CE-550/S550 Runway Requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CE-550/S550 Runway Requirements
Hi gang,
I have a quick question for anyone with tabulated data for the Citation II and SII, the FSI or CAE checklist data should be good.
What is the factored takeoff/landing distance required at MLW/MTOW for each? I'm looking for an aircraft that can operate into a 3450-foot dirt strip. The missions require longer legs so a King Air may not be suitable.
I have experience on the Citation V and know that it can effectively operate into 3400-foot paved runways under FAA Part 135. I am just curious if the II or SII is more suitable for this sort of mission.
I have a quick question for anyone with tabulated data for the Citation II and SII, the FSI or CAE checklist data should be good.
What is the factored takeoff/landing distance required at MLW/MTOW for each? I'm looking for an aircraft that can operate into a 3450-foot dirt strip. The missions require longer legs so a King Air may not be suitable.
I have experience on the Citation V and know that it can effectively operate into 3400-foot paved runways under FAA Part 135. I am just curious if the II or SII is more suitable for this sort of mission.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: east of 10° west
Age: 62
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that is
King Air country....don't even think about taking a jet in and out of such places...
BFLs on any jet for that matter for unimproved runways will be double of what you have available...at least...and to have Cessna calculate those charts for you wil cost more than a C-550 is worth in today's market..
should you be based out of the Hawaiian Island, please tell me any leg distancewise, where a King Air would not be suitable..? Cannot think of any..
Difference in Flight Times on any of these distances will be less than 5 minutes between a B-200 and a C-550...and the King will burn less than half the fuel on such a trip compared to a C 550...
My tip, " Fully Raisbeck'ed" B200 on High Floatation Gear...may do the job, as long as the "dirt runway" is dry...and will be fast enough to cover any distance possible within the islands..or B-350 if you need even more space, payload and speed capability..
BFLs on any jet for that matter for unimproved runways will be double of what you have available...at least...and to have Cessna calculate those charts for you wil cost more than a C-550 is worth in today's market..
should you be based out of the Hawaiian Island, please tell me any leg distancewise, where a King Air would not be suitable..? Cannot think of any..
Difference in Flight Times on any of these distances will be less than 5 minutes between a B-200 and a C-550...and the King will burn less than half the fuel on such a trip compared to a C 550...
My tip, " Fully Raisbeck'ed" B200 on High Floatation Gear...may do the job, as long as the "dirt runway" is dry...and will be fast enough to cover any distance possible within the islands..or B-350 if you need even more space, payload and speed capability..
Last edited by falconer1; 7th May 2013 at 10:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been looking seriously at B200's, the legs are actually down in the South Pacific and the stage length is 1100 nm with the nearest alternate another 300 nm from that. I wouldn't feel comfortable planning the flight without fuel to the alternate.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the figures Beechcraft gave me seems to indicate 3200 lbs of fuel would be required for the B200, that does not consider flight to the alternate. The Citation I have pinned at about 3500 lbs of fuel for the same route.
My concern with the B200 is that the fuel requirements will eat more significantly into the payload than the CE-550 or S550. The client wants a payload capability for 6-8 passengers with bags. All the airports are at sea level and the temperatures would range from ISA to ISA+15 but a consistent 10-15 knot headwind can be expected based on prevailing winds. The runway is dry and will be refurbished to our specifications, but the size of the atoll is only 3650 feet wide so without major work it can't be extended much beyond 3450 feet. The surface is very similar to compacted coral and quite firm, but we've determined it's formally "dirt".
Heavy equipment will eventually be shipped to the island to extend the runway to 4100 feet but initial operations will be 3450 feet. The client is currently refurbishing an old WW2 dirt strip on some god-forsaken atoll near Samoa and flights have to depart from Pago Pago and must be nonstop.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the figures Beechcraft gave me seems to indicate 3200 lbs of fuel would be required for the B200, that does not consider flight to the alternate. The Citation I have pinned at about 3500 lbs of fuel for the same route.
