And Garmin?

Bump the 4 to .80 and give it an apu that can be left unattended.[/quote]


And Garmin?[/quote]


Getting from .77 to .80 would involve a significant amount of wing sweep. You trade off short field performance and low speed stability to achieve those higher speeds.

-The Citation Jet Exchange[/quote]

I thought I read that the CJ4 wing was a scaled down version of the Sovereign wing. That’s an .80 airplane that can’t be beat on short field ops. I should think the CJ4 is capable of the same.

As for the APU thing - man, once you have one it is painful to go without. It’s like an externally serviced lav and single point fuel. Heck, make it an option so corporate operators can have one of they want it.

I completely disagree, the back 2 seats in the Beechjet are basically unusable, feels smaller than a CJ2. The beechturd cabin height is 4'10 and width is 4'11. The CJ/CJ4 is 4'9 and 4'10. No discernable difference. The runway length requirements of the 400 far exceed the CJ series, and range can be severely diminished. I have multiple first hand accounts of owners paying $250k-400k for C and D inspections.

-The Citation Jet Exchange

I don't really think the data exists to support this statement. Certainly probably need to talk about which TP's what kind of avionics (since LOC accounts for most fatals in TP's, which presumably would occur in jets with the same pilot and avionics). We have poor denominators, but using the total biz jet fatal rate for single pilot ops, which is dwarfed by 2 pilot pro crews is a stretch. Check out these data.



And if you compare apples to apples comparing a modern integrated glass cockpit TP to modern glass cockpit biz jets, with similar time in service and relatively similar fleet hours. You would be hard pressed to find a statistical delta there. If anything, the delta favors the SETP's

Citations Mustang, 2 fatals
Eclipse Jet, 1 Fatal
Phenom 100, 1 fatal
Phenom 300, 2 Fatals
HondJet, 0 Fatals
Piper GX000 Meridian/M500/600, 0 fatals
Pilatus NG/NGX, 0 fatals
TBM 8/9 Well there have been several, might need to look more into that airframe. I don't think the ultramodern TBM9 has had issues, but is a low hour airframe right now.

Chuck of the two fatal in Mustang #1 was a pro crew flying an approach in major snow storm. They were apparently afraid of ice. At 230 kts they flew into a mountain. Some speculation ice was not a reason for the excessive speed because as you snow generally does not stick. Reportedly the two regularly flew approaches at high speeds. You can’t fix stupid even with two pro pilots.

#2 was well documented suicide. There has not been a single pilot “accidental” fatal event. No doubt it will happen someday!

The hull/asset value on these SP certified light jets continues to climb - currently seeing the PC24 in the $13m range. That is a large number for any insurer to swallow - hence most of those policies being quota shared when insured SP (two or more insurers taking a percentage of the placement). We do see more and more crew ops but not so much due to the SP premium being high but moreso liability limits being easier to obtain when you are running a two-crew operation versus single-pilot. Right now in today's marketplace on a standalone policy for a single-aircraft $25m is pretty much the max you can get SP and even then the pilot has to be very strong with SP experience in the jet class. If you go two-crew you can pretty much get whatever limits you want - $100m/$200m or more depending on pilot quals etc.

It’s one of the only aircraft they produce that isn’t Garmin, the King Air 260 and 360 are the only two others I am aware of.

I predict the “CJ4+” will be announced very soon and the King Airs will follow.

Is there an stc for garmin in the non + cj3 s?


Also, are overhauls ‘required’ on Williams engines for part 91? What about the pratts on a p300? Can you keep running them w hots the way people do with the older citations?

Got more cj3 info today. High speed chart attached. Do they regularly beat book? It does not look like a 400kt plane at fl450 unless it does or you are not carting around fuel or people. I want 400kts from beginning to end. I already know what it’s like going slightly slower than that

Sitting in one the cabin was very nice but very very very tight relative to Piaggio. I am not quite sure how an older, not slender, human would be able to use the toilet. Once seated and things slid to middle it was fine. My head and shoulders hit sidewall until then.

Cockpit ok. I am 6’ and would have preferred another inch of seat track. This was a fancy new one and had full Garmin which was lovely. Makes the proline in cj4 look 20 years old.

Overall a beautiful piece of kit. While I cannot afford to, I do see why people buy new ones. Smoke if you got ‘em.

I am going from memory but I believe the proline planes are stuck until there is a Garmin or STEC Autopilot. The Autopilot is integrated w/ the proline so you have to replace it as well.

Overhauls are not required by the FAA but Williams will not allow you to just do HSIs. When Mike C was looking at Williams-powered Citations they straight up said that if you're not on programs they will price all engine work 30% higher than if you were on programs and they don't allow you to skip doing overhauls. There are no independent Williams shops so you have no choice.

I believe the newer Pratts are the same way (they saw how Williams turned a single purchase of metal into a perpetual income stream) but I have not seen it explicitly like I have for Williams.

Uhh, come again

Exactly right. The light to mid-size jet market requiring two pilots is no-man’s land. Two crew and owners want super mid-size standup room. You can operate a G200 or Challenger 300 pretty damn close to a G150 (nee Astra SPX) or most of the newer Lears, as an example. Guess what you can no longer buy?

As for single pilot approved jets being operated with a crew of 2, fair point. But there’s still a lot of flexibility for those owners in repositioning and maintenance flights being done single pilot.

No STC for Garmins in the 525, Textron had the STC, did 15 CJ’s and orphaned it. As mentioned it would be an autopilot issue on the Proline aircraft.

Cessna, of course wants people to just but the M2 or CJ3+

Williams and Pratt use the term “Inspection” in lieu of overhaul so they are mandated by the FAA.

Just using the term "inspection" doesn't automatically make it an inspection.

The FAA was clear about this and it has been incorporated in their guidance for inspectors.

Williams calls it "major periodic inspection" but just using that name doesn't make it mandatory. Williams makes it mandatory because they control all major engine events, so it doesn't matter.

Pratt newer model engines, like the PW500 series, are also captured, so Pratt can force overhauls just by refusing to HSI an engine past TBO. The only shop other than Pratt that works on PW500 series is Dallas and they do what Pratt wants.

For the older engine, like JT15D, you can just do a HSI and fly past an OH because there are independent options to do so.

In any case, just using the term "inspection" doesn't automatically make it an inspection and therefore not mandatory for part 91 operators.

To clarify, inspections check for airworthiness, overhauls add new life. Overhauls are maintenance per the FAA and are not mandated by an inspection program for part 91.

In short, no, the Williams and PW500 powered airplanes can't fly past TBO like the older airplanes. This is due not to terminology, but due to restrictive business policies at Williams and Pratt.

Mike C.

And here's a fun fact:

Joining Williams programs arbitrarily can bump up your overhaul and hot section inspection intervals 1000 hours.

Not offered if you're not on their programs.

They get to put off the work and collect another $390,000 in dues.

But, if you go this route, you better just make peace with it knowing you're flying behind reliable, efficient engines with a stellar support group.