CJ2 specs/performance

avratdwc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Posts
228
Total Time
Lots
All,

I am looking for some real world specs and performance of the CJ2. If anyone can provide details as far as runway numbers, fuel burns for 150 NM leg and 600 NM leg. What are rough maintenance charges looking like, either by going on your own or thru Power Advantage. Hourly rates would be great for both. I understand the CJ's now go thru Document inspections as opposed to Phase inspections. Can anyone ellaborate as to why the change.

Looking forward to the info.

Safe Travels,

DS
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
From our five month old CJ2+:

Over a 579nm segment: average flight time of 1.7 Hobbs, average fuel burn of 1530lb.
Over a 141nm segment: average flight time of 0.5 Hobbs, average fuel burn of 675lb.

Our average segment length is 416nm and average burn has been 142gph. The airplane outperforms book figures for cruise; I flight plan 398kt and 730pph at FL450 but it'll run right to the 0.737MMo under most conditions and seeing 402-407KTAS at FL450 for that 730pph burn is typical. At FL430 expect 405-408kt and 770pph, and FL410 408-412kt and 810pph. At our BOW with full fuel, we can take 2 pilots/2pax or 1 pilot/3 pax.

As far as runway numbers go...we can depart HXD (sea level & 4300' long) at MTOW up to 38 degrees C. If you have specific runways, I can check both CESNAV and APG for you. In terms of climb performance, the only Cessna products that will outclimb the 2+ is the Encore and the Sovereign.

TAP Elite runs about $250/hr and ProParts will run roughly $25/hr the first year/$70/hr the second year; we are enrolled in neither. Cessna's projected maintenance is 1.2 labor hours per flight hour, which includes Document inspections.

We've gotten preliminary quotes for the first year's 12 month/300hr Documents to be about $5,000 flat rate...and under warranty there should be little if any discrepancy cost. The change from Phase to Document falls under the MSG3 program, and the Document inspections require less downtime and fewer man-hours than the Phase inspections, lowering cost.

We came from an early 80s Citation II and the CJ2+ has FAR surpassed our expectations, both in terms of performance and operating economics. If you're inquiring more about the "straight" CJ2, then it won't perform quite as well as the + but it'll still be pretty darn good.
 
Last edited:

avratdwc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Posts
228
Total Time
Lots
Wow, thanks for the great insight. I really do appreciate it. How are the landing numbers assuming 6 pax with 1/2 tanks? Do you operate single pilot?

Thanks,

DS
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
We operate with 2 pilots when flying passengers, single-pilot if doing mx/ferry flights or sometimes when only flying our boss (who has a PPL). The CJ2+ is unbeliveably easy to fly SP.

Our no-pilot BOW is 7766lb. With myself and my colleague onboard, we're at 8150lb. With 6-200lb passengers and 2000lb of fuel, the landing weight would be 11350lb and the CJ2+'s MLW is 11525lb. Assuming a 1000' pressure altitude and 15 degree C temp on a dry runway, required landing distance at the 11,525lb MLW is 3060ft with no wind; at 11,300lb the distance is 3020ft and at 11,000lb you're looking at 2990ft.

Using 3000' as a nice round dry runway landing number, wet distance is 4450ft, 0.5" standing water is 5050ft, 0.5" wet slush or snow is 5300ft, and 1" dry snow is 6000ft.
 

avratdwc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Posts
228
Total Time
Lots
Boiler,

This is exactly whhat I am looking for. If this happens I will get a SP letter, yet we will have another pilot with us 90% of the time. If you dont mind, can you please PM me some of your financials as far as your hourly rate for operation and whats included in it. I am sure I can figure it out based off your fuel, but I am just looking for a comparable. Thanks again for all your help.

DS
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
There isn't an SP letter for the CE525 like for the CE500, but there *is* a CE525(S) type rating that lets you fly single pilot. Just make sure if you want to fly as a crew to also get a 61.58 check...which at FSI will cost you an extra 3 grand on top of the (S) type. This is important if you want your SIC to be able to log their time...or if there's a situation when you can't legally fly single-pilot (like with a MEL'd autopilot), because without the 61.58 you can't legally fly with an SIC.
 

LJ45

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
1,081
Total Time
13,000
or a 61.58 in another aircraft is ok also (last 12 months) and the CJ within last 24 months.
 
Last edited:

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
or a 61.58 in another aircraft is ok also (last 12 months) and the CJ within last 24 months.
But if you're new to a type (CE525 in this case), you'd have to be 61.58 checked in that type first before flying with a required/"legal" SIC.

61.58(a)(2) said:
Within the preceding 24 calendar months, complete a pilot-in-command proficiency check in the particular type of aircraft in which that person will serve as pilot in command.
Once you get that initial 61.58 check in type, you can do the rolling 24 month check requirement for multiple types. Of course, if you always fly a single pilot then the only thing you would need per the FAA is a BFR...

Single pilot jet operations, in terms of FAR legality when it comes to SICs, can be confusing (and frustrating).
 
Last edited:

LJ45

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
1,081
Total Time
13,000
But if you're new to a type (CE525 in this case), you'd have to be 61.58 checked in that type first before flying with a required/"legal" SIC.



Once you get that initial 61.58 check in type, you can do the rolling 24 month check requirement for multiple types. Of course, if you always fly a single pilot then the only thing you would need per the FAA is a BFR...

Single pilot jet operations, in terms of FAR legality when it comes to SICs, can be confusing (and frustrating).
you are corrrect :)
 
Top