Citation VII pro and cons
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: hotel
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Citation VII pro and cons
Anybody out there flying or operating a Citation VII C650 ?
We are looking for a stand-up cabin with range 2000NM + sure.
We operate Citation already and adding an EXCEL would be nice but no range
and Sovereign is new (reads expensive purchase)
A III VI VII is the next choice only not a lot out there. The investment is fairly low
Total built only around 200 but this maybe has to have a reason.
Any advice about the VII appreciated; operation costs, flying it, special problems (if any) .
Or other recommendations / comparisons. Hawker 800, Lear 60 (before somebody comes up with something exotic we are operating in SE Asia.)
Thanks a lot.
We are looking for a stand-up cabin with range 2000NM + sure.
We operate Citation already and adding an EXCEL would be nice but no range
and Sovereign is new (reads expensive purchase)
A III VI VII is the next choice only not a lot out there. The investment is fairly low
Total built only around 200 but this maybe has to have a reason.
Any advice about the VII appreciated; operation costs, flying it, special problems (if any) .
Or other recommendations / comparisons. Hawker 800, Lear 60 (before somebody comes up with something exotic we are operating in SE Asia.)
Thanks a lot.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you looked into a used CE-750? A CE-650 can have big maintenance costs. Unless you operate from a small runway, I found the "X" to be a reasonable value given the cabin size and speed; and since you're already Cessna'd, then it would be a good fit. If lower acquisition costs are needed, then other considerations would be an IAI-1125/G100 or a DA50...and I'm sure an HS-125 would fit in there too.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CE650 as I remember had better range, more luggage space, more capacity and was faster than HS125. And I could stand up in the cabin!
The CE650 never embarressed me on a trip. We were often tasked rather than a 125.
Six years since, so figures a bit hazy now.
The CE650 never embarressed me on a trip. We were often tasked rather than a 125.
Six years since, so figures a bit hazy now.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: EGGD KFXE EGBJ
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ctation 650 III
we operate a 650 iii out of the uk.
The aircraft has the same cabin as the exel and costs 20% more to fuel and maintain, the good news is you can buy a 1990 with a spz8000 digital autopilot system for less than 4.8 mill, the very good news is that it will always cruise at 8.0 to 8.2.
The aircraft has the same cabin as the exel and costs 20% more to fuel and maintain, the good news is you can buy a 1990 with a spz8000 digital autopilot system for less than 4.8 mill, the very good news is that it will always cruise at 8.0 to 8.2.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: EGGD KFXE EGBJ
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 6 or 7 pretty much the same thing!
the 3 serial 175 or higher with the digital spz8000 offer the best value for money
the 7s for whatever reason did not work well for NJE maybe they were not suitable for very high utilisation.
our aircraft has been very light on unscheduled maintenance, we are flying about 350 hrs a year
the 3 serial 175 or higher with the digital spz8000 offer the best value for money
the 7s for whatever reason did not work well for NJE maybe they were not suitable for very high utilisation.
our aircraft has been very light on unscheduled maintenance, we are flying about 350 hrs a year
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 18 months at NJE on the 7, I only flew 180 hours. with a 6 on 5 off roster that equtes to only 240 hours per airframe per year.
Therefore not high utilisation at all. At that time there only 3 of them on the fleet which makes it a bit of an oddity in the big plan. I think that's why they got rid of them when the Excel came along.
I actually quite liked the 7, it was the prats in Lisbon who were the problem.
Therefore not high utilisation at all. At that time there only 3 of them on the fleet which makes it a bit of an oddity in the big plan. I think that's why they got rid of them when the Excel came along.
I actually quite liked the 7, it was the prats in Lisbon who were the problem.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 53
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're operating a III, you will NOT get 2000Nm+ out of this plane...downwind yes, in zero wind or much less headwind, the answer is no.
Some info:
III=200+ made
VI= 39 made (approx.)
VII= about 140 made.
