Citation 500 take off landing distance question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Citation 500 take off landing distance question
I fly a early 500 which has no reverse thrust, no heavy duty brakes or anti skid.
The owner wants to base on a very short runway.
Taking the published figures she will go in there in the right conditions at the right weight but I have a puzzle I cannot work out.
It states that with anti skid inop the published figures should be factored by 1.5
I checked with Cessna who say the earlier 500s without anti skid had a different braking system and as such the ones with anti skid and the ones withouit should use the same figures. That is a puzzle as why have anti skid at all and factor in a penalty if the anti skid does not work?
Cessna then went on to talk about visible moisture on the runway in which case multiply the published figures by 1.45. With standing water 2.25 in this case the aircraft cannot use this particular field and surely anti skid would have a much bigger impact on stopping distances than a non anti skid version.
Any help appreciated.
Pace
The owner wants to base on a very short runway.
Taking the published figures she will go in there in the right conditions at the right weight but I have a puzzle I cannot work out.
It states that with anti skid inop the published figures should be factored by 1.5
I checked with Cessna who say the earlier 500s without anti skid had a different braking system and as such the ones with anti skid and the ones withouit should use the same figures. That is a puzzle as why have anti skid at all and factor in a penalty if the anti skid does not work?
Cessna then went on to talk about visible moisture on the runway in which case multiply the published figures by 1.45. With standing water 2.25 in this case the aircraft cannot use this particular field and surely anti skid would have a much bigger impact on stopping distances than a non anti skid version.
Any help appreciated.
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew an early 500 back in the 70s and on more than a few occasions I did a touch and go on wet runways due to hydroplaning and thus, no braking. The brakes would 'chatter' but it was not anti-skid and we were operating off a 5000ft strip. I don't know what your strip is but anything less than 5000ft and wet would present a challenge, from my experience.
I am back in Citations now and fly a II and we don't operate into strips less than 4000ft unless it is dry. If wet and we have not been into the strip before, it's a no-go.
I am back in Citations now and fly a II and we don't operate into strips less than 4000ft unless it is dry. If wet and we have not been into the strip before, it's a no-go.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wileydog
I have flown 500s 550 (mainly) fives, S2 and Bravo. My least time is on the 500. I personally would not feel happy with less than 3600 feet and without quoting the field or length its a lot shorter than that.
Hence My trying to build a case to get the owner to see sense. If not someone else can fly it.
Cheers
Pace
I have flown 500s 550 (mainly) fives, S2 and Bravo. My least time is on the 500. I personally would not feel happy with less than 3600 feet and without quoting the field or length its a lot shorter than that.
Hence My trying to build a case to get the owner to see sense. If not someone else can fly it.
Cheers
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me you have answered your question and to continue to is essentially a bet with little upside and considerable downside. Less than 4000ft with the airplane you have describe is asking for some eventual bent metal and broken glass. Worse is the image of an owner who seemingly has also made an uninformed decision based on desire and not operating safety or facts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Fairoaks but 2560 is a clue with what looks like about another 500 feet unlicenced runoff area.
I will prob be replaced for not being happy to operate into that! oh well some idiot will.
Pace
I will prob be replaced for not being happy to operate into that! oh well some idiot will.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ether here or there!
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
It might help if you gave a clue to the unit no# you say early: i.e under 349 or 350 to 664 or above?
In your original post, where are you getting the factor of 1.5 figure from?
From a performance point of view you can't allow for having anti-skid or reversers at pre-flight planning.
Regards
Hedgehopper
It might help if you gave a clue to the unit no# you say early: i.e under 349 or 350 to 664 or above?
In your original post, where are you getting the factor of 1.5 figure from?
From a performance point of view you can't allow for having anti-skid or reversers at pre-flight planning.
Regards
Hedgehopper
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HedgeHopper
If you take the dry runway figures at say sea level on a standard day at a given weight the aircraft will stop in say as an example 2200 feet. The licenced portion is 2560 feet with maybe up to 500 feet unlicenced part of the runway as a runoff before you do damage.
For me that is not a safe margin but lets carry on .
Cessna say if there is any moisture to factor by 1.45 ie you now need 3190 feet. Even with the runoff NO GO.
Cessna say if there is standing water or the runway is soaking wet factor by 2.25.
If I get you right you are saying that all the landing distances are presuming thrust reverse and anti skid are failed and hence the same for aircraft equipt with anti skid or thrust reverse or none of those two fitted.
Pace
If you take the dry runway figures at say sea level on a standard day at a given weight the aircraft will stop in say as an example 2200 feet. The licenced portion is 2560 feet with maybe up to 500 feet unlicenced part of the runway as a runoff before you do damage.
For me that is not a safe margin but lets carry on .
Cessna say if there is any moisture to factor by 1.45 ie you now need 3190 feet. Even with the runoff NO GO.
Cessna say if there is standing water or the runway is soaking wet factor by 2.25.
If I get you right you are saying that all the landing distances are presuming thrust reverse and anti skid are failed and hence the same for aircraft equipt with anti skid or thrust reverse or none of those two fitted.
Pace
*** best place for it is on a hook in the smithsonian***
I wish to Mr. Christ that my boss would understand this.....
I wish to Mr. Christ that my boss would understand this.....
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SE UK
Age: 57
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone used to operate a 501 into Elstree...
..until http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...pdf_502396.pdf
The offical report notwithstanding, airfield witnesses describe it as a stall into the pan.
..until http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...pdf_502396.pdf
The offical report notwithstanding, airfield witnesses describe it as a stall into the pan.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, from what you have written you already KNOW you cannot get a 500 into a field with the LDA you give. If the TDA is the same, you won't get it out on a sunny day with more than one pilot and a tea spoon full of fuel!
BTW, the anti-skid system on the old Citations were known as "foot thumpers."
BTW, the anti-skid system on the old Citations were known as "foot thumpers."
