Since there has been a lot of Citation info lately. I have a short strip (3100 ft) with mountains around the pattern. Of the various single pilot versions of the Citation with reversers what one makes the best full flap steep visual descents to normal flare and landing. With a normal landing fuel weight and probably 4 onboard plus bags. Sea level altitude. No close in obstructions and no factored landing distances. Just steep approach with turns to very short final, flare and land with minimum floating. Not always needed but nice to have the capability if needed.

Yes steeper than a normal ILS and not stabilized.

None for that situation.

I find this to be a very strange question. I would not recommend ever landing from an unstabilized approach.

That being said, only the legacy jets have TRs. Williams and the newer Pratts do not use them.

The landing distance at sea level for a 501SP at 9,000lbs (my BEW is 7,151 and typical landing fuel is 800lbs) is 2,060' and that is w/o thrust reversers (mine does not have them).

Specifics would help, airport ID?


3100 ft is enough for many Citations at reasonable landing weights.

At 0 MSL, ISA, my V can land in 2870 ft at *max* landing weight of 15,200 lbs, and that is with it touching down 1000 ft past the threshold and not using the reversers. If you reduce TCH to, say, 15 ft, and use reversers, you can be under 2000 ft.

For a more normal landing weight of, say, 11,500 lbs, distance is 2230 ft.

Takeoff is more limiting, but not by much. 0 MSL, ISA, 3100 ft supports 15,700 lbs, only 200 lbs under max. A more comfortable weight of 14,000 lbs is 2510 ft. These distances are with an engine failure at V1 then climbing to 35 ft AGL, which takes about 1000 ft of runway that you overfly.

Both the landing and takeoff numbers include about 1000 ft of runway you don't touch. Another way to say that is your ground roll will be 1000 ft less than the book numbers. So the numbers do have some margins in them.


Like the approach I have to do into KSGS runway 34 and not get into KSTP class D?


You only got about 4000 ft of room to make that turn and land on a relatively short runway of 4000 ft, so that require moderate banking and speed control to make it work.


It is worth noting that "unstabilized" is not the same as "not under control". Those get confused sometimes.

Stabilized is meeting some numerical criteria, usually 1000 ft AGL on path on speed. You can be outside those numbers and still be in full control on your intended path.

Most circling approaches, if you circle at minimums, don't meet stabilized approach criteria, for example, and that is similar to the situation of making a tight turn to final close to the ground.

Mike C.

Yes Mike that Is exactly what I am meaning by not stabilized. Not a on speed long straight final from an approach. No approaches here.

Airport is 76N. Google earth will show the hills pretty well. I'll take some photos this am when the fog lifts. Yes directory shows 2000 ft long. It is 3100 but with PA boat commission dispute delaying things. Now resolved but getting through FAA and not on the maps yet.

Changing airspeed continuous turn to landing from downwind. I am usually constant power from entering the pattern and speed changes with gear and flaps in the turn vs rolling wings level short final. Airport is at 640ft and I usually roll wings level on final just under 1000ft indicated. The turn radius keeps it inside the hills. Sometimes a short base. But with the Kingair 90 loaded I am usually about 120-130 knots in the turn with gear and approach to full flaps and 110 on short final. Can stop easily by mid field if I suspect deer in the night. Normally I rarely use the brakes just roll to the end for normal landings. Brake pad life has been about 600hrs.

I guess what I am asking is there a version of the Citation with more flap power (deflection or size) to allow a steeper approach with power reduction or more power on with a normal approach so there is no float when in the flare. But not have a huge difficult sink rate at the bottom. With the much slower approach speeds than the Kingair how does it work out in real world?

No 1000ft distance added. Just can you put it on the numbers consistently on the end of the runway. Gusty crosswind conditions. The book roll works out fine but day in and out can I hit the spot?

If straight in from the other direction (RW19) at night I need to be at Pattern altitude 7500 ft from the runway end. 1000ft altitude loss in 7500 ft. No straight in is possible for RW01 but on a right pattern following the river max needed is about 660ft to lose in 4300 ft distance to threshold. Left pattern is also used but at night it is too close to the hills.

The Kingair 90-200 both drive right to the aiming point easily and stop with minimal brakes. But pax want to go faster so what is possible? This has been my home airport my whole life so the approaches / obstructions are very familiar. Insurance is not a factor of concern.

Just what CAN the airplane do real world day in and out consistently.
With most airplanes there are small differences year to year. E90 vs C90 differences for example. 172s with 40 deg flaps vs 30 deg.
Is there a S/N range or sub model Citation that is better suited for whatever reason?

