Cessna Citation 2 and Learjet 35A Ranges
Thread Starter
Cessna Citation 2 and Learjet 35A Ranges
Hey Everyone,
I have been doing a bit of research on these 2 Aircraft for a company and am looking for anyone who has personal experience in them, from what I can gather the Cessna Citation 2 with the Branson Increased Weight Mod is capable of carrying approximately 580kg of Passengers and Baggage with an NBAA IFR Range of about 1400nm and the Learjet 35A can also carry around 500kg with an NBAA IFR Range of about 1900nm.
I have slowly learnt that these ranges can be drastically different to what they can really do in the real world though! Can anyone with personal experience let me know if these both seem about right?
I'm not too concerned about any other performance information or preferences to be honest, just in the ranges and subsequent payload they can carry.
I have been doing a bit of research on these 2 Aircraft for a company and am looking for anyone who has personal experience in them, from what I can gather the Cessna Citation 2 with the Branson Increased Weight Mod is capable of carrying approximately 580kg of Passengers and Baggage with an NBAA IFR Range of about 1400nm and the Learjet 35A can also carry around 500kg with an NBAA IFR Range of about 1900nm.
I have slowly learnt that these ranges can be drastically different to what they can really do in the real world though! Can anyone with personal experience let me know if these both seem about right?
I'm not too concerned about any other performance information or preferences to be honest, just in the ranges and subsequent payload they can carry.
I don't know what the NBAA assumptions are, but if they include ISA conditions, nil wind and brochure numbers, they are only theory.
Instead, assume ISA plus 10, all speed and fuel numbers worse than brochure by 5 % (to allow for the age of the aircraft and engines) and then run both aircraft side by side with a 40 knot headwind. If you are going to run it east west it may pay to also do it with an 80 knot headwind at optimum cruise, or fly below FL 240 with 60 knots ( for the Citation anyway, it may be better down low when punching headwinds).
It soon becomes apparent that a 340 knot aeroplane is far more affected by headwind than a 400 knot aeroplane. (if that is what the Lear can do, I dunno -but it looks slippery enough). The boss will be rightly pissed off if he buys something with an expectation of going non stop only to find that on 50% of occasions an extra fuel stop is required.
But then, what sort of runways do you use? Gravel? Short? That could be the final arbiter.
Instead, assume ISA plus 10, all speed and fuel numbers worse than brochure by 5 % (to allow for the age of the aircraft and engines) and then run both aircraft side by side with a 40 knot headwind. If you are going to run it east west it may pay to also do it with an 80 knot headwind at optimum cruise, or fly below FL 240 with 60 knots ( for the Citation anyway, it may be better down low when punching headwinds).
It soon becomes apparent that a 340 knot aeroplane is far more affected by headwind than a 400 knot aeroplane. (if that is what the Lear can do, I dunno -but it looks slippery enough). The boss will be rightly pissed off if he buys something with an expectation of going non stop only to find that on 50% of occasions an extra fuel stop is required.
But then, what sort of runways do you use? Gravel? Short? That could be the final arbiter.
Thread Starter
Thanks guys, Jr35, I should have looked up the Regos straight away and contacted them, will do so soon to get some actual figures!
Thanks Mach E Avelli, runways and such won't be an issue, it'll only be used into major Airports, the other considerations for it's use have already been considered and both of these Airframe types are suitable and have long histories in both so it really is making sure the range figures we've researched and been told about are realistic from the viewpoints of those with experience.
Thanks Mach E Avelli, runways and such won't be an issue, it'll only be used into major Airports, the other considerations for it's use have already been considered and both of these Airframe types are suitable and have long histories in both so it really is making sure the range figures we've researched and been told about are realistic from the viewpoints of those with experience.
Thread Starter
Honestly price is one factor and the age of the design isn't as big of a deal as the age of the aircraft and how well it's been looked after, plus there are some terrible looking 10 year old aircraft that have been poorly maintained whilst there are some excellent 30 year old aircraft which have always been looked after immaculately!!
