CJ3 and 4

Fblowjets

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
150
Total Time
5600
Company looking at replacing a King Air 350 with a CJ3 or CJ4(when avail). My question is for some real numbers on the CJ3 to compare to 350. Curious what people are getting for fuel burns in mid 20's, 30's, and 410. I can read what Cessna says they will do, but I dont need a salesman blowing smoke.

Thanks
FB
 

wtrav8r

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Posts
55
Total Time
6300
We fly 4.0 to 4.5 hrs quite often in the CJ3 between FL430-450 and land with 1:00 to 1:15 worth of fuel (1000-1200#). TAS is approx 400-405.

1st hr 1200#
2nd hr 900#
3rd hr 800#
4th hr and on 700#


TEB-DEN is about the max range westbound with 3 pax and full fuel. I have done LGB-IAD and landed with 1100# fuel. I target landing no less than 1000#, however, I am more conservitive than others. I hear 800# is quite common (45 minutes)
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
We operate a CJ2+; the cabin is a couple feet shorter (and the plane a $1M+ less bucks) than a CJ3, but close enough that you might care what we see:

MTOW (12.5k) to FL450 in 25-28 minutes assuming unrestricted climb, depending on ISA. Once at FL450 it'll accelerate right to the barber pole and you'll see 398-406kts and 730pph. At FL430, fuel flows are 770pph @ TAS 403-408kt, and FL410 810pph & TAS 405-412kt. Anything longer than 500nm we try to go to FL450 because you really don't give up TAS for the decrease in fuel flows. For hourly flows: 1050, 800, 750, 750, 750; average hourly consumption 140gph.

On a 100nm trip we play FL130/140 and see burns about 550lb on 0.4 hobbs; 200nm trips FL280/290 and 820lb burn on 0.7 hobbs; and on our 550nm milkrun 1475lbs on 1.6 hobbs.

Our longest flight was SAN-JVY with two pilots and three pax in 3+46; we burned 2900lbs block-to-block.

100nm reserve fuel in the CJ2+ is 800lb; assuming good VFR and multiple airport options I'd land as low as 600lb which is 45 minutes. Interestingly, Cessna Flight Ops' own limits are 700lbs landing fuel in the CJ2+.

One thing about this airplane - when it comes to performance, it handily beats Cessna's published Flight Planning Guide.
 

Fblowjets

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
150
Total Time
5600
Thanks guys
I agree it seems the aircraft performs better then published. A couple times a year we go to LAS from PDK, but most of flights are PDK - TEB, so was trying to figure out max pax, 2 pilots and 1000lbs reserve. According to Cessna looks like approx 4 pax 2 pilots and 3600lbs of fuel.

Again thanks for both of your input
FB
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
Cessna has said the CJ4 will have 1000lb payload capacity with two pilots and full fuel.

The CJ4's thus-far estimated performance numbers are mostly lower than that of both the Encore and CJ3, but from the little bit we heard during delivery of our CJ2+ this spring, its quite likely the CJ4 is going to WAY beat those numbers.

Now if Cessna could just be convinced to put a Sovereign-derived wing on the XLS+, giving it a little more speed and 2000nm range...
 

jonjuan

Honey Ryder
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Posts
4,155
Total Time
3,000+
Cessna has said the CJ4 will have 1000lb payload capacity with two pilots and full fuel.

The CJ4's thus-far estimated performance numbers are mostly lower than that of both the Encore and CJ3, but from the little bit we heard during delivery of our CJ2+ this spring, its quite likely the CJ4 is going to WAY beat those numbers.

Now if Cessna could just be convinced to put a Sovereign-derived wing on the XLS+, giving it a little more speed and 2000nm range...
The CJ4 number's will be lower than the CJ3 or will way beat those numbers? Not sure what you're saying. I've heard the 4 will be 200 NM, 2 FT longer, and $2MM more than the 3.
To your 680 wing on the 650-How do you think Cessna has made money they past 20 years? They have stretched the cabin, added tanks, engines, etc (have you seen the wing on an XL lately?) Wings are EXPENSIVE to R&D.
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
The CJ4 number's will be lower than the CJ3 or will way beat those numbers? Not sure what you're saying. I've heard the 4 will be 200 NM, 2 FT longer, and $2MM more than the 3.
The preliminary numbers Cessna has offered for the CJ4 are mostly lower than their published numbers for the CJ3. I happen to think the CJ4's actual performance will blow those preliminary numbers out of the water.

To your 680 wing on the 650-How do you think Cessna has made money they past 20 years? They have stretched the cabin, added tanks, engines, etc (have you seen the wing on an XL lately?) Wings are EXPENSIVE to R&D.
When the CJ4, with its Sovereign-derived wing, replaces the Encore+ the only production Citation with the old-technology V wing will be the 560XL. While I've no doubt wings are expensive to develop, I've also no doubt they're cheaper than a clean-sheet redesign.

A new Sovereign-derived wing on the XLS+ could realistically increase its MMo to .78M and its range over that 'magical' 2000nm mark without a significant decrease in the Excel's renowed short field performance or a massive increase in price. Of course Cessna would rather somebody spring the extra $6M for a Sovereign if they need more range than the XLS+ offers, but there are a lot of other choices (G150, 900XP, LR60XR, etc) with far superior range to the XLS before you get to the 680's price point.

What do I know though...I'm just a dumb pilot.
 

