CJ3 and 4

[Fblowjets]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.