Range is definitely looking less lacklustre than what I've been led to believe and from my own research, though to be honest I kind of expected this which is why I'm asking in the first place!
Range is definitely looking less lacklustre than what I've been led to believe and from my own research, though to be honest I kind of expected this which is why I'm asking in the first place!
Having owned a Citation 2 and operated a Lear I'd go for the Citation
Firstly it is easier to fly by far
Has greater durability for getting in and out of places.
My aircraft 24 years ago is the one shortstop is trying to sell.
In those days we were able to fly Sydney to Auckland directly but that was the max distance.
Sure the the C2 was nicknamed an almost jet at a block of 310kts but the maintenance bill were acceptable whereas the Lears were always enormous
Why not as a compromise go for the SII rather than a straight 550, it is better all round.
Firstly it is easier to fly by far
Has greater durability for getting in and out of places.
My aircraft 24 years ago is the one shortstop is trying to sell.
In those days we were able to fly Sydney to Auckland directly but that was the max distance.
Sure the the C2 was nicknamed an almost jet at a block of 310kts but the maintenance bill were acceptable whereas the Lears were always enormous
Why not as a compromise go for the SII rather than a straight 550, it is better all round.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the smaller Citations is at 320 kts, with a 150 kt headwind, puts you at Chieftain TAS, and jet fuel burn. The PC 12 then becomes attractive.
Do your research, and speak to operators.
Do your research, and speak to operators.
The problem with the smaller Citations is at 320 kts, with a 150 kt headwind, puts you at Chieftain TAS, and jet fuel burn.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ixixly,
Both the Lear 35 and citation 550 were great aircraft for their time but both had their limitations. The 550 from a commercial point of view was probably more utilizable for its field performance and simplicity to fly. The Lear was fast but could be a handful for the unwary or poorly trained.
The hurdles today for these old types can be the expense of making them RVSM compliant and fitting ADSB if they have not already been modified.
Maintenance is a very expensive issue, The old maintenance systems are hellishly involved and under our new unique maintenance rules hellishly expensive.
Both aircraft are FAR 25 certified which means your friendly CAsA FOI will make your life hell because everything will require approval and more than likely you'll end up with totally unworkable operating procedures. Any new pilots requiring endorsement will also need a MCP course, last quote was $13,000.
With the new part 61 regs, trying to operate a FAR 25 aircraft is I believe commercially untenable.
If capital cost is not an issue or could be stretched my suggestion would be a Citation CJ2. Range at least that of the C550, faster, single pilot FAR 23 certified, on modern maintenance system, and burns around half the fuel of both the C550 and lear.
Both the Lear 35 and citation 550 were great aircraft for their time but both had their limitations. The 550 from a commercial point of view was probably more utilizable for its field performance and simplicity to fly. The Lear was fast but could be a handful for the unwary or poorly trained.
The hurdles today for these old types can be the expense of making them RVSM compliant and fitting ADSB if they have not already been modified.
Maintenance is a very expensive issue, The old maintenance systems are hellishly involved and under our new unique maintenance rules hellishly expensive.
Both aircraft are FAR 25 certified which means your friendly CAsA FOI will make your life hell because everything will require approval and more than likely you'll end up with totally unworkable operating procedures. Any new pilots requiring endorsement will also need a MCP course, last quote was $13,000.
With the new part 61 regs, trying to operate a FAR 25 aircraft is I believe commercially untenable.
If capital cost is not an issue or could be stretched my suggestion would be a Citation CJ2. Range at least that of the C550, faster, single pilot FAR 23 certified, on modern maintenance system, and burns around half the fuel of both the C550 and lear.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the advice everyone, I am aware there are other airframes which would fit the companies required role and I have advised them of these, I am asking about these two in particular as there are some available at the moment and we have pretty solid information on the other Aircraft that we also consider acceptable.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ixixly.....Essentially what Thorny said.
Go get something new and fully compliant RVSM wise. Will be cheaper in the long run and with less stress and aggravation. Bosses are queer individuals. .....your best friend until something goes wrong then you wear it!