Tgaug6300

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
269
Total Time
Enough
Until this economy turns around, I wouldn't look for any new designs hitting the runway anytime soon. No manufacturer has the money to take a design from paper, to experimental, to market right now. Just look at all the lay-offs currently taking place at all the manufacturers. Lets hope things turn around soon though.
 

Flex-ible

JAFO
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
264
Total Time
40+
Until this economy turns around, I wouldn't look for any new designs hitting the runway anytime soon. No manufacturer has the money to take a design from paper, to experimental, to market right now. Just look at all the lay-offs currently taking place at all the manufacturers. Lets hope things turn around soon though.
Bombardier is continuing with the Learjet 85, still due out in the 2012-2013 timeframe. By then, there will need to be something new to get buyers back out.

I would really be surprised if Cessna, Gulfstream, etc don't also have something out in that timeframe as well.
 

Tgaug6300

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
269
Total Time
Enough
Bombardier is continuing with the Learjet 85, still due out in the 2012-2013 timeframe. By then, there will need to be something new to get buyers back out.

I would really be surprised if Cessna, Gulfstream, etc don't also have something out in that timeframe as well.
Remember though Bombardier has not been immune from lay-offs either. In fact they probably have the potential of being one of the most vulnerable. When you build a very limited amount of aircraft every year (as Lear does), then are faced with deferments and/or cancellations of those limited number of aircraft, something has to give. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't see the delivery dates pushed back on the 85. A company must do what it can to survive. It costs millions upon millions of dollars to bring a new plane to market. Few can afford to do it right now.
 

mu2cptn

Active member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Posts
44
Total Time
3500
We fly 4.0 to 4.5 hrs quite often in the CJ3 between FL430-450 and land with 1:00 to 1:15 worth of fuel (1000-1200#). TAS is approx 400-405.

1st hr 1200#
2nd hr 900#
3rd hr 800#
4th hr and on 700#


TEB-DEN is about the max range westbound with 3 pax and full fuel. I have done LGB-IAD and landed with 1100# fuel. I target landing no less than 1000#, however, I am more conservitive than others. I hear 800# is quite common (45 minutes)
That's about right. Ive done SGJ to VGT in 5:22 with 800 left. Was VFR though in Vegas. Would target 1000 lbs for any IFR day or going to New York, due to early decents.
 

LJ45

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
1,081
Total Time
13,000
When you build a very limited amount of aircraft every year (as Lear does).
What kind of statement is that? Because, only Cessna builds more and that is because of all the different models.
 

jagmagic

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Posts
149
Total Time
4500
For what it is worth, In my short career I have flown the hawker 800xp, the CJ1, CJ3 and the G450. And by far the CJ3 is the most impresive airplane I have flown by far. Yeah the G450 has alot of cool stuff and can go far but that aside the CJ3 is a great great airplane. It can get in and out of short fields and go far. I have taken the CJ3 from KBUR-KHPN non stop and landed with 800lbs of fuel. It was in the winter and we had good winds but still i was very impressed. Everytime i fly the CJ i am impressed more and more. We are looking into a CJ4 but not sure if it is going to be any better than the 3.
 

Tgaug6300

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
269
Total Time
Enough
What kind of statement is that? Because, only Cessna builds more and that is because of all the different models.
I'm saying that the amount of airplanes they (Learjet) produce in a year is less than what Cessna or Hawker Beechcraft normally produce in a year.
 

cheyflyer

It wasn't me!!
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Posts
171
Total Time
11000
What are the baggage capabilities for the CJ3.... you know real stuff like golf clubs, guns, luggage, ice chest.... all these things together with 5-6 guys. Can anyone comment on how the 3 compares to the KA-350 in the crap hauling department?

Thanks.

cf
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
IIRC, the CJ3 has 50 cu. ft. baggage (600lb) in the tail and 15 cu. ft. (400lb) in the nose. While I can't compare it to the KA350, six sets of clubs plus RON bags for 8 are not an issue whatsoever for the CJ3.

You won't be able to do anywhere close to full seats/full tanks in the CJ3 like you can in the 350, though...
 

TMMT

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Posts
21,654
Total Time
Alot
An operator I P/T for has an old CE501, I'm trying my best to sweet talk them into a nice CJ2 or 3. Had the chance to take a demo ride in one a few months back out of VNY and man they are indeed sweet!
 

johnsonrod

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Posts
4,218
Total Time
8000+
Using the Pro Line 21 system

Given that the CJ3, CJ2+ and CJ1+ use the Pro Line 21 system, what are people's impressions of the system? I have heard good things. How is Pro Line 21 better than other systems you have used?

Sounds like it might be a good selling point for the CJ3 and CJ4.
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
Given that the CJ3, CJ2+ and CJ1+ use the Pro Line 21 system, what are people's impressions of the system?
Its awesome. Very very similar to Pro Line 4, but the presentation and buttonology is somewhat different.

How is Pro Line 21 better than other systems you have used?
It has more features and has a rock-solid autopilot...what I've been told is a dramatic shortcoming of the Honeywell Primus system in somewhat older Citations.
 

vertigo

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Posts
1
Total Time
7000
Its awesome. Very very similar to Pro Line 4, but the presentation and buttonology is somewhat different.



It has more features and has a rock-solid autopilot...what I've been told is a dramatic shortcoming of the Honeywell Primus system in somewhat older Citations.
Honeywell still sucks in the new citations. Hard to believe it is even certified in 680. I would take Collins Proline 4 any day over Homeywell.
 
Top