Very nice Max. Your 441 is in a unique class. Too bad they are not available new.

Geez that’s impressive. I don’t think I could do a 7 hour flight though. Still, amazing.

Are you saying that a 441 is a vibrator?

FL340 + 6.3 PSI is cabin altitude of 10,464 ft.


1 more PSI would lower cabin to 8,000 ft, which would make a significant difference.

Mike C.

Most of them with a fuel stop.

In less time, too, even including the fuel stop.

A few SP jets can do it non stop. 1770 nm into 50 knot headwinds.

CJ3 should just be able to do it. CJ4 can.

S550 can with stock JT15D can *just* barely do it, does it easily with FJ44.

PC-24 should be able to do it.

SJ30 can.

Mike C.

We have flown TEB and LGA to LAS on the 3+ numerous times. It is wind dependent, 50 knots would probably be too much (for an average).

The 4, though faster doesn't fight winds much better on long trips because the delta between highspeed and LRC is fuel flows is larger. Go alittle faster, burn a ton more gas.

Where you're going matters too. Dropping into SDL on the desert2 isn't a problem, but going into socal or NYC after a trip that long could be an issue.

Edit #2: I have said this before, but we are lacking a light jet with true transcon legs. Something that flies 4 people 3000 miles. It's a hole in the market.

Mike... Are you sure you are not an airplane salesman?

1770 with 50kt headwind… in a CJ4.. Nope, not with any reserves.
Even with no wind it would not be feasible, practically speaking.

call ahead and drop in for a quick turn.

Scottsdale is one of the safest airports in the world to stretch fuel. NYC airports one of the worst. No doubt.

Would it still be a “light jet” if it could fly 4 people 3,000nm? And for what it would cost why wouldn’t people just buy a “proper” jet? Eg APU plus stand up cabin.

No doubt about that being a hole in the market, but it might be a black hole. Increase fuel cap=more structure= more weight. More weight=more fuel burn=less range. It’s a vicious circle. I agree with Mark. At that point it’s probably no longer a light jet. It’s a Citation Latitude.

Ran the numbers using LRC, 4700 lbs fuel, 1100 lbs reserve for 1770 nm into 50 knot headwind. This is from Cessna's charts.

The common mistake is only considering MCT performance and/or not using max altitude. Makes a big difference in the CJ4.


Cessna's published still air range for the CJ4 is 2165 nm, which is ~400 nm longer than this trip.

Are you saying they are lying?

Mike C.

I have flown in the rear of several small jets, and most of them very fairly noisy in the back. I think more than th 441. One of them went through an interior upgrade and soundproofing. Big difference! Went from being uncomfortably loud to ok for conversation. Above 30,000 feet the indicated airspeed on the 441 drops below 170 knots, and the cabin becomes very quiet. Just a nice “hummmm”. My DB meter then reads 3 dB meter more than in the back of a 737 in cruise. So comparable. But my props are balanced and I have “super soundproofing” and an additional layer of Soundex placed against the fuselage skin, and about 2inches on the firewall. Yes, packed, but overall quiet. No doubt if the 441 cruised at 400+ knots it would be a lot more noisy!

The trip consumed 2800 lbs of fuel. If a jet had to stop and refuel, I think the time savings would not be worth 2X+ (?) the fuel. Also think a jet doing much less than 400 knots is also not worth the extra cost to save a few minutes....

Mike,

You will miss at 800 feet SE for safety in a plane that you know better than Mitsubishi does.
(and yet, use Cessna marketing figures for flight planning)

If you flew a CJ4 you get used to really fine tuned calculations on the Cessna Software, runway numbers range etc. Great software.

But when you fly it, the boss wants to go fast, he can afford the fuel, doesn't mind a pee stop at 2-2.5 hours, likes to land with alternate fuel and cushion.

So after weight and balance considerations I plan 400 or 410, 1st hour 1400# then 1200 each hour thereafter. Good 3 hour airplane that lands with 1500# if there are no delays. It says it holds 5828#....rarely will you see more that about 5700 at takeoff.
Do we use 430/450...only eastbound, with good winds.

( I can't give you any pointers on the MU2 though)

Edit: There is a difference in how you plan a trip when one is the lowly baggage handler with front seat privileges. If you make a trip once, they (those that own the baggage) expect you to do it every time. It is far easier to use safe numbers, so when you get the 130Kt headwind, you don't have to explain landing early. Flying your own airplane , carrying your own bags, gives you flexibility to run tighter numbers, and if needed, stop and get more fuel.

That's your choice, to fly high power and lower altitudes, but the plane WILL do the trip if you operate it correctly.

Note that it takes longer to do a fuel stop than to slow down and go non stop.


You don't fly long legs because you lack the willingness to explain it to your passengers if they don't always work?

How do you explain below minimum weather?

I must be blessed with more understanding passengers.

Mike C.

Max, how does the 441 performance compare at FL 280 vs. 340, that is, without RVSM? Speed, fuel burn? Would this trip have been possible?

I can pull numbers from the -10 AFMS put out by West Star, assuming ISA, mid weights:

FL280: 316 KTAS, 500 PPH
FL340: 309 KTAS, 391 PPH

FL280 is 20% worse specific range.


Doubtful, given winds at FL280 would not be hugely less.

Mike C.