New CJ or Embraer may be the way to go.
Go get something new and fully compliant RVSM wise. Will be cheaper in the long run and with less stress and aggravation. Bosses are queer individuals. .....your best friend until something goes wrong then you wear it!
New CJ or Embraer may be the way to go.
So many experts here that have never owned an aircraft or have owned a C182.
The new aircraft option is certainly worth looking at but think about it in terms of total cost.
Yes the older aircraft has a higher maintenance cost and for high annual utilisation the newer one is the better bet.
BUT
Think total cost ie include finance or if owned outright "lost financial opportunity cost"
A new $4 million jet has a cost of $400k pa whilst the older Citation around $75k
Then add it the true actual depreciation of the new aircraft against one that has almost zero depreciation and you get a figure of around $800k per year just to have it sit in front of a hangar.
How much maintenance and ADSB costs are you going to incur?
WhenI operated the Citation our capital cost was 1.1 million for a C550 with new paint and interior and 10,000 hours TT. Our competitor, had a similar aircraft at a capital cost of $2.5 million and looked exactly the same to the punters.
Again I'll say there are so many people on this site who profess wisdom in owning aircraft, having never done so!!!!!!!!
The new aircraft option is certainly worth looking at but think about it in terms of total cost.
Yes the older aircraft has a higher maintenance cost and for high annual utilisation the newer one is the better bet.
BUT
Think total cost ie include finance or if owned outright "lost financial opportunity cost"
A new $4 million jet has a cost of $400k pa whilst the older Citation around $75k
Then add it the true actual depreciation of the new aircraft against one that has almost zero depreciation and you get a figure of around $800k per year just to have it sit in front of a hangar.
How much maintenance and ADSB costs are you going to incur?
WhenI operated the Citation our capital cost was 1.1 million for a C550 with new paint and interior and 10,000 hours TT. Our competitor, had a similar aircraft at a capital cost of $2.5 million and looked exactly the same to the punters.
Again I'll say there are so many people on this site who profess wisdom in owning aircraft, having never done so!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Well thats a big volcano...
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some numbers for you for a 2007 model jet, A learjet 45, flying 700 hrs a year...
Last year over USD550 000 in parts ! (lucky we are on smartparts, big ticket items were a whole new ECU system as the Air cycle machine had a internal stuck valve and metal in the sock ... $120 000 alone)
8 year undercarriage overhaul, circa $120 000
ADS-b install $120 000 ....
Plus shipping alone on parts from the USA was over $40 000 last year.
Oh we had both engines shed the retaining rings on the last turbine stage, that luckily came under the MSP, if not was a near $1.3 million rebuild... shipping USA to Dubai for the engines was US$46 000 !!!
A tyre change alone on a mainwheel can cost you $1000 per main , and if the hub fails its NDT like one of ours did, there is $10 000 to replace the wheel assembly.
This is on a newish jet. Buy a older one, and good luck
One theory I kinda agree with is that to buy a jet, you have to worth 10 times the value of the aircrafts new price to be able to afford it. Seems true for the jets I have managed and flown.
Last year over USD550 000 in parts ! (lucky we are on smartparts, big ticket items were a whole new ECU system as the Air cycle machine had a internal stuck valve and metal in the sock ... $120 000 alone)
8 year undercarriage overhaul, circa $120 000
ADS-b install $120 000 ....
Plus shipping alone on parts from the USA was over $40 000 last year.
Oh we had both engines shed the retaining rings on the last turbine stage, that luckily came under the MSP, if not was a near $1.3 million rebuild... shipping USA to Dubai for the engines was US$46 000 !!!
A tyre change alone on a mainwheel can cost you $1000 per main , and if the hub fails its NDT like one of ours did, there is $10 000 to replace the wheel assembly.
This is on a newish jet. Buy a older one, and good luck
One theory I kinda agree with is that to buy a jet, you have to worth 10 times the value of the aircrafts new price to be able to afford it. Seems true for the jets I have managed and flown.