The road goes on forever and the party never ends.

Assuming dry runway and no extraordinary conditions, the physics says it can work. The runway is long enough, wide enough, and the approaches are clear enough.

Regulation wise, I don't see anything that would prohibit operation at 76N in the airplane AFM.

You likely won't get approval in a popular vote among your peers.

Temperature and weight will be the primary variables to watch.

Takeoff:

Runway 1 has 3000 ft, runway 19 has 2670 ft, using the displaced thresholds as the "end" of the runway.

Runway 1:

Temp 0 C: 15,900 lbs
Temp 10 C: 15,500 lbs
Temp 20 C: 15,000 lbs
Temp 30 C: 14,500 lbs
Temp 40 C: 13,500 lbs

Runway 19:

Temp 0 C: 14,900 lbs
Temp 10 C: 14,500 lbs
Temp 20 C: 14,200 lbs
Temp 30 C: 13,500 lbs
Temp 40 C: 12,800 lbs

Runway 19 is worse, but if you have a 10 knot wind, that is about a 600 lbs adder, 20 knots about 1200 lbs. Runway 1 would be the preferred no wind runway.

On an abort, you have the full 3100 ft available for both runways. On an engine failure at V1 and fly away, the above numbers are based on reaching 35 ft AGL, which means about 1000 ft of runway was used airborne. So there are margins here both for stopping and for going.

What are your King Air accel go distances? I'd be surprised if they are better than the Citation V. One has to keep that in mind when comparing them for runway performance. All Citation takeoff numbers include an engine failure.

As for clearances, these are the approach elevations straight out from the runways:

Runway 1:


Runway 19:


In both cases, there is 1.2 miles before significant terrain and there are valleys around that provide low terrain.

Landing:

Runway 1:

Temp 0 C: 15,200 lbs
Temp 10 C: 15,200 lbs
Temp 20 C: 15,200 lbs
Temp 30 C: 15,200 lbs
Temp 40 C: 15,000 lbs

Runway 19:

Temp 0 C: 14,500 lbs
Temp 10 C: 14,000 lbs
Temp 20 C: 13,800 lbs
Temp 30 C: 13,500 lbs
Temp 40 C: 13,400 lbs

Basically, you have enough runway at any reasonable landing weight. The above assume a 50 ft threshold crossing height, so if you put it on the numbers, you save almost 1000 ft of runway.

As for the approaches, you have 1.2 miles of short final to work with, which is enough to align with the runway and manage speed.

As for descent angle, many Citations have been approved to work at LCY (London City) airport with a high descent angle. With gear and full flaps, the plane will easily do a 6 degree descent. Citations regularly do KASE (Aspen) RNAV approach which has a 6.5 degree descent to land straight in on runway 15. With the valleys around the airport, managing approach steepness versus alignment gives you options.


Citation can be slower. At 11,500 lbs (2,300 lbs over my empty weight), Vref is 92 KIAS.

The brakes on the V are fantastic. They will stop you quickly. I have so far never used them fully.


If you put it on the numbers on runway 1, you can stop by midfield in the Citation for most typical landing weights.


You will pay more for brakes and tires being based at 76N. My brakes look like they last about 2000 hours, but I don't use them much, you would. My tires last about 300-400 hours.


The small cabin legacy Citations come in two "wing" flavors. The I, II have a straight wing with single panel flaps. The SII, 560 have two panel flaps. The single panel flaps are not as good at getting slowed down as the two panel variety. They are decent, but Vref is higher for those types.

Steepness is going to be pretty good for both types. You also have speedbrakes which can be used on a descent, but they have to be stowed by 50 ft per the manual.


The airplane will, the rest is up to you.


That's 7.5 degrees, pretty steep. I would favor not being aligned to get a lower profile and making a small turn within 1.2 miles. This is basically like doing a circling approach which is fairly tight turns close to the runway. I think following route 29 and turning over the city works reasonably well with only a small turn.

Like this:



Here is a fairly low time pilot landing a Citation V in less than 1400 ft.



The speeds are low and the control is positive, so you can hit your marks.


The Citation V will be the winning model. It has the new two panel flaps which lower landing speeds, it has the higher power engines, which shorten takeoff distances, and it can be Garminized to reduce empty weight (mine lost 380 lbs). The SII has weak engines, so takeoffs are longer. The I and II have straight wing with less effective flaps. The Ultra has Primus 1000 avionics which saddle it with a high empty weight (this may change is a new AP gets approved). The 525 series has no thrust reversers.

