Question fot Citation guys

[Axel]

Typo monster got me in the thread title. (blush/grin)

Here is the question for the Citation guys: Is there a provision for reduced thrust takeoffs in the performance calculations for the 550/560 series? Thanks.

 

[Choppy]

Oh MY!

You have to be joking right! Why on earth you you want to reduce thrust on a Citation??? That is the best joke I have heard all week!!

 

[xcrew]

Not that I've found. I got some funny looks the first time I asked though.

 

[Axel]

... Why on earth you you want to reduce thrust on a Citation???...

To, uh, reduce the costs when hot section/overhaul time comes around?

Thanks anyway.

 

[Choppy]

To, uh, reduce the costs when hot section/overhaul time comes around?

Thanks anyway.

That's the problem! All you know is that airliners have reduced thrust T/O and you think since you fly a jet you should do them as well! The pratts that are on your aircraft are made to go to max power for a period of time every takeoff. Reducing you power on takeoff is doing nothing but increasing your risk of running off the runway or not making 2nd segment climb! Reduce thrust at the airlines is used because the aircraft are on a more demanding schedule and have a far more time frame between overhauls! The only time we could use reduce thrust was when me met many different variables. These numbers are not published because it won't make a difference in 3500 hours!

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Most reputable companies participate in some kind of maintenance service program (MSP) unless they have a number of airplanes and a large mainenance staff. I'm not aware of a 500 series airframe that has DEECS or FADEC which means there are N1 numbers published for all flight conditions that will protect the engines.

 

[Axel]

Actually, no. I do not fly a Citation. If I did, I could have just looked it up myself, and would have. The question was presented to me, I did not have the answer, so I thought I'd ask some 550/560 people. Instead I get a Boeing/f-15/650 guy with many incorrect assumptions, an attitude and nothing constructive. The question was not directed to you, Choppy, but again, thanks anyway.

Thank you for the straight answers, xcrew and Hugh.

 

[Captainzero1]

It could be done but no company wants to spend that kind of money to develop the charts for reduced thrust.

 

[Flyerjosh]

Why Cessna hasn't come up with some reduced thrust settings is beyond me... I agree, there are times when they are appropriate, especially in the Encore. 2nd stage climbs aren't an issue unless conditions are BOTH heavy and hot. Most days, I'm retracting the flaps before I cross the departure end of a 5000' runway.

That said, there are actually very few days when we actually have the time to set takeoff power before we get up to rotation speed- it just comes that quick. Usually we aim for about 635-650 ITT for takeoff (depending on OAT), and pull the power back to 600 ITT as soon as a climb is stabilized (typically between "gear up" and "flaps up.")

 

[X man]

Reduced Thrust

I have never heard of anyone using reduced thrust takeoffs on the Citation 550/560--- there probably certain peramiters(sp?) where it is usable, but again I have never heard of operators with those aircraft using reduced thrust.

 

[GulfstreamSDL]

You have to be joking right! Why on earth you you want to reduce thrust on a Citation??? That is the best joke I have heard all week!!

....Or you could have given him a respectable answer rather than taking your pay-cut anger out on him.

Axel, sorry I dont know anything on the subject, but it looks like some previous posts to mine have answered your question.

 

[Choppy]

....Or you could have given him a respectable answer rather than taking your pay-cut anger out on him.

Axel, sorry I dont know anything on the subject, but it looks like some previous posts to mine have answered your question.

Let's see... you don't have a dog in the fight and you want to come on here and bash me! I left my airline a long time ago for a fortune 50 company and have made my "Pay-cut" many times over! Thanks for your great insight to let him know that previous posts may answer his question!! I'm sure when he saw your post he went straight to it and did not read any of the other ones!!

 

[Propnose]

Reduced Thrust

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.

 

[GulfstreamSDL]

Let's see... you don't have a dog in the fight and you want to come on here and bash me! I left my airline a long time ago for a fortune 50 company and have made my "Pay-cut" many times over! Thanks for your great insight to let him know that previous posts may answer his question!! I'm sure when he saw your post he went straight to it and did not read any of the other ones!!

