Citation Encore Vs Lear 35

[Rick1128]

.79-.80 all day long. Redline of .81. And yes, we had Rosemont probes. Came with the RVSM package. We had RVSM certification a year before it took effect. TAS was calculated by an instrument we had connected to the system that also calculated the SAT. You could also calculate it in the CALC mode of the GPS.

Normal cruise in the 35/36 is .76/.77. All pushing to it .80 does is reduce the range. According to the folks I have talked with a Learjet (and this was before Ski-doo jet took over) the most efficent speed for the 35/36 is .75. It is due to the aerodynamics around the wing and engine nacelle area. It is my understanding that the Risbeck XR mod has resolved much of those aerodynamic issues.

We had a pilot who insisted on flying our 35 like a 25. All he managed to do is require a fuel stop after 3 to 3 1/2 hours. The rest of us are able to get around 5 hours out of it.

 

[Lead Sled]

Normal cruise in the 35/36 is .76/.77. All pushing to it .80 does is reduce the range. According to the folks I have talked with a Learjet (and this was before Ski-doo jet took over) the most efficent speed for the 35/36 is .75. It is due to the aerodynamics around the wing and engine nacelle area. It is my understanding that the Risbeck XR mod has resolved much of those aerodynamic issues.

We had a pilot who insisted on flying our 35 like a 25. All he managed to do is require a fuel stop after 3 to 3 1/2 hours. The rest of us are able to get around 5 hours out of it.

That was my experience as well. If you try to push that relatively straight wing through the air much faster than .77 or .78 all you do is get a way disproportionate increase in fuel burn for what ever increase in speed you get. I usually flew ours at a .78 constant mach which usally worked out around 430 ktas. It's been 10 years since I last flew a Lear and I don't know what effect the new RVSM mandated ADCs have, but the I remember that the ADCs on the aircraft with the 200 autopilots indicated about .02 mach higher than the 530 equipped airplanes.

All of the factory stats I ever read on the 35 listed 440 knots as cruise. My guess is that CapnVegetto is probably running his airplane "balls to the wall" - not particularly the most efficient way to fly the thing.

'Sled

 

[miles otoole]

You are selling the 31 cause the boss figured out it has no range. The 40/45 still have Garretts on them, so it might have a little bigger interior, but it will by no means out perform the Encore. It has more range than the Encore, but in terms or raw performance, the Encore has is beats. Bombardier took a plug out of the 45 and called it a 40 along with a few other changes, but that plug they took out of it was the only part of the 45 that worked properly. The month long 45 fleet grounding was also a welcomed surprise I am sure. Go fly something that has P&Ws on it, and you'll be singing a different tune.

Put max fuel on the old Encore and then tell 4 pax they ain't going. It's what,a 700 pound payload with full fuel? Full fuel on the 45XR still gives you 2,000 lbs payload with 1800NM. Encore is VERY anemic.

 

[HawkerF/O]

It may be time for a thread on powerplant management, but not today...

Put simply, you really shouldn't use ITT as your primary power setting reference on Garrett TFEs. The manuals use N1 for proper power settings with N1 "not to exceed xxx degrees." On nice fresh, strong engines the appropriate N1 will be achieved with comparatively lower ITTs. Older, more worn engines will require more "heat" to achieve the appropriate N1. ITT (and N2) is more indicative of engine health or condition. If you've got strong engines, running them at the ITT limit can exceepd the N1 recommendations - but the airplane will sure fly fast.

Merry Christmas

'Sled

That's a matter of operational preference. While I agree with what you have written, some Garretts do use ITT for the power settings. In the Hawker 700s, it was 865C in the climb. That is how you set the climb power. If you wanted max power at cruise, leave it there. That was max cont. and Garrett published those #s and its what is reccommended. You could also reference Max N1 #s, but it was at the discretion of the operator. Remember, most of these engines are on MSP, so if guys operate the TFE in the manner which you say they should not, and it does not affect the MSP policy (they all have tattle tales), then it must be OK with the Engine folks.

 

[CapnVegetto]

Normal cruise in the 35/36 is .76/.77. All pushing to it .80 does is reduce the range. According to the folks I have talked with a Learjet (and this was before Ski-doo jet took over) the most efficent speed for the 35/36 is .75. It is due to the aerodynamics around the wing and engine nacelle area. It is my understanding that the Risbeck XR mod has resolved much of those aerodynamic issues.

We had a pilot who insisted on flying our 35 like a 25. All he managed to do is require a fuel stop after 3 to 3 1/2 hours. The rest of us are able to get around 5 hours out of it.