The short runway performance of my plane is amazing. I basically didn't lose any paved runway access versus my MU2.

If there was some figure of merit that combined short runway usage with high cruise speed, the Citation V would score very high.

Mike C.

Thanks Mike. Yes that is the type of information I was looking for.

For RW 19 100% length is usable for takeoff. We use 100% of the length both ways.
Always much less than 50 ft crossing the threshold either runway. More like 10ft.
The displaced threshold was there for trees along the river since removed but local politics keeps me from remarking. There are still a few lower trees but the daughter of a township supervisor lives in trailer directly off the runway end. Any airport changes are a conditional use hearing for zoning. Last hearing when I extended to the south NO JETS was brought up multiple times in the newspaper and meetings so I still have that hurdle to overcome.

The departure end of 19 is totally clear except for the mountain to the south and not towards / over town so RW 19 is preferred departure runway. The river gives the escape route with no obstructions to follow for both runways. So we turn left to river valley heading when able.

Landing yes I usually follow RT 29 and can extend out to the north but if we ever gain an approach then it would probably be more aligned with the runway but with pattern altitude minimums. Currently the min vectoring altitude is 3900 ft or 3400 ft if Northeast of the airport. The next airport to us 9N3 Seamans has minimums also near our pattern altitude. I typically fly the ILS to AVP and then come up the river VFR or 9N3 and cancel when clear to fly over VFR. If weather is bad just land at AVP. Heavy loads can leave from AVP or N27 also.

IFR departures from 76N I get a clearance from AVP over the phone and depart IFR. But if visibility is low only from RW 01. Typically when vis is low it is calm here. Or just too bad and we don't go until better.

Yes book Kingair accelerate stop or go does not work here. Not really any piston twins either.
There is a small window each flight where it MUST go. But I accept that to not be vulnerable for the REST of the flight. I know the various arguments and pros cons.
This is not a charter operation and pax is a pilot. Many long discussions already.

I keep working on a buyout of the trailer park on the north end to get a few hundred feet more and no obstructions. That is getting a bit of traction but it is a long process.

The main reason is the Kingair is getting expensive to keep for what it is and I am 10.5 hrs round trip to take pax to South FL multiple trips 6 months out of the year. We are averaging 100-120K per year to maintain with no engine reserve. 250 hrs a year. Just various things keep needing work. It will need paint, boot, engines soon.
Pilatus is way out of budget. Newer 200 or 300 is tough also.

The sad part is that King Airs have a history of failing right at rotation with a frequency that is extremely higher than any other time.


A 441 would do it, but not cheap, either.

76N to KFLL is 950 nm. That would be easy in a V.

For other Citations, would need to research the book numbers. Your potential use is tight, no doubt about it.


Just for maintenance? Wow.

Mike C.

So, is the descent angle decent, as stated in the thread title?

It appears close. If they are able to do the Aspen approach at 6.5 degrees and worst case I need 7.5 to be straight in capable. But if making a turning approach less angle is workable. Normally I do fly a downwind or upwind to look over the airport and check wind direction.
(No weather reporting yet) I have not found where there is a landing configuration descent angle chart or data with weights. Max angle landing configuration at 1000ft per min is probably a good reference.

Two panel flaps, range, reversers, takeoff performance and possibility of Garmin equipment installation seems to rule out the others except the V .

Compared to my current airplane The Citation V appears to have less or no time of exposure where continuing after a power loss on takeoff is not possible. Depending on takeoff loading, wind, temp etc. The Kingair is more forgiving of approach and landing variables. Winds, conditions, surfaces.

More things to consider before getting really serious but it appears possible.

Full flaps, gear down, flight idle, and speedbrakes out, it will do it. I don't know what that angle is, but it is steep. At Vref speeds, ~100 knots, a 10 degree slope is 1800 FPM and that seems plausible.


Even if it can do the angle, the small turns to align with the valleys seems like the better plan to me. On takeoff, with an engine failure, the engine out climb gradient won't clear the hills, so going down the valleys would be required, might as well make that your normal procedure.


No such chart exists that I know of. You need to take measurements.


The Ultra if/when there is an STC AP would be an option (both Genesys/STEC and Garmin say they are working on one). Slightly more power but otherwise basically a V. The engine is more expensive to keep, though.

The SII, S550 might be an option. The landing distances are fine, it will be takeoff that limits it.

