Services: $3344 - dues for CAA - nav data subscription - maintenance tracking - Airtext service
2024 total: $117,178
Per hour: $1283
2024 was a very light year for maintenance, no major inspections due, no breakdowns. New battery and one starter overhaul (preemptive which lowers cost) are the major maintenance events. I bought new main tires but they are in storage (tires are hard to get, so buy early, it will be years before I need them, though).
2025 will see a the "big" inspection, phase 1-5, which occurs every 6 years (3 years if you are not on the LUMP). I've already scheduled it with the shop and I'm starting to work through the tasks, my squawks, and the "while we are in there" stuff. Not clear how much it will cost this year, but the fact I don't have to take apart my plane so often has helped it be very reliable and economical to own.
This year, the most interesting trip was flying to Alaska, all the way to Utqiavik (formerly Barrow). Fun trip, especially my flying around Denali.
My flying was up slightly from last year, but still just under 100 hours. 100 hours is a fair amount of traveling at 400 knots, about 33,000 nm total.
Insurance was basically unchanged from last year.
The Citation V is a marvelous traveling machine. It is also amazingly capable for short runways and contaminated runways. I just did a trip where I took off from a fully ice covered runway and it was no problem at all. I do like having thrust reversers, makes my brakes last forever and makes runway surface condition much less critical.
I'll monitor this thread for a bit, but I won't have time to do it for too long.
Thank you for sharing very detailed information! That 94 hours you flew would have been 370-360 waiting on the airlines! Plus, with the number of passengers you can carry in above first class comfort, you are quite a bit ahead of the game.
That maintenance cost is great, less than a typical cabin class piston....
We shall see how it goes for the phase 1-5. I figure it will be about $50K, but we shall see. When amortized over a 6 year interval, that's not too bad.
Not having to tear the plane apart every year for an annual is fantastic. This lowers cost and increases reliability quite a bit. Tearing planes apart every year is tremendously wasteful and increases risk.
Quote:
What about engine costs which are not captured? Maybe another $200/hour on top?
I account only for actual dollars spent. You can add whatever you want for reserves, but ultimately those costs are determined by what you spend and/or what the market value is when you sell.
I'm due for hot sections in about 2-3 years. We shall see how much that costs at that time, but it will add ~1800 hours of life to the engines at that time. That appears to be 15+ years of my usage.
If I was on an engine program, that would run about $500 per hour. There is a lot of profit built into those programs and they don't go past TBO like I am going to do.
The advantage of the JT15D over the FJ44 is that it is viable to be off program due to independent shops that work on the JT15D engines.
What did the numbers look like for the fully ice covered runway? They had to have been eye watering even for a straight wing jet.
Not at all, they were very reasonable.
Conditions: -10 C, near sea level, no wind, 11,000 lbs, runway length 5500 ft.
Dry runway number: 2220 ft. When applying the book numbers for ice covered runways, this increases to 3785 ft. That's a perfectly reasonable number.
That is the distance to reach V1 (90 KIAS), have an engine failure, and then stop on the remaining runway, when it is fully covered in ice. If you reach V1 and fly, the takeoff distance won't be any longer since you aren't using the runway surface friction at all.
The actual ground run during takeoff was just a hair over 1000 ft. We were airborne really quick at that temp and weight.
If you wanted to optimize this, you would reduce V1 such that the fly distance (2220 ft) is longer and the stop distance (3785 ft) is shorter until they match. The book doesn't have numbers for that, but I had biased V1 lower about 10 knots to make those numbers more even. That is, I would have stopped if the engine fails below 80 knots and flown if above 80 knots.
At max takeoff weight of 15,900 lbs, the dry runway distance is 2900 ft, ice covered 4713 ft. I could have been at max weight and still fit on the runway even though it was ice covered.
As it was, the runway surface was better than ice since we could hold brakes up to 65% N1 without moving. It had some texture to it, so it wasn't smooth ice.
For landing, at 11,000 lbs dry: 2050 ft, ice: 2943 ft. At 15,200 lbs (max landing weight) dry 2690 ft, ice 3716 ft.
I do love having TRs. In effect, the Citation V can use any paved runway my MU2 could operate from, I gave up very little in terms of runway capability. The MU2 could land shorter, but the takeoff wasn't very short, and the MU2 never had balanced field length like the jet, so that's kind of apples to oranges. My takeoff ground run in the jet is typically shorter than the MU2.
To compare, numbers for a CJ3 (no TRs) at 10,000 lbs, a roughly comparable airplane to the Citation V:
Takeoff dry 2500 ft, ice 15,425 ft (barely on the table, any heavier, it is a no go). There are only 9 runways on the planet long enough to do that, only one in the USA at KDEN, 16,001 ft long 16R/34L. Due to the field elevation, even that one doesn't work. I think it was built to be a space shuttle divert runway.
Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
Last edited on 16 Jan 2025, 12:27, edited 1 time in total.
What did the numbers look like for the fully ice covered runway? They had to have been eye watering even for a straight wing jet.
Not at all, they were very reasonable.
Conditions: -10 C, near sea level, no wind, 11,000 lbs, runway length 5500 ft.
