CS23 v CS25 take off perf
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From: UK
CS23 v CS25 take off perf
Hi
General question regarding cs23 commuter category (Kingair 200 for example) v cs25 aircraft. What, if any, are the main differences in issues surrounding take off performance, Acel stop/go calculations etc. I would guess it's virtually identical ? Or perhaps it's more a question of how you operate the aircraft eg AOC vs private.
Thanks.
General question regarding cs23 commuter category (Kingair 200 for example) v cs25 aircraft. What, if any, are the main differences in issues surrounding take off performance, Acel stop/go calculations etc. I would guess it's virtually identical ? Or perhaps it's more a question of how you operate the aircraft eg AOC vs private.
Thanks.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 662
Likes: 5
From: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
To simplify hugely:
CS25 - the aircraft should never be endangered by an engine failure during takeoff. At all points it can either stop safely or continue the takeoff.
CS23 - Until the aircraft is clean, there is no guarantee of being able to either stop or climb away in the event of an engine failure. CS23 multi engine aircraft must show some very minimal OEI clean performance, single engine obviously not!
There are CS23 aircraft that are capable of meeting the CS25 requirements, and the manufacturer may or may not give you the graphs to be able to operate it that way, but the underlying principle remains that a CS23 aircraft that loses an engine is quite likely to be in a runway overrun or forced landing situation. There are quite a few pilots flying aound who don't realise this, and think that having a second engine gives them the same safety level as a B777.
CS25 - the aircraft should never be endangered by an engine failure during takeoff. At all points it can either stop safely or continue the takeoff.
CS23 - Until the aircraft is clean, there is no guarantee of being able to either stop or climb away in the event of an engine failure. CS23 multi engine aircraft must show some very minimal OEI clean performance, single engine obviously not!
There are CS23 aircraft that are capable of meeting the CS25 requirements, and the manufacturer may or may not give you the graphs to be able to operate it that way, but the underlying principle remains that a CS23 aircraft that loses an engine is quite likely to be in a runway overrun or forced landing situation. There are quite a few pilots flying aound who don't realise this, and think that having a second engine gives them the same safety level as a B777.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: UK
But if the aircraft is CS-23 Commuter category like the Jetstream 31 or B1900 then there are very few performance requirements in the take off, enroute and landing phase that are different from the CS-25 requirements.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,451
Likes: 6
From: schermoney and left front seat
Or perhaps it's more a question of how you operate the aircraft eg AOC vs private.
Quite a few 23 A/C (such as the whole 23 Citation-Series) have only 25 T/O data in their manuals. As you donŽt have any other numbers, you need to operate as to satisfy these numbers.
You can operate a 23 with published 25 numbers to the 25 standard. Since you talk about the KingAir, Raisbeck offers 25 numbers for their retrofits. YouŽll find out, that a KA is a bad 25 performer, relatively speaking.
For AOC ops on a 23 A/C with 23 numbers, you use all engine take off distance to 50ft and multiply that by 1,15 - a complete meaningless number. Good thing that engine failures do happen very seldom in turbine engines. I venture the guess, that exactly this nonsensical number was an argument used by the single engine turbine commercial ops crowd.
Last edited by His dudeness; 20th July 2017 at 15:26.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,706
Likes: 590
From: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
YouŽll find out, that a KA is a bad 25 performer, relatively speaking.
But when you actually run the numbers with a accelerate stop and accelerate go suddenly it looked marginal.