You're right, I dont have a "dog" in the fight. But you also had no reason to reject his question and take it upon yourself to shame the guy/gal.
If I had time in citations, I would answer to the thread question, but that is not the case. But you do supposedly have citation time...so much that it is "funny" when people aren't educated in the manner that you are and you chose to post NOTHING factual or insightful for the first thread reply. Good job.
Does moving the excess weight in your head to the back of your citation give you greater speed and range??

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

I've flown a CE550, 560 (encore) and CE650.

The 550, you don't EVER want to take off an anything less than absolute
MAXIMUM. They are underpowered.

The 650 overall has better power, but on a hot day (over 80F) you'll want
every pound of thrust that runway hog can give you.

As for the Encore, I don't remember any reduce power settings. The extra
power sure was nice.

Corporate airplanes are designed for a lower utilization than airliners.
10,000hr -vs- 100,000. Structure, systems, engines are designed
accordingly.

It always boggles my mind how some captains want to reduce cost for
their employer by making up reduced power takeoffs and the like.
IF you don't overtemp , the engines will be ok.

And don't get me started on piston pilots (C-400 series) who "save" the
engines by reduced power t/o's.

CE

 

[Choppy]

I've flown a CE550, 560 (encore) and CE650.

The 550, you don't EVER want to take off an anything less than absolute
MAXIMUM. They are underpowered.

The 650 overall has better power, but on a hot day (over 80F) you'll want
every pound of thrust that runway hog can give you.

As for the Encore, I don't remember any reduce power settings. The extra
power sure was nice.

Corporate airplanes are designed for a lower utilization than airliners.
10,000hr -vs- 100,000. Structure, systems, engines are designed
accordingly.

It always boggles my mind how some captains want to reduce cost for
their employer by making up reduced power takeoffs and the like.
IF you don't overtemp , the engines will be ok.

And don't get me started on piston pilots (C-400 series) who "save" the
engines by reduced power t/o's.

CE

Thank You! At least somenone on here sees the humor and the light!

I need to make sure I put "Challenger" into my name so that everyone will know what type of airplane I fly like GulfstreamSDL!! i might even include a picture!!

 

[Axel]

The question was: "Does Cessna publish the numbers?" I appreciate you all taking the time to answer, thanks.

...At least somenone on here sees the humor and the light!...

There is a certain irony in this statement. If you uncurl that lip a little, Choppy, those headaches will go away and your landings will probably improve.

Everyone else: thanks again for taking the time to answer.

 

[rettofly]

Cost Reduction?

To, uh, reduce the costs when hot section/overhaul time comes around?

I flew a trip once as a rent-a-pilot where the Captain refused to check the T/Rs before takeoff (REQUIRED by FOM) because his company SOP said this would save on mx cost. He did, however, push the power to the redline. He also got upset with me for arranging an oxygen service at the home base because he couldn't see spending the money when the gauge was still a millimeter above minimum.

Next time I got a call from this outfit, I "had a prior commitment" even though I was spending all my time scouring the want ads.

 

[cessnapilot]

reduced thrust

You have to be joking right! Why on earth you you want to reduce thrust on a Citation??? That is the best joke I have heard all week!!

Actually, there are many times where one can reduce thrust and it will help the enginge and not compromise safety. The books aren't out there on the Cessna series, but one could go through the process. On hot days at high altitude I've seen some temps getting up close to redline. If you have no passengers on board and you're at DIA with lot of runway.... it could help. On the L-1011 we had to do it or we would overtemp. It wasn't an issue on the Boeing's with the pratt, but it still offered lower temps... and it's temperature that hurts the engine. For Fadec engines the manufacture sets up the limiting factor, so it's all imaginary anyway. They could get more thrust out of most engines out there, but they don't. It's a balance.

And you're right, there are many variables that have to be met at the airlines... but they are obvious... not wet, not with a tailwind, not with LLWSA... etc


Regards,
Scott

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

The question was: "Does Cessna publish the numbers?" I appreciate you all taking the time to answer, thanks.

Not on the 500 or 600 series.

If it's not published, don't do it.

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

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.

Lawn Darting, or runway overruns are also expensive, more so than a
hot section.

"But Mr. FAA, Sir. Making up procedures happens all of the time."

(You know the number of that truck driving outfit? TruckMaster?
I think I'm gonna need that....)

CE

I'd fly the Encore for the rest of my life if given a choice.

 

[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!)