Total C-650 about 360-380ish.
seupp
Some info:
III=200+ made
VI= 39 made (approx.)
VII= about 140 made.
Total C-650 about 360-380ish.
seupp
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would tend to disagree about the range. If you take that airplane in the 40's it'll give you a solid 2000 miles at 80. The 650 is the best aircraft Cessna ever made and Cessna will tell you that. Maint. can and will eat you alive, but if you are low utilization and have staff mechanic it'll be no problem and you can save the extra cash in aqui costs
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown 3s and a seven, if you fly more that 1800 NAUTICALS you are way braver than I ever was. (Not downwind, but with not more than 25 kts head)...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Age: 73
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contract Pilot
The 650's can true out @ 460 kts and routinely cruise at FL's 410 and 430 if ISA temps are good and cool.
They can fly for about 4 hr + 15 and then you need to start down and land. This landing fuel load is 1500 lbs and needs to be increased for night or IFR app's.
So you will be flying the spruce gooose routes to EU or the wet foot print to the Azores and the Pacific is arc way north.
They can fly for about 4 hr + 15 and then you need to start down and land. This landing fuel load is 1500 lbs and needs to be increased for night or IFR app's.
So you will be flying the spruce gooose routes to EU or the wet foot print to the Azores and the Pacific is arc way north.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Caught somewhere in time...
Age: 49
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been reading this thread with great interest, as we are considering a C-VII to complement a C-II. We are doing airtaxi/charter out of northern Europe.
The main thing is, is there an obvious alternative to the Cessna in the $5.5m to $6.5m (preowned) market ?
Standup cabin (if you can call 1.74m that) is a must together with APU.
But great replies so far!
The main thing is, is there an obvious alternative to the Cessna in the $5.5m to $6.5m (preowned) market ?
Standup cabin (if you can call 1.74m that) is a must together with APU.
But great replies so far!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone a Hawker expert here? There's got to be a Hawker in that price range, right? The cabin is bigger than both of those.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hawker has definetely less baggage Space, but bigger cabin, question is, do you get a 800 or 800xp at that price ? I´d doubt that.
The 3 I flew had a lot of maintenance issues, but was an old "dragon" (11000plus hours). It seems to me that flaptracks and motors are an issue, costing roughly 130000USD to replace (both aircraft had them replaced)
The 7 I flew had a problem with metal in oil, engine had to torn down twice - now that is a TFE731...
If you´d operate one, make sure to have it on JSSI or MSP and use a maintenance shop that knows that aeroplane well - you can spend an awful lot of money whilst troubleshooting on that airplane...
What a lot of Pax hated on ours was the threshold between main club and toilet - on the 2 aft seats its not so comfy espescially for tall persons.
Make sur to get an 8000 Avionic (VII or late III), the 650 is really old stuff...
The 3 I flew had a lot of maintenance issues, but was an old "dragon" (11000plus hours). It seems to me that flaptracks and motors are an issue, costing roughly 130000USD to replace (both aircraft had them replaced)
The 7 I flew had a problem with metal in oil, engine had to torn down twice - now that is a TFE731...
If you´d operate one, make sure to have it on JSSI or MSP and use a maintenance shop that knows that aeroplane well - you can spend an awful lot of money whilst troubleshooting on that airplane...
What a lot of Pax hated on ours was the threshold between main club and toilet - on the 2 aft seats its not so comfy espescially for tall persons.
Make sur to get an 8000 Avionic (VII or late III), the 650 is really old stuff...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Caught somewhere in time...
Age: 49
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't seem to grasp the exact differences between Citation VII and the Excel. Excel is a newer VII ? It has more range but less speed as I can see from the figures onthe internet. J Mesinger has DOC of 1.266usd for a VII and 1.051usd for a Excel. Are these figures up to anything ?
Then theres the Encore....how does it compare to the two above ?
confused, but on a higher level.....
