Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Citation VII or Lr60?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

XLDaddy

what would steve do?
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Posts
66
Boss is interested in moving to a midsize cabin ac and mentioned CE650 and the lr 60. Currently operate a very nice CE550B, pt91. He wants the cabin, speed, baggage space, and apu would be nice. He's not interested in new, but very late model. Just wondering if anyone has real world operational experiences as far as dispatch reliability, maint. differences, and flying impressions. We will use our own independent shop which is an authorized lear and citation facility. Our base is a 5000 foot, sea level airport and we rarely operate out of airports that are less than 4500 feet, most much longer. Should I be pointing him to any other type? Any info would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 
The 60's and the 650 are both runway hogs when it gets heavy or contaminated. 4500 should be a minimum for a dry runway.

The 60 has MUCH more efficent engines and as such has better range than the 650. The 60 will cruise at .78 at 410 and above. .79 or .80 a bit lower.

The 650 has a much more efficient wing and will cruise .80 and faster pretty much all the time and at high altitude.

APU's are only standard on LR60's delivered today. On all other planes it's an option, so look carefully on used 60's. It's nearly a necessity on the 60's to get everthing up and running and aligned.

I think APU's were standard on the late model 650's. A 650 flies just like a citation, even though it's a swept wing plane.

You might have a bit better baggage situation on the 650 than the 60. And I think the cabin is slightly longer on the 650 as well.

We have been pleased with the dispatch on our 60. I can't speak for the 650's.

All in all the planes stack up pretty close, depending up on our mission and load factors.

The other planes in this group would be the Hawker 800XP, but it's got zip for baggage space. Another option would be the Citation XL. It's got the larger cessna fuselage from the X I think, and the wing from an Ultra. Slower...but good cabin and good baggage.

You should get some demo's in all of these types.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the informative reply. Thought about the excel, but boss wants the speed and a bit better range than it offers. I think the Hawker is out simply because of the baggage situation, they really like the external types. Can the 60 do coast to coast most of the time or is that streching it a bit? Pretty sure the 650 does not have the legs. Not critical, but we do go to the east coast about 4 times a year. Thanks again.
 
XL, you can top off a 60 and put 4 to 5 folks in it, depending up on your BOW. We make the west-coast, from the east, about 65% of the time in the winter, most of the time in the summer. We can always come home eastbound, that's never an issue, unless we have the seats filled and bad weather. The 650 is a stretch eastbound, from what I remember.

We like the 60. The Collins Proline 4 and UNS-1E FMS's integrate nicely. Some late-model 60's might have the Collins FMS's, but not many. The Pratt 305A's sip fuel, and the FADEC is nice. Plan on 200 gallons per hour on long trips, and a touch over 200 gallons on short trips.
 
XLDaddy said:
Should I be pointing him to any other type?
What about a Falcon 50? or 50EX? It can carry 9, has a good external baggage compartment, can go nearly 3,000 NM (50EX can do 3,200 NM), it can cruise at Mach .84 (50EX) (.80 for straight 50) and can operate out of a 4,000 ft runway all day long...
 
I think FalconCapt has the right idea. The other airplane to look at in that range is a Sovereign-- it sounds like it would do everything you want, the only question is whether your boss wants to pony up the purchase price.
 
I'm not sure what the used market on 650's is like now, but for awhile it was tight on 60's. Recently it has gotten alittle better for buyers but I would expect to pay 7-9 Million for a good 60.

5000' dry is no problem, we find the contaminated runway data really goes through the roof. Don't know about the citation but brake energy is a real issue when you get out west into some high density alt's.

Dispatch reliablity has been excellent, and d.o.c is actually less than the 35 we operate.
 
DA50 or CE680 would definetly work for his missions, but like Falcon Capt brought up, I'm not sure he wants to lay out that kind of scratch. The numbers he gave me was laying out between 7-8 mil, for a used aircraft. I think the 680 won't be in that range for some time to come. Would you be looking at a pretty ratty DA50 for that kind of monies? This is just preliminary digging, he wants me to look into setting up demos this spring after our schedule lightens up. I've just been looking into the BCA data for the 60 and 650's, but will expand a bit on the bigger side to see the differences. Thanks for the input fellas.
 
I would run far away from a CE-650. I've only got about 60 hours in it, but I think it's a piece of junk. Bad bad bad runway hog, flies like a mack truck, and I'd REALLY hate to lose an engine in one in real life. Until you get the speed up, it climbs like a Cessna alright......a 172.

The plus is that it's a fast little devil. 460 all day long, 470 in the right conditions. Decent baggage space. Decent cabin.
 
How about a G-100. Has good runway numbers and now that Gulfstream supports the airplane it actually has good dispatch reliablity.
 
G100driver said:
How about a G-100. Has good runway numbers and now that Gulfstream supports the airplane it actually has good dispatch reliablity.
How's the baggage on the g100/astra?
 