Using 3100 ft:

temp 0 C: 15,100 lbs (max)
temp 10 C: 14,800 lbs
temp 20 C: 14,200 lbs
temp 30 C: 13,400 lbs
temp 40 C: 12,500 lbs

Empty weight with Garmin upgrade might be as low as 8800 lbs. Flying 1000 nm with 1000 lbs cabin load, you need about 5000 lbs useful load, 13,800 lbs takeoff weight, so there will be days when it is too hot to takeoff with that weight and meet book numbers.

Wind will help. Every 10 knots is about 600 lbs, give or take. So a 30 C day with 10 knots wind, you can do the 1000 nm 1000 lbs mission.


There is no time where you can't either stop or fly with an engine failure.

Takeoff is engine failure at V1 and reaching 35 ft AGL by end of runway, landing is 50 ft TCH, so there are margins in these numbers, about 1000 ft of runway that is flown over in each case.


Yes, it will be.

For a wet 3100 ft runway, you need the dry book numbers to be 2500 ft for takeoff using TRs.

For landing, a wet runway is essentially no adder using TRs.

For snow or ice, not going to work.


With care and accepting some limitations.

Note that you need a hangar than can handle 52.5 ft wingspan, 48.9 ft long, 15.0 ft high for a V. Wheel track is 18 ft, so you have to be on centerline +/- 16 ft to stay on a 50 ft wide runway.

I recommend you have paved surfaces only. Technically, you can taxi it on turf, but with tire pressures at 130 PSI, the ground has to be rock hard. So you will need paved surfaces from the runway to the hangar to enable general use. Needs to be at least 30 ft wide to be reasonable, too.

If you could get another 500 ft on the south end, that would remove almost all the limitations. Looks like you lengthened the runway in 2013.

Mike C.

Some photos. Sorry no idea why 3 are inverted. Clicking on them they go upright?

The trailer park is below runway level off the approach end of RW19 before the trees.

RW01 approach end drops off also. In photos you can see the mountain off the departure end of RW19 Turning left is typical departure and normal pattern direction. Exit / entry points for the pattern at the four corners.

Departing on 01 turning left also puts you right in the middle of the river valley.

Ground under grass is rock hard. Rolled many years and well drained river rock/gravel.
Taxiing the small main tire Kingair 200 was no problem at all.

Packed gravel to Hangar so tug to the runway for loading and startup is normal. There is a paved stub near mid field that works for this. I have two old ex military tugs.

Turnaround on the end of RW01 is paved 30ft wide.

Hangar door is 60' wide 18' high. Length is no issue.

You need the Australian certified model for those approaches.


King Air nose gear has little weight on it, so not a fair test. My little nose wheel has less than 500 lbs on it, typically. My mains can be nearly 8000 lbs each.

My main tires are 140 PSI. You basically need near concrete hardness to safely taxi it. If your ground is rock hard, then it might work. You will want to taxi slowly, but not stop too long in any one spot.

How solid is the pavement? Will it stand up to a tire having 8000 lbs on it? Airnav reports "Weight bearing capacity: Single wheel: 12.5". Does that mean 12,500 lbs per wheel, or total aircraft weight?


The main track is 17.6 ft (center to center), the main to nose distance is 19.9 ft.

The taxi way at my home airport is 35 ft wide, with 50 ft radius turns (centerline) and doesn't seem problematic. Your turn radius seems to be about 50 ft, so similar radius, just more narrow pavement. I think that will work.

The turn around on runway 19 might be more of an issue.

You need at least 36 ft to make a turn with a locked main. You can turn around on the 50 ft wide runway if you get more than 10 ft off centerline and then spin on a locked main. But this is hard on the tire and shortens tire life. If you can get, say, 12 ft off centerline (which leaves 4 ft clear from the outside main) and then let the inboard main turn slowly in the turn, it will improve tire life, but this will take practice to do with assurance. The more off center you can get, the better for the tire, but the less margin you have on the pavement edge.

The combination of the north end turn around pad and runway width will probably make it work well enough with a refined procedure.

Mike C.

That's how I do it with most airplanes. Always trying for no locked axle turns for tire life. So I always roll to the ends and use the turn areas. No midfield turnarounds.

If I need to add pavement for turning that is a minor problem.

Yes hot day and the tire contact patch size for weight may be a big issue. A overloaded 1 ton dump truck left marks on a very hot day when pavement was new. Backfilling around the turn area on 01. The bumps are still there 10 years later.