[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
Die Cessna Aircraft Company aus Wichita, Kansas, hat auf der NBAA 2010 in Atlanta angekündigt, das Flaggschiff des Hauses, die Citation X, zu überarbeiten. Die neue Version wird Citation Ten heißen.
"Wir glauben, dass es unpassend wäre, ein Flugzeug, das die Zukunft unserer Firma darstellt, mit einer alten römischen Zahl zu bezeichnen", begründete Cessnas Verkaufs- und Marketingvorstand Roger Whyte in Atlanta den Bezeichnungswechsel von Citation X zu Citation Ten. Der zweistrahlige Jet, der bis zum Erscheinen der Gulfstream G650 den Titel des schnellsten zivilen Flugzeugs der Welt für sich reklamieren konnte, wird nun deutlich überarbeitet. "Wir erfinden die Citation Ten neu", sagte Roger Whyte in Atlanta. Als Avioniklieferant wählte Cessna überraschend Garmin International aus. Die Firma wird das neue Garmin G5000 liefern, ein hochintegriertes Avioniksystem mit drei großen Displays mit einer Bildschirmdiagonale von jeweils 35,5 cm. Cessna ist Erstkunde für dieses Avionikpaket.
Ebenfalls neu werden die Triebwerke der Citation Ten sein. Sie kommen - wie bisher - von Rolls-Royce, stellen aber eine neue Generation des AE3007 dar, die mit höherem Schub und niedrigem Verbrauch glänzen soll. Dadurch soll sich sowohl die maximal erzielbare Reichweite als auch die maximale Reisegeschwindigkeit erhöhen - der Kampf um die Krone des schnellsten Business Jets der Welt ist eröffnet.
Die neue Ten wird 38 cm länger ausfallen als die bisherige X, da die Ingenieure dem Flugzeug eine Rumpfsektion vor dem Flügel hinzufügen. Auch in der Kabine wird es einige Neuerungen geben: Neue Sitze, neue LED-Beleuchtung, HD-Bildschirme, ein brandneues Kabinenmanagementsystem sowie andere, noch nicht benannte Details.
Cessna-Chef Jack Pelton rechnet mit einem Erstflug der Citation Ten im Dezember 2011, der Zulassung durch die FAA im zweiten Quartal 2013 sowie der Erstauslieferung im dritten Quartal 2013.
Peter, die letzten beiden Tipps werden seiner Freundin glaub ich nicht unbedingt zusagen
was man (n) unbedingt sehen MUSS ? 
und vieles, vieles mehr......
AIRCRAFT SUMMARY
Year: 1984
Type: MERLIN 300
Airframe Total Time: 3384 Hours
Engine Times: 1430 SHOT-LE / 1430 SHOT-RE
Prop Times: 12 SPOHL / 101 SPOHR
AVIONICS
Collins FCS-80 Flight Director
Collins APS-80 Autopilot
Dual Collins VHF-20 Comms
Dual Collins TDR-90 Transponders
Collins ADF-60
Collins ALT-50A Radio Altimeter
Dual Collins VIR-30AGM Navs
Dual Collins RMI-30
Collins DME-40
Primus 300SL 4 Color Radar
Trimble 2101 GPS IFR Approved
Wulfsberg Flitefone III
OTHER EQUIPMENT
Forward and Aft Deluxe Refreshment Centers With Mapco Heated Container
9 Passenger Executive Interior with Club Seats And 2 Place Couch
Belted Potty / Seat with Privacy Divider
Nose Gear Collapse in 1993 - Minor Repairs Made to Skins
Winglets
Clarion Stereo
Wing Tip Strobes
Davco Digital Clock
Complete Logs
Always Hangared
Empty Weight 8736
Useful Load 4594
EXTERIOR
NEW 2003 Matterhorn White with Diamond Jet Black and Las Vegas Gold Striping
INTERIOR
NEW 2003 Camelback Beige Leather Seats, Desert Beige Carpet, Chestnut Veneer Cabinetry Woodwork
ADDITIONAL REMARKS
TOTAL TIME AIRFRAME: 3384 SNEW 4179 Landings
LEFT ENGINE TIME: 3384 SNEW 4179 Cycles SNEW
1430 SHOT
RIGHT ENGINE TIME: 3384 SNEW 4179 Cycles SNEW
1430 SHOT
LEFT PROP TIME: 12 SPOH 10/02 4 Blade
RIGHT PROP TIME: 101 SPOH 3/02 4 BladeSpecifications Subject to Verification Upon Inspection
PRICE: $ 800,000
Quelle!
Das hat was. fast mit den Bobby- Kutschern auf Augenhöhe sitzen..... 