Not that great once you strap the aux tanks in the rear baggage compartment, in order to get the same range as a 60.

And that cabin is wicked claustraphobic. It really is.
 
ultrarunner said:
Not that great once you strap the aux tanks in the rear baggage compartment, in order to get the same range as a 60.

And that cabin is wicked claustraphobic. It really is.

The cabin is a bit claustraphopic. With 4 pax OK. Fill it up ... yuck.

As far as the range goes. Same as Lear without aux in G100. The Astra is more limted. It has the 731-C vs -40 in the G100. Either way both have more range than the straight 60.

Both the Astra/G100 can go East/West across the US and regularly go to HI. A 70 knot headwind was our limit going from TEB to the PacNW. (I am sure you could max range it and make it with more of a headwind).

I have yet to see any 60's in Hawaii while I regularly see Astra's and G100's over there.

Baggage space is good but you cut it by about 1/3 with the aux tank. Running out of a 4500' strip you will most likely not be using it anyhow.

You might want to check it out. For 7-8 million you can find a SPX/G100 with an APU.

Good luck. Nothing better than a new type rating!

You should PM Lead Sled on DOC's ect. He is THE expert on this airframe.
 
Ahh, the G100 with the different motors. I forgot about that, and now remember that it and the SPX had more range. Thanks.

But yeah, it would be big-time tight with more than 4 folks.
 
G100driver said:
I have yet to see any 60's in Hawaii while I regularly see Astra's and G100's over there.
I flew with a guy that took a 60 to Hawaii. He landed with 2500 LBS and he's not the kind of guy to take chances.
 
I find the Astra/G100 to be claustrophobic with just one person in there-- me! It's the narrowness of that cabin which I don't like.

Still, for the money it's darn hard to argue with.
 
I have alot of time in the CE-650.
If you go with the 650, make sure it is a VII. It has better performance, and
on hot days, it is REALLY needed. Once airborn, it climbs well with one or
two engines and is really easy to fly. If you can't fly the 650, it's time to
think of another career.

I love the 650, but it's a hanger queen. It will go coast to coast with a refuel.
I would not try it nonstop east bound either, I've gone Las Vegas to TEB with
a winter wind. Its best legs are the NJ/NY to Miami/FLL area. If common leggs
are coast to coast, then get the 60.

my 2 cents

CE
 
HawkerF/O said:
I flew with a guy that took a 60 to Hawaii. He landed with 2500 LBS and he's not the kind of guy to take chances.


I call shenagans on that one.. The 60 only toppes out at 7700 (approx).

Figure 223 (1500 lbs) gals first hour, 194(1400) second hour and about 180 (1200lbs) the third.

7700-2500= 5200 lbs burn. Or good for about 3.7 hours.

If he did it, it would have to be one of those freaky no wind days.. Good thing he didn't chuck an engine or anything.

The company I work for won't even entertain the thought of going to Hawaii on part 135. Most of the time your fuel is cut soooo close and then there is the problem of the dreaded "wet footprint"

Thats just what I think.

Rokit88
 
I'll second that....2500lbs. after landing in Hawaii?? Sounds too good to be true. 1000-1500 would be more believable. Either way it's foolish to take a LJ60 out there.
 
LJ60 Endurance

I've had the 60 up for as long as 6 hours and still landed with 1000lbs but you're just about going crazy after 5 hours.
 
BOZO said:
I've had the 60 up for as long as 6 hours and still landed with 1000lbs but you're just about going crazy after 5 hours.

Been there and done that too, however landing with only 1000 lbs left is for the clear and a million days and hope for no atc delay.

We won't consider Hawaii either, go fast to SFO or LAX and let 'em ride the crowd killer after that
 
Just for the record, I was advised of a story where a CE-650 prototype was flown to Alaska, down the island chain and
then to Hawaii. To get home, they waited for the winds to
be just right and went non-stop (duh) to LAX. Aparently,
these guys declared a fuel emergency and landed with
vapors. Really stupid if you ask me.

There is a 2-3 hour window where and engine failure will
require a water landing.

Similar problem with Atlantic flight but with colder water.

Wanna goto Hawaii? Get a Hawker 800xl or better.

CE
 
ultrarunner said:
If one needs to go 2000nm over-water, buy a 3000 nm airplane. 3000 nm? buy a 4000 nm plane....

this is simple stuff.

You would think that even simple minded people would realize this but yet you continue to read about them. I just finished a 4.6 hr. trip and landed with 1450#. When you have multiple airports to choose from that's a lot of fuel in a LR60. When the next airport is 200-300 miles away you're playing with a lot of innocent lives.
 
baggage said:
It harder for the pilot to explain to the Customer given what the Customer has just been told ....
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_2/3_2_1/3_2_1.jsp

SAN FRANCISCO // LIVING IN SAN FRANCISCO,
THE BOMBARDIER LEARJET 60XR LETS YOU CONDUCT
BUSINESS OR PLEASURE WITH EQUAL EFFICIENCY
…. ANCHORAGE TO THE NORT AND HONOLULU TO THE WEST
Yep, I don't think anyone here will arugure that the manufacutures are making it difficult at best for us!