Nice, but the boss didn't pay us to be efficient. He specifically wanted us "flying fast", so we did what he wanted.

HawkerF/O is right. In the manual, Max continuous temp is 832, which means you could cruise it at that. However, for "maximum engine life" as stated, you are recommended to run cruise power at 795. Straight out of the manual. There is a climb power setting chart based on N1, but I've never seen one for cruise in any manual.

Also, NOWHERE in the Simuflite manual or the Garrett TFE731 manual have I ever seen a cruise power chart. You're probably right b/c there is one for the CE-650 I fly (same engines) which gives a power setting, then a temp, and you're supposed to set the power or temp, whichever comes first, but it's almost always the temp. I checked it out last night to verify my numbers. However, I still have the Simcom manual and I will check it. I don't have access to the actual AFM anymore as I don't fly one anymore, but the point is, .80 gave me 460 or so on the TAS meter at 795 ITT. People can argue with me all they want, but that's how I ran it, that's how the boss wanted it ran, and that's what I saw. End of discussion.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Put max fuel on the old Encore and then tell 4 pax they ain't going. It's what,a 700 pound payload with full fuel? Full fuel on the 45XR still gives you 2,000 lbs payload with 1800NM. Encore is VERY anemic.

I've already stated that the Encore has less range than the 45. So whether it's 100 NM or 800 NM, less is less and I have already said that, so why bring it up again? Now, let's talk about going 1000NM. You'll see the Encore clown the 45. It's out climbs it, burns less fuel, can take more people, and will arrive sooner.

Also, you mention the OLD ENCORE against the 45XR. Why the old Encore against the newest 45? Lets put the old Encore against the old 45 without the XR mod. What do you have to say now? Pull those #s out for me. The old 45 still gets clowned, but this time, the 45 stops for fuel, the Encore does not.

 

[Lead Sled]

That's a matter of operational preference. While I agree with what you have written, some Garretts do use ITT for the power settings. In the Hawker 700s, it was 865C in the climb. That is how you set the climb power. If you wanted max power at cruise, leave it there. That was max cont. and Garrett published those #s and its what is reccommended. You could also reference Max N1 #s, but it was at the discretion of the operator. Remember, most of these engines are on MSP, so if guys operate the TFE in the manner which you say they should not, and it does not affect the MSP policy (they all have tattle tales), then it must be OK with the Engine folks.

A lot of people would agree with you, but I've had a series of long discussions with the folks at Allied Signal and that's not what I was told. There is a certain amount of operator discretion, but the bottom line is if you want to achieve book performance (range/speed/FF) you have to fly the airplane by the book.

I do know that the AFM in the Hawker is a little different than what is found in other aircraft so I won't disagree with what you are saying. I would ask to double check it though - I think that you might see that your climb power and max cruise charts reference N1 values with "not to exceed" ITT values.

'Sled

 

[Lead Sled]

Nice, but the boss didn't pay us to be efficient. He specifically wanted us "flying fast", so we did what he wanted.

Also, NOWHERE in the Simuflite manual or the Garrett TFE731 manual have I ever seen a cruise power chart. You're probably right b/c there is one for the CE-650 I fly (same engines) which gives a power setting, then a temp, and you're supposed to set the power or temp, whichever comes first, but it's almost always the temp. I checked it out last night to verify my numbers. However, I still have the Simcom manual and I will check it. I don't have access to the actual AFM anymore as I don't fly one anymore, but the point is, .80 gave me 460 or so on the TAS meter at 795 ITT. People can argue with me all they want, but that's how I ran it, that's how the boss wanted it ran, and that's what I saw. End of discussion.

The 35 has -2s the 650 has (I believe) -3s. They are not the same engines. There were cruise charts in the Lear AFM as well as in the FlightSafety QRH.

'Sled

'Sled

 

[501261]

The original question was Lear 35 vs Encore. Well all things being equal (Pay, QOL, etc.), I'd go with the Encore, for a simple reason that the Encore is a $6.5M airplane and a Lear 35 is a $1.8M airplane.

I'm not getting into the "which airplane is better" argument, but an Encore is worth on average $5M more than a Lear 35. That gives the operator a lot more options and possibly stability.

 

[LJ45]

I've already stated that the Encore has less range than the 45. So whether it's 100 NM or 800 NM, less is less and I have already said that, so why bring it up again? Now, let's talk about going 1000NM. You'll see the Encore clown the 45. It's out climbs it, burns less fuel, can take more people, and will arrive sooner.

Also, you mention the OLD ENCORE against the 45XR. Why the old Encore against the newest 45? Lets put the old Encore against the old 45 without the XR mod. What do you have to say now? Pull those #s out for me. The old 45 still gets clowned, but this time, the 45 stops for fuel, the Encore does not.