Aber hallo, jedes Flugzeug, daß von burt Rutan entworfen wurde, ist ne geile Kiste.
Hab bisher nur einmal Eine gesehen, und das war in Fayetteville N.C. und das war 1994......
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
[video]
Powerplants
Two 895kW (1200shp) Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A67As, driving five blade constant speed McCauley propellers.
Performance
2000 - Max cruising speed 622km/h (335kt), economical cruising speed 546km/h (295kt). Initial rate of climb 3225ft/min. Max range 2630km (1634nm). 2000A - Max cruising speed 621km/h (335kt), economical cruising speed 570kt (307kt). Initial rate of climb 2748ft/min. Range with reserves 2920km (1576nm).
Weights
2000 - Empty equipped 4484kg (9887lb), max takeoff 6531kg (14,400lb). 2000A - Empty equipped 4574kg (10,085lb), max takeoff 6758kg (14,900lb).
Dimensions
Wing span 16.60m (54ft 5in), length 14.05m (46ft 1in), height 3.94m (12ft 11in). Wing area 26.1m2 (280.9sq ft).
Capacity
Flightcrew of one or two pilots. Standard passenger layout for eight in 2000 or six in 2000A.
The Beechcraft Starship is a futuristic-looking aircraft designed by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, and produced by the Beech Aircraft Corporation. It is a six- to eight-seat business transport.
Development cost $300 million, and began in 1979 when Beechcraft identified a need to replace the King Air model. After a brief hiatus while the company was bought by Raytheon, full development began in 1982 when Beechcraft approached Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites, a leader in the field of novel composite aircraft design. Much of the design work utilised computer-aided design, using the CATIA system.
While in development at Scaled, the 85%-scale prototype was the Model 115, and Beechcraft referred to the production version as the Model 2000. The Model 115 first flew in late August 1983. However, this aircraft had no pressurization system, no certified avionics, and had a different airframe design and material specifications than the planned production Model 2000. This aircraft has since been scrapped.
The first full-size Starship flew on February 15, 1986. Prototypes were produced even as development work was continuing -- a system demanded by the use of composite materials, as the tooling required is very expensive and has to be built for production use from the outset. The program was delayed several times, at first due to underestimating the development complexity involved and later to overcome technical difficulties concerning the stall-warning system.
The first production Starship flew in late 1988.
The Starship was notable for several reasons. First was its all-graphite composite airframe, using high-tech materials instead of aluminium. These materials were in frequent use to varying degrees on military aircraft, but no civilian aircraft certified by the FAA had ever used them so extensively. Composites were chosen in order to reduce the weight of the airplane which, unfortunately, still came in over its target weight.
Second was its canard design, with the lifting surface aft of the horizontal stabilizer. The aircraft lacks a rudder, with yaw control instead provided by small fins on the wingtips.
Third was its use of a pusher design, in which the turboprop engines were mounted facing the rear and pushed, rather than pulled, the aircraft forward. The pusher design offers a quieter ride, since the gusts of wind and air off the tips of the propellers no longer strike the side of the aircraft, as they do on conventionally configured turboprops.
The aircraft also features a 16-tube "glass cockpit" supplied by Rockwell Collins Avionics.
Commercially the aeroplane was a failure, with little demand. Only 53 Starships were ever built, and of those only a handful were sold. Many of the remainder were eventually leased.
Reasons for the lack of demand probably included price, performance, and economic conditions. The list price in 1989 was $3.9 million, similar to the Cessna Citation V and Lear 31 jets, which were 89 and 124 knots faster than the Starship at maximum cruise, respectively. The Piper Cheyenne turboprop was faster and sold for $1 million less. (Aviation Week, Oct. 2, 1989).
In 2003, Beechcraft deemed that the aircraft was no longer popular enough to justify its support costs, and has recalled all leased aircraft for scrapping. The company is also said to be aggressively trying to buy back privately-owned Starships, though some Starship owners say they have never been contacted by Raytheon about this.
Most of the Starships are being ground up and burned at the "boneyard" at the Evergreen Air Centre. The planes have little aluminium for recycling. A few have been bought up by private owners who regard them as lovable failures, much like the infamous Ford Edsel.
Recently, Starship Model 2000A NC-51 was used as a chase plane during the re-entry phase of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne. Several Starships have been donated to museums since the official decommissioning program began, with the Kansas Aviation Museum receiving the first aircraft in August of 2003.
Why the Starship sell well
1) Revolutionary design.