Quick Info shows a burn today of 6800 lbs SFO to HNL at .78. Not a lot of fluff left over.
 
Last edited:
baggage said:
It harder for the pilot to explain to the Customer given what the Customer has just been told ....
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_2/3_2_1/3_2_1.jsp

SAN FRANCISCO // LIVING IN SAN FRANCISCO,
THE BOMBARDIER LEARJET 60XR LETS YOU CONDUCT
BUSINESS OR PLEASURE WITH EQUAL EFFICIENCY
…. ANCHORAGE TO THE NORT AND HONOLULU TO THE WEST

I find that sort of odd. They have now started to compete against the CL-300. Better off saying what it is ... a transcon airplane. If you want to go to HI buy a CL-300.
 
I wonder though if part of that has to do with the seperation with the Canadair/Challenger folks and the Learjet guys. Word has been around ICT for long time that BBD was shopping Learjet around. Maybe trying to make the 60 a flagship? just a thought...

I agree with the above...it's tough to continually say "No, we can't do Hawaii" when all the literature out there is advertising just that
 
Runway for rent- call NASA

This might be of interest if you buy either one.........




One really long runway for rent -- call NASA


CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- For rent: 15,000-foot runway. Aircraft hangar included. Affordable. Historic. Scenic Florida location.
That's how a classified advertisement might read if NASA advertised its plan to make some money on the long air strip normally used by space shuttles.
As the shuttle program shuffles to its close in 2010, the pristine runway will be used less and less. No reason it should sit empty -- especially with commercial space flight about to take off.
"We've invited companies to test drive the shuttle landing facility," said Jim Ball, the NASA official who is spearheading private business ventures at Kennedy. "The key No. 1 thing we wish to demonstrate is that the Kennedy Space Center is willing to support missions other than space."
The space agency already has sought proposals, and under one deal being negotiated, landing fees would likely be slightly higher than the $300 to $700 per flight charged at regular airports.
The space center hosted its first private venture last month -- the takeoff of adventurer Steve Fossett in Virgin Atlantic's experimental plane, which set a flight distance record. (Full story)
NASA charged nearly $5,000 for use of the runway, hangar, fuel, equipment and airfield services for that one-time deal. Future private flights will be scheduled around the remaining 17 shuttle missions.
The shuttle landing strip never got the full use it was built for in the 1970s. NASA had predicted then that the shuttles would fly anywhere from 12 to 50 times a year, but the most flights the space agency got in a single year was nine in 1985.
After the shuttle's retirement, the next-generation space vehicle will return to Earth by parachute.
In the past, NASA's nine other space centers have invited outsiders from academia or other government agencies to use their facilities. But none has offered anything as high-profile as the Kennedy landing strip, which millions have seen during televised shuttle landings.
Officials at Kennedy Space Center started seeking proposals for non-NASA uses of the shuttle runway last year. The most promising seemed to be from Virgin Atlantic to sponsor Fossett's flight, and from Zero Gravity Corp., a Fort Lauderdale business that offers customers a few moments of weightlessness in a Boeing 727-200.
"They see that as part of their future. We're a discovery project for them, to discover new uses for the shuttle landing facility," Fossett said. "As far as Kennedy is concerned, it's a great runway, a runway in perfect condition, equal to the longest available in the United States."
The contract with Virgin Atlantic and Fossett, which is considered the blueprint for future similar arrangements, required NASA approval for any use of its name in Virgin Atlantic promotions. However, the company appeared more interested in promoting itself than the space agency, touting its own logo at news conferences.
Kennedy Space Center officials also used the Fossett flight as a chance to rub elbows with two pioneers of commercial space that might bring future business to Florida.
Virgin Atlantic's chief, Richard Branson, has announced the development of a $225 million spaceport in southern New Mexico. Officials with aerospace company Scaled Composites, which built Fossett's plane, also constructed SpaceShipOne, the suborbital spaceship that won the $10 million Ansari X Prize by becoming the first privately financed manned rocket to reach space.
Kennedy officials are completing a contract with Zero Gravity that would allow its plane to take off from the space center carrying passengers who pay $3,750 for a seat to briefly experience weightlessness through jet acrobatics.
Under the proposal, the company would pay landing fees comparable to commercial airlines at airports.
"We want to give people an experience of floating in the air like they're Superman or an astronaut," said Noah McMahon, Zero Gravity's chief marketing officer. "They'll be able to do it from the place where real astronauts actually land in the shuttle."
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom