruise.

All of the numbers were done at ISA temps, at the most fuel efficient max cruise altitude, with zero wind, at max gross takeoff weight. Based on the above criteria, I get the following:

M2 - 1,242 NM @ FL410
CJ2 - 1,490 NM @ FL450
CJ3+ - 1,759 NM @ FL450

Speeds over a 1,000 nm trip, using the same criteria, were 2:45 for M2 and CJ2, with the 3+ being about 7 minutes faster. Fuel burns over a 1,000 NM trip were 319 for the M2, 338 for the CJ2, and 353 for the CJ3+.

I did not do numbers for a CJ2+. A CJ3 and a CJ3+ would be the same.

Empty weights from our fleet:

CJ w/ G600TXI Upgrade: 6,528
CJ2: 7,695
CJ2+: 7,842
CJ3+: 8,357
M2: 6,823

I've found it hard to give "ranges" on any plane. There are so many factors it's hard to pin any number down. Aside from weights/altitudes, headwinds/tailwinds a large limiting factor could be which type of airports are you operating between? If you are brought down low 200 miles out as in the NYC area or often Chicago, that greatly limits your range. Alternatively being held low on departure will eat up gas. If I'm going somewhere remote I'm not going in with min fuel in the event I need a diversion. I don't want my decision to continue to be made by dwindling fuel.

In any of those examples on paper you may be able to stretch your range to fit but in practice that reserve could quickly get eaten up.

There was one that was modified - and I own it. Spectacular aircraft. Just my mission has changed quite a bit shaving approximately 500nm off my flights.

-Jason