Question fot Citation guys

[Axel]

Some of you guys are really running amok with your assumptions here.

 

[2000flyer]

It's been a long time since I used them, but I believe the "Quick Turn" performance numbers actually give you a "reduced" thrust when compared to the full takeoff performance numbers. I'll take a look at it Monday when I get to work to make sure.

From Propnose

Although I don't fly a citation, I am not an airline pilot either and we use reduced thrust settings all the time. The only stipululations are every 60hrs we have to do a max blast t/o, or if runway conditions exist that require it.

I'm sure you have published numbers to do reduced thrust takeoffs, or at least I hope so, otherwise you need to add "test pilot" to your profile.

 

[2000flyer]

...The books aren't out there on the Cessna series, but one could go through the process....

Regards,
Scott

Scott, not trying to start an argument here, but how does one go through the process?? If you lower your power setting, do you:
* adjust V1?
* What is your second segment net/gross climb gradient?
* How do you figure your BFL and take off distance?

My point being, if you (or anyone else) is arbitrarily coming up with take off numbers (by % or temp), you have absolutely no FAA approved data to go by and therefore, you are a test pilot, IMHO.

 

[Flyerjosh]

BTW the engines on the Encore are FADECS. (I love that airplane)

Ummm actually no. (At least none of the Encores that I fly. The new Encore+ that just started flight test is FADEC. However all of the Encores that are currently flying around are hydromechanical fuel control. (unless there is some STC out there that I haven't seen or am unfamiliar with)

As for lowering power settings due to temps, that is normal procedure
(then call maint)

I'm going to be blunt here. If the owner is scratching for money so much,
that he/she wants you you make up procedures, the owner needs to get
a smaller/cheaper airplane.

I agree that it probably isn't the best idea to be manufacturing your own procedures, however, what's wrong with trying to save money. I don't know about you, but everything I can do to reduce costs increases my job security and allows for additional perks for the flight department.

Personally I wish that Cessna would come up with some reduced power options. I can tell you from my experience doing cost and maintenance analysis that reduced power saves money in overhaul. Regardless of the type of operation.

One other consideration towards cost that I make prior to takeoff is engine warmup prior to departure. If we just started and taxied right out, we'll sit for a few minutes at the end of the runway to allow the seals, hot section, and turbine to warm up before applying T.O. power and the associated heat that comes with it. Generally looking for a minimum of 5 minutes warmup time at high idle thrust before exceeding anything above breakaway thrust.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

^^^^

um...you're correct on the Encore. Talking outta my rear (sorry)

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind saving money. I've just had a few bad
experiences with Capts volunteering to sleep in the airplane to save $
and try stupid flight procedures (like trying to climb direct to FL390
in a 550 at MGW to save fuel).

If Cessna/Pratt wants to publish reduced power settings, then your a$$ is
covered.

CE

(still can't remember why I thought it had FADEC. I still love the plane.)

 

[Flyerjosh]

The encore is a nice plane. I just wish that it had some minor differences... 300-310 kts in the climb would be nice, a better FMS (with a scratchpad), more headroom, and FADEC would definately improve things. Although my number one change would be to redesign the nose and get rid of the darn rain vents and plastic windscreens! They're noisy and darn hard to see through when taxiing in bad weather (not to mention if it's snowing... good luck!)