My concern with the B200 is that the fuel requirements will eat more significantly into the payload than the CE-550 or S550. The client wants a payload capability for 6-8 passengers with bags. All the airports are at sea level and the temperatures would range from ISA to ISA+15 but a consistent 10-15 knot headwind can be expected based on prevailing winds. The runway is dry and will be refurbished to our specifications, but the size of the atoll is only 3650 feet wide so without major work it can't be extended much beyond 3450 feet. The surface is very similar to compacted coral and quite firm, but we've determined it's formally "dirt".
Heavy equipment will eventually be shipped to the island to extend the runway to 4100 feet but initial operations will be 3450 feet. The client is currently refurbishing an old WW2 dirt strip on some god-forsaken atoll near Samoa and flights have to depart from Pago Pago and must be nonstop.
Last edited by Island-Flyer; 7th May 2013 at 12:03.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: east of 10° west
Age: 62
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like
the only bird out there that can do it will still be a King 350...with max 6 pax, if the alternate is that far away..
that's all there is...or tell your client to buy a bigger island...
sorry, but 1+1 =2...no way to change that..
that's all there is...or tell your client to buy a bigger island...
sorry, but 1+1 =2...no way to change that..
King Air country....don't even think about taking a jet in and out of such places...
BFLs on any jet for that matter for unimproved runways will be double of what you have available...at least...and to have Cessna calculate those charts for you wil cost more than a C-550 is worth in today's market..
BFLs on any jet for that matter for unimproved runways will be double of what you have available...at least...and to have Cessna calculate those charts for you wil cost more than a C-550 is worth in today's market..
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC there is a "gravel kit" for the II. (nose wheel spinup via bleed air I think and a mudgard)
However, with 8 Pax with bags in warm conditions out of 3450ft....1100 nm plus 300 nm ALTN a II is most likely not the kite you need.
However, with 8 Pax with bags in warm conditions out of 3450ft....1100 nm plus 300 nm ALTN a II is most likely not the kite you need.
Last edited by His dudeness; 7th May 2013 at 18:40.
A Citation II with the Sierra Williams engine conversion might work, but I'm not certain the engine conversion is compatible with the gravel kit.
GF
GF
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: east of 10° west
Age: 62
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you may want to check
out a Dornier 328 Turboprop...
no joke...
could be just the ticket...
lots of room for 8 folks....good speed...and with such a low payload very good range and take-off performance...
you may face some limitations though in regards to LCN numbers on your unimproved strip...do not know about that...and the load carrying capabilty of your runway in general...
performance wise it will beat the King Air 350 speed and range wise..
used prices of well kept examples probably below King Air 350 levels..
no joke...
could be just the ticket...
lots of room for 8 folks....good speed...and with such a low payload very good range and take-off performance...
you may face some limitations though in regards to LCN numbers on your unimproved strip...do not know about that...and the load carrying capabilty of your runway in general...
performance wise it will beat the King Air 350 speed and range wise..
used prices of well kept examples probably below King Air 350 levels..
Last edited by falconer1; 8th May 2013 at 08:29.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown the entire 500 and 525 range into and out of many dirt strips...
You are talking - 1050m dirt strip, 1100nm with 300nm alt (in the pacific, you may as well call that 1500nm), I think you might be dreaming... I didn't even get the charts out if you need a definitive answer PM me and I'll email you all the charts (dirt and sealed)
Encore+ (best performer)
Takeoff Distance, Sea Level, ISA, MTOW 3,520 ft 1,073 m
Landing Distance, Sea Level, ISA, MLW 2,770 ft 844 m
Full fuel = 1750nm (useful payload 1000 lbs)
Fuel for = 1500nm (useful payload 1700 lbs)
In a nutshell No chance for 8 pax
King air 350 is the go or Conquest
You are talking - 1050m dirt strip, 1100nm with 300nm alt (in the pacific, you may as well call that 1500nm), I think you might be dreaming... I didn't even get the charts out if you need a definitive answer PM me and I'll email you all the charts (dirt and sealed)
Encore+ (best performer)
Takeoff Distance, Sea Level, ISA, MTOW 3,520 ft 1,073 m
Landing Distance, Sea Level, ISA, MLW 2,770 ft 844 m
Full fuel = 1750nm (useful payload 1000 lbs)
Fuel for = 1500nm (useful payload 1700 lbs)
In a nutshell No chance for 8 pax
King air 350 is the go or Conquest