Then theres the Encore....how does it compare to the two above ?
confused, but on a higher level.....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One is a swept wing, t-tail, high speed aircraft with TFE731 engines; the other is a straight wing, mid tail, slowish aircraft with P&W engines. Other than that they're fairly similar.....
As for the Encore, it's a much smaller (and again completely different) machine.
As for the Encore, it's a much smaller (and again completely different) machine.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Excel is basically the III/VI/VII fuselage combined with the V (5) - tail and wing (well that a bit exaggerated...)
The III was the first "big" fuselage Cessna built. The Excel/XLS and Sovereign do share it. (Sovereigns longer, but still same diameter 1,73cm)
The big difference INSIDE the Excel and the 650 is that the Wingspar is not intruding the cabin in the Excel (560XL or 560XLS btw.)
Outside it is the as said before the more or less straight wing compared to the sweptback wing of the 650 and the T-tail. The 650 has 2 wheels on each main anding gear, the 560XL/XLS has only one. both have trailing gear.
The XL/XLS is a relatively good performer but roughly 30 to 50 knots slower than the 650. But it climbs way better and can cruise in 430 or 450 directly. You won´t do that in a III or VI and even the more powerful VII strugles to go up when fully loaded.
Systemwise the 560XL/XLS shares a lot with the "small" fuselage citations (500,550,560 and 525´s) whilst the 650 is considerably more "complex".
The APU was an option in the beginning, so there might be a few 560XL on the market without APU. but most were with APU.
Speaking of the APU: the 650 has a lot of different APU´s installed, some for Ground use only, some with a hydraulic pump some without. Check with a EXPERIENCED maintenance shop which to avoid, there are some that are more troubled than others.
The Excel is for sure the cheaper aircraft to operate. And it can do most trips the 650 does - but the 650 looks way better no doubt.
The Encore is the V or Ultra with different avionics, engine and gear (trailing)
And has no APU.
The III was the first "big" fuselage Cessna built. The Excel/XLS and Sovereign do share it. (Sovereigns longer, but still same diameter 1,73cm)
The big difference INSIDE the Excel and the 650 is that the Wingspar is not intruding the cabin in the Excel (560XL or 560XLS btw.)
Outside it is the as said before the more or less straight wing compared to the sweptback wing of the 650 and the T-tail. The 650 has 2 wheels on each main anding gear, the 560XL/XLS has only one. both have trailing gear.
The XL/XLS is a relatively good performer but roughly 30 to 50 knots slower than the 650. But it climbs way better and can cruise in 430 or 450 directly. You won´t do that in a III or VI and even the more powerful VII strugles to go up when fully loaded.
Systemwise the 560XL/XLS shares a lot with the "small" fuselage citations (500,550,560 and 525´s) whilst the 650 is considerably more "complex".
The APU was an option in the beginning, so there might be a few 560XL on the market without APU. but most were with APU.
Speaking of the APU: the 650 has a lot of different APU´s installed, some for Ground use only, some with a hydraulic pump some without. Check with a EXPERIENCED maintenance shop which to avoid, there are some that are more troubled than others.
The Excel is for sure the cheaper aircraft to operate. And it can do most trips the 650 does - but the 650 looks way better no doubt.
The Encore is the V or Ultra with different avionics, engine and gear (trailing)
And has no APU.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Caught somewhere in time...
Age: 49
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the competetion stands between a good-looking hot-rod (VII) against the equally sized, but more economical Excel.
What about balanc filed legths ? Does the VII eat up more runway due to the swept wing? And Vref/landing distances, how do they compare?
And at last but definately not least; a used Excel is 8 mill $ and a VII i 6 mill. $. What is the wisest choice from an investment point of view ?
Getting wiser, thanks!
What about balanc filed legths ? Does the VII eat up more runway due to the swept wing? And Vref/landing distances, how do they compare?
And at last but definately not least; a used Excel is 8 mill $ and a VII i 6 mill. $. What is the wisest choice from an investment point of view ?
Getting wiser, thanks!