Dry runway number: 2220 ft. When applying the book numbers for ice covered runways, this increases to 3785 ft. That's a perfectly reasonable number.
That is the distance to reach V1 (90 KIAS), have an engine failure, and then stop on the remaining runway, when it is fully covered in ice. If you reach V1 and fly, the takeoff distance won't be any longer since you aren't using the runway surface friction at all.
The actual ground run during takeoff was just a hair over 1000 ft. We were airborne really quick at that temp and weight.
If you wanted to optimize this, you would reduce V1 such that the fly distance (2220 ft) is longer and the stop distance (3785 ft) is shorter until they match. The book doesn't have numbers for that, but I had biased V1 lower about 10 knots to make those numbers more even. That is, I would have stopped if the engine fails below 80 knots and flown if above 80 knots.
At max takeoff weight of 15,900 lbs, the dry runway distance is 2900 ft, ice covered 4713 ft. I could have been at max weight and still fit on the runway even though it was ice covered.
As it was, the runway surface was better than ice since we could hold brakes up to 65% N1 without moving. It had some texture to it, so it wasn't smooth ice.
For landing, at 11,000 lbs dry: 2050 ft, ice: 2943 ft. At 15,200 lbs (max landing weight) dry 2690 ft, ice 3716 ft.
I do love having TRs. In effect, the Citation V can use any paved runway my MU2 could operate from, I gave up very little in terms of runway capability. The MU2 could land shorter, but the takeoff wasn't very short, and the MU2 never had balanced field length like the jet, so that's kind of apples to oranges. My takeoff ground run in the jet is typically shorter than the MU2.
To compare, numbers for a CJ3 (no TRs) at 10,000 lbs, a roughly comparable airplane to the Citation V:
Takeoff dry 2500 ft, ice 15,425 ft (barely on the table, any heavier, it is a no go). There are only 9 runways on the planet long enough to do that, only one in the USA at KDEN, 16,001 ft long 16R/34L. I think it was built to be a space shuttle divert runway.
Mike C.
Wow, ok. I didn't think that the book would factor in T/R's into runway distance calculations.
I think staying on the runway with only one working T/R might be interesting on ice though!
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 7391 Post Likes: +4861 Location: Live in San Carlos, CA - based Hayward, CA KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
What is the acc-stop assumption about equipment availability for TRs?
I’m guessing it must be accelerate to V1, lose an engine, then full braking plus full reverse on only the remaining engine? Would that cause lateral control problems on ice?
What is the acc-stop assumption about equipment availability for TRs?
Dry runway: full braking, no TRs.
Ice runway: full braking, TR on good engine.
Quote:
I’m guessing it must be accelerate to V1, lose an engine, then full braking plus full reverse on only the remaining engine? Would that cause lateral control problems on ice?
TR power reverse is only up to 60 KIAS where you still have quite decent rudder authority. After that, you can leave the TR out in idle reverse which basically results in about zero thrust, same as the dead engine, so no adverse yaw as the speed declines.
I've not tried this for real, of course, but I expect it to be reasonable based on how the simulator handles.
With a V1 of 80 knots and full braking, even on ice, there may be no time to use power reverse at all.
Example on a dry runway, touchdown about 90 KIAS, and it was less than full braking:
By the time TRs are out, I'm basically at 60 knots, and I had no power reverse time. You slow down from 80 to 60 pretty fast even on ice. You also don't have to use full power reverse.
So I don't think it will be that big a deal.
I started as a tailwheel pilot and I see now how much benefit that is when flying multiengine airplanes. I suggest all multiengine transition pilots get a tailwheel endorsement first, that will wake up your feet and make multiengine flying much easier.
Joined: 02/24/14 Posts: 297 Post Likes: +377 Company: iRecover US Inc Location: Ponoka AB
Aircraft: MU-2B-20 MU-2B-26A
Mike
Glad to see you posting again! Amazing how you can cut down on expenses by being an involved owner. How does the cost per mile for the V compare to the MU2?
Hopefully you can spend more time around here soon. My Mu2 thread could use your input
Amazing how you can cut down on expenses by being an involved owner.
There are huge benefits to this.
A key aspect is that my maintenance is on field, they let me participate, they let me buy parts, and they allow use of used parts.
If I took it to a factory service center, I'd probably be out $300K by now.
Quote:
How does the cost per mile for the V compare to the MU2?
Maybe about 30% more. Say $3/mile for the MU2, $4/mile for the V.
It is hard to be sure given all sorts of variables.
Right now, if I sold my plane, my V flying would have been free entirely due to the run up in market value. That tends to swamp many other factors. So in actual dollars, the V has been way cheaper than the MU2 if I was to cash out right now.
Quote:
Hopefully you can spend more time around here soon. My Mu2 thread could use your input ;)
My business is growing and needs a lot of my attention. Indeed, we had our best revenue year by far in 2024, up about 60% YoY. If I look at my business success it correlates highly to when I get a better airplane. There was a substantial jump after getting the MU2, and now a big ump after getting the V. Do the planes improve my business that much or am I more motivated after getting one? Hard to say, but it works.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