I had an Excel pilot tell me the same thing. After the second time, on a identical trip we out climbed him and passed him up in the climb, he re-thought his statement. We each had 8 passengers and doing the same trip. It took him a while with the head winds at FL400 while we went straight to FL450 and didn't have to stop for fuel. Yes, we have the 45XR...but I did let him take off first.

 

[Capthuff]

The original question was Lear 35 vs Encore. I stated that I thought the Encore to be a better over-all plane then the 35. So we agree.

As a side note I mentioned we were getting a 45 and I get bashed for that? Someone really thinks the Encore is a better airplane the the 45? I used to fly an Excel and I'm familiar with the performance of the P&Ws. I'm sure the Encore is a great plane.
Straight out of C&dD; DOC Lear 45 $1,228.02, Encore $1,100.27
Cost/NM Lear 45 $2.94, Encore $2.79
Pretty close.

The 45 has a bigger cabin, more range, more payload, flies higher, and faster then the Encore.
My biggest question the the Learjet people was "Why did you put 731s on instead of P&Ws?" I was told it was for efficiency. I dont know if I believe that but that is what I was told.

BTW Happy Holidays and a very prosperous New Year to all!!

 

[pin727]

Thank for the info... both jobs are for private owners of the planes, the encore fly's more but both jobs are the same, the questions was related to the planes not to job, as all of you said it is more of life and quality of job than the money although it helps.
thank for the inputs!!!

 

[HawkerF/O]

I had an Excel pilot tell me the same thing. After the second time, on a identical trip we out climbed him and passed him up in the climb, he re-thought his statement. We each had 8 passengers and doing the same trip. It took him a while with the head winds at FL400 while we went straight to FL450 and didn't have to stop for fuel. Yes, we have the 45XR...but I did let him take off first.

I can't speak for the Excel, as this conversation has been ENCORE based. I am sure the 45XR romps the EXCEL, but I fail to see what it has to do with this conversation about the ENCORE, except for the fact that they are both Cessna?

 

[pin727]

Wrong question Pin....

the question is:

"...what is the better company to work for...?"

'it 'aint about the plane'

Unless that's what is important, in which case the Lear will be much more fun to fly. A straight-wing Citation is, well a straight-wing Citation.

Thanks for the inputs.. both jobs are fro private own A/C the Encore fly's more but both aare tec the same,all of you are right, that the choice has to be made on QOL and company benefits and long term relation, but in this case I am looking more on the plane due to the kind of job, in my mind I'll prefer to fly the citation but lets wait till 06...
Happy Holidays and thanks again.

PIN727

 

[FlyingPieceOfSt]

I love all this LR35/Encore banter. Reminds me of a part in Top Gun...


Maverick: Yes, ma'am, the data on the MiG is inaccurate.
Charlie: How's that lieutenant?
Maverick: Well, I just happened to see a MiG-28 do --
Goose: We!...We.
Maverick: Sorry, Goose. WE happened to see a MiG-28 do a 4G negative dive.
Charlie: Where did you see this?
Maverick: That's classified.
Charlie: It's what?
Maverick: It's classified. I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.
Charlie: Lieutenant, I have top secret clearance. The Pentagon sees to it that I know more than you.
Maverick: Well, ma'am, it doesn't seem so in this case now does it.
Charlie: So, Lieutenant, where exactly were you?
Maverick: Well, WE --
Goose: Thank you.
Maverick: -- started up on his six, when he pulled through the clouds, and then I moved in above him.
Charlie: Well, if you were directly above him, how could you see him?
Maverick: Because I was inverted.

Iceman: (cough) B------t.

Goose: No, he was, man. It was a really great move. He was inverted.
Charlie: You were in a 4G inverted dive with a MiG-28?

Maverick: Yes, ma'am.
Charlie: At what range?
Maverick: About two meters.
Goose: Well, it's actually about one and a half, I think. It was one and a half. I've got a great Polaroid of it, and he's, he's right there. Must be one and a half.
Maverick: It was a nice picture....
Goose: Thanks, man. I like my pictures....
Charlie: Uh, Lieutenant. What were you doing there?
Goose: Communicating.
Maverick: Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. I was, uh, you know, giving him "the bird."
Goose: You know -- "the finger."
Charlie: Yes, I know the finger, Goose.
Goose: I'm, I'm sorry. I hate it when it does that. I'm sorry. Excuse me.
Charlie: [to Maverick] So you're the one.

Maverick: Yes, ma'am.