Recommend me some airplanes

[BoilerUP]

.68M?

painful

All a legacy Citation I/II can really do in cruise is 0.62M anyway (~350ktas)...0.68M is ludicrous speed in comparison!

 

[pilotyip]

Look at a 731 powered DA-20F, biggest cabin for the price, or if you really want to save money a GE powered DA-20 under $1M.

 

[BigMike]

...if you really want to save money a GE powered DA-20 under $1M.

He DID mention operating costs ya' know.

 

[hiflyer731]

But without the mod it only does around 1500?

I dont want to mess with mods right now simply because the guy doesnt know much about aviation so he wont understand the point of buying an airplane just to spend an additional 500k on it to get it to do what we want.

Plus the 40XR's are damn near even with 45XR pricing from what I am seeing(not including an additional 500k for the fuel mod on the 40).

I cant think the DOC on the 40 is that much less than the 45, maybe 10 or 15 GPH fuel flow and the same for everything else.

I personally have not operated the 40, only the 45. But I have used a contract pilot that manages and flies a 40 and he says they do Chicago-LA once a month and only when the weather is bad in LA and alternate fuel is required do they need to make a stop. The 40 has a lower BOW and MTOW and a much more aft CG so it gets to FL470 sooner and is more efficient in cruise than the 45. Those two factors allow it to pretty much match the range of the 45. It's worth talking to some 40 operators to verify.

 

[pilotyip]

He DID mention operating costs ya' know.

depends upon how much he is going to fly, 100 hr a year, the cheap airplane is more cost a effective, a 1000 hours a year the expensive airplane with good SFC might be the best buy. We found at $4.00/gal we would have to fly a 731 powered airplane over 100 hours per month to be cost effective over the GE airplane when you consider the capital cost that has to be justified by the hourly savings.

 

[rjacobs]

I personally have not operated the 40, only the 45. But I have used a contract pilot that manages and flies a 40 and he says they do Chicago-LA once a month and only when the weather is bad in LA and alternate fuel is required do they need to make a stop. The 40 has a lower BOW and MTOW and a much more aft CG so it gets to FL470 sooner and is more efficient in cruise than the 45. Those two factors allow it to pretty much match the range of the 45. It's worth talking to some 40 operators to verify.

I will do some more research on this. The book only shows about a 1500nm range on the 40XR without the fuel mods and it shows about a 1900 mile range on a straight 45. I dont see how it can be that much more fuel efficient to basically make 180 more gallons of gas vs. a 45. Its not that much smaller or lighter.

depends upon how much he is going to fly, 100 hr a year, the cheap airplane is more cost a effective, a 1000 hours a year the expensive airplane with good SFC might be the best buy. We found at $4.00/gal we would have to fly a 731 powered airplane over 100 hours per month to be cost effective over the GE airplane when you consider the capital cost that has to be justified by the hourly savings.

I am costing things based on 350 hours a year. If he ends up making 2 west coast trips a month thats almost 160 hours right there for the year.

 

[BoilerUP]

The 40XR only weighs 500lb less than the 45XR...and early 40s carry nearly 700lbs less fuel than the 45 or current 40XRs.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...009_p0128-168049.xml&headline=Learjet+40/40XR

The "new" 40XRs with extended range was made for exactly one reason - stay competitive with the CJ4 in performance. The CJ4 makes 2002nm with 2 pilots and 1000lb payload at HSC; the 40XR makes 1991nm with 4 pax (I think the typical marketing 170lb passenger, not sure) at 0.75M LRC...which is a fuzz slower than the CJ4's HSC of 0.77M.

Also - the 40 lacks the biggest thing the 45 series offers over the CJ series IMO: an APU!

I think a BR-modded used 40 represents great value, but operationally an XR or BR-modded aircraft has similar range to a CJ3 for probably 25-40% higher DOC. It does, like the 45, have superior payload capability over similar-range Citations with the 21,000lb MTOW STC.

Its REALLY too bad Bombardier hasn't put a PL21 cockpit in these things yet...

 

[rjacobs]

The 40XR only weighs 500lb less than the 45XR...and early 40s carry nearly 700lbs less fuel than the 45 or current 40XRs.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...009_p0128-168049.xml&headline=Learjet+40/40XR

The "new" 40XRs with extended range was made for exactly one reason - stay competitive with the CJ4 in performance. The CJ4 makes 2002nm with 2 pilots and 1000lb payload at HSC; the 40XR makes 1991nm with 4 pax (I think the typical marketing 170lb passenger, not sure) at 0.75M LRC...which is a fuzz slower than the CJ4's HSC of 0.77M.

Also - the 40 lacks the biggest thing the 45 series offers over the CJ series IMO: an APU!

I think a BR-modded used 40 represents great value, but operationally an XR or BR-modded aircraft has similar range to a CJ3 for probably 25-40% higher DOC. It does, like the 45, have superior payload capability over similar-range Citations with the 21,000lb MTOW STC.

Its REALLY too bad Bombardier hasn't put a PL21 cockpit in these things yet...

Thats alot of what I was thinking. If I am looking at the 45's, the 40XR(without the fuel mod) just isnt in the ball park. Plus losing the APU, while not huge, is something I am considering. I like having one in the RJ I fly now. Boss calls, fire it up and 15 minutes later, nice cool cabin. No need to monkey with GPU's(which in my experience are hit or miss on if they work and if they are even available) and you can sit and get your flight plan loaded, ATIS, clearance, etc... without burning an engine.

The avionics are the same in the EMB145 I fly now, not spectacular but they work and I personally have never had an issue with them breaking in 5000 hours in the plane. I think the PL21 is superior having seen it a few times in a KA350 a buddy flies, but meh, not my biggest concern. At least they are better than the avionics in the LR60 and 31A.

 

[BoilerUP]

Plus losing the APU, while not huge, is something I am considering. I like having one in the RJ I fly now. Boss calls, fire it up and 15 minutes later, nice cool cabin. No need to monkey with GPU's(which in my experience are hit or miss on if they work and if they are even available) and you can sit and get your flight plan loaded, ATIS, clearance, etc... without burning an engine.

Almost every FBO in this country, save small municipal airports, will have at least one GPU available if not a whole bunch of them. Sometimes you somebody else may have the one an FBO has, but most times if their pax aren't close at hand a crew won't mind letting you use it for 10-15min for cooling & engine start.

GPU availability ain't an issue in the bizav world like it is in the regional airline world...

 

[Caboclo]

Everyone has been discussing the longest mission, but the OP originally said that most of the trips would be 250 miles. A LR-45 is awfully inefficient at that distance. I would recommend an Avanti or even a TBM.