The aviation community accepts new concepts slowly and evolution is generally preferred over revolution. While many potential buyers were awestruck by the Starship's beauty, most chose to sit on the fence for a few years to see if the Starship proved to be a viable design. The Starship was radically different from conventional aircraft when introduced in the mid 1980's and heralded four revolutionary technologies:
a) First certificated all glass cockpit and FMS
b) First certificated all composite business class aircraft (still the only certificated composite wing)
c) First certificated tandem wing (canard) aircraft.
d) First certificated pusher
We all now know that the glass cockpit is superior to steam gauges and that composites are superior to metal for airframe construction. The canard vs. conventional configuration is still a topic of heated debate, however. All I can say is, why in the world would you want to have a stabilizer that pushes DOWN when the basic purpose of an aircraft is to lift you into the air? I know, it's stability, stupid. But you get the same stability with a canard design while gaining about 5% in efficiency. It's also debatable that the pusher configuration is any better than a tractor design and it's generally accepted that a pusher is no more efficient than a tractor. That's because the airflow to the props is disturbed by the fuselage and wing ahead of them. But a pusher definitely creates a much quieter cabin than a tractor. The Starship is extremely quiet inside and the cabin noise levels seem more like a jet than a turboprop. Normal conversations can be had without raising your voice. A pusher design also allows the propellers to be mounted very close together because they don't have a fuselage between them. The Starships props are only inches apart, yielding nearly centreline thrust from each engine. During an engine out situation in the Starship, yaw is virtually unnoticeable and is completely countered by the yaw damper, if engaged; No need to step on the dead engine.
2) Raytheon
This section is based on my experience as the owner / pilot of Starship NC-51 and with conversations I have had with other Starship owners, Raytheon employees, RAS employees and other aviation professionals who know the Starship program intimately. I am interested in sharing what I have experienced and heard. It is not my intention to criticize Raytheon, RAS or their management.
a) Timing
Raytheon had lousy timing when it came to the Starship. The aircraft was introduced to an anaemic market in 1989 during the height of an economic recession. You couldn't give away an executive aircraft during this period, let alone successfully promote an all new design. So Starship sales got off to a very disappointing start.
But by 1995 the economy had become robust and corporate expenditures for new aircraft were in a cyclical upturn. Just as important, the Starship's all glass cockpit and composite structure had become accepted as superior art by the aviation community. This is precisely the period when Raytheon could have made a success of the Starship. In 1995 Raytheon should have "put the pedal to the metal" to promote the Starship's superb safety record and exceptional ride. But instead, Raytheon opted to pull the plug on Starship production. Bad timing, again.
b) Price
Unfortunately, Raytheon priced the Starship at almost $5,000,000. This was way more expensive than the King Air that the Starship was intended to replace and was virtually the same price as an introductory jet at that time. 3.5 to 4 million dollars would have been a more realistic price point for the Starship.
c) Free Maintenance
To help boost Starship sales, Raytheon management had the brilliant idea of offering free maintenance to buyers. In the end, this program probably had more to do with Raytheon's decision to discontinue the Starship than anything else and helped falsely earn the Starship a reputation of being a maintenance hog.
Raytheon Aircraft Services (RAS) was responsible for doing the "free" maintenance for Starship owners. To understand what happened, it's important to point out that RAS is a separate company from Raytheon.
As with any service business, aircraft maintenance has its slack periods. But when RAS facilities had slack periods in the early 90's, many of them found Starships on the ramp to work on. They would work on the Starships whether they needed it or not and many of these airplanes were still owned and operated by Raytheon.
Even if the Starship was owned by a private party, owners didn't care how big the invoice was because Raytheon was paying the tab. With nobody questioning the invoices, one can imagine the scale of the billings that took place.
Periodically, Raytheon would ask RAS to explain why the Starship fleet was so expensive to maintain. And naturally, RAS would respond that the Starship was a very complex airplane that was difficult to work on. Raytheon accepted these claims and continued paying the maintenance bills. But in reality, the free maintenance program was a billing machine for RAS and nobody at Raytheon had the incentive to figure it out and end it..
So free maintenance resulted in record billings to Raytheon, souring management's view of the Starship and frightening prospective customers. Raytheon management bought the RAS line that the Starship was complex and difficult to work on, eventually putting the red ink to bed by killing Starship production.
As an aside, my Starship is not maintained by RAS. NC-51's maintenance costs have been lower than I originally budgeted for a King Air B-200. In the 7+ years I have owned NC-51, I have been able to depart on 698 out of over 700 flights (a 99.7% dispatch rate). I'll put that record against any airplane in existence.
3) The FAA
Before the Starship came along, the FAA had never certificated a composite airframe, so they were naturally very cautious when approached with the Starship design. In an effort to err on the safe side, the FAA essentially told Beech that although their design looked good on paper, the design would have to be significantly strengthened to receive certification.
Beechcraft did so, adding significant additional structure to both the fuselage and wing. Of course, this added quite a bit of weight to the aircraft, so other components had to be beefed up as well, adding yet more weight.
In the end, the Starship's max ramp weight rose by over 2,500 lbs to 15,010 lbs. All of these trips back to the drawing board had another detrimental effect; Certification, production and customer delivery of the first airframes kept slipping, slipping, slipping, into the future.
The original design was to be less than the FAA's 12,500 lb. limit for non type rated operation. But the redesigned Starship ended up requiring a type rating to fly, and many owner operators were intimidated by the prospect of going through the type rating process. Those pilots chose other aircraft such as Beech's venerable King Air instead, which could be flown with a simple twin engine rating.
The higher weight of the Starship also reduced Beech's projected performance claims for the Starship. The Starship was supposed to have a max cruise speed of 352 knots, a useful load of 4,599 lbs, stall at 79 knots and fly for over 2,500 nm at max range power. But after the FAA was done beefing up the airframe, those numbers became 338 knots, 4,710 lbs, 89 knots and 1,575 nm respectively. But even with the extra weight and reduced performance, the Starship still outperformed the King Air B-200. This is an amazing thing, and speaks volumes for the strength of the Starship's original design.
How many other aircraft designs could even fly after such a weight gain, let alone climb to 41,000 feet? All this while actually increasing the useful load by 111 lbs. The Starship is a truly great aircraft, even with her extra heft. Imagine how fabulous the Starship would have been if the FAA had certificated her original design.
Quelle der Grafik und der Specs sowie der Fotos und des Textes
[video]
Kann irgendein netter Mod das Thema in die Fototechnik verschieben?? Danke! 
* Gott: Und, gibts was neues von deinen Leuten?
Gott zieht Bauer nach E4
* Allah:Ach, nur das Übliche: Sie veröffentlichen Drohvideos und sprengen sich regelmäßig in die Luft, weil sie glauben, ein paar meiner Jungfrauen abzukriegen...
Allah zieht Bauer nach C5
* Gott: Du musst ja auch nicht so geizig sein, kannst ihnen ja ruhig ein paar abgeben.
* Allah: Spinnst du? Das sind Jungfrauen, und keine Nutten!Gott zieht Bischof nach C4
* Gott: Da hast du wohl recht. Wie haben die eigentlich spitzgekriegt, dass du bei dir ein ziemlich großes Harem voller Jungfrauen hast?
* Allah: Weiß auch nicht. Vielleicht hätte ich mir meine Propheten doch besser aussuchen sollen, die haben womöglich hinter meinem Rücken geplappert.Allah zieht Muselmanen nach E5
* Gott: Den einen da hat dieser Zeichner aus Dänemark übrigens echt gut getroffen.
* Allah: Findest du? Ich hatte den alten Hitzkopf etwas rundlicher in Erinnerung...Gott zieht Kardinal nach D3
* Allah: Was treiben denn deine Leute so? Von denen hört man ja fast gar nichts mehr.
* Gott: Naja es gibt auch nicht wirklich viel Neues von denen. Sitzen immer noch gelangweilt in Kirchen rum und meinen, Kondome wären was unglaublich schlimmes.Allah zieht Kamel nach F6
* Allah: Ach was? Meine trauen sich noch nichtmal, das Wort auszusprechen...
* Gott: Ich frage mich, wie meine es sich erklären, dass ich nur einen Sohn habe, obwohl ich ja deren Meinung nach gegen Kondome bin.
* Allah: Und selbst der war nur adoptiert!Gott schöpft Feld J3
* Gott: Ja, aber das muss ich denen ja nicht unbedingt auf die Nase binden. Am Ende adoptieren alle nur noch Kinder, anstatt sie selbst zu machen, und dann werden die ganzen SOS-Kinderdorf-Mitarbeiter arbeitslos.
Allah schlägt Bischof C4 mit Muselmane E5
* Allah: Naja ich schau sowieso nicht mehr so oft nach unten, wird mit der Zeit irgendwie langweilig.
* Gott: Ach gibs doch zu, du schaust nur nicht nach deinen Leuten, weil deine Frauen mit ihrem albernen Kopftuch-Gehabe so hässlich aussehen!Gott zieht Bundeslade nach J3
* Allah: Ja und? Deine Leute kriegen es mit ihrer ach-so-tollen Demokratie doch genausowenig hin, meinen Leuten ihre Kopftücher zu verbieten.
Allah zieht großen fetten Turban nach H5* Gott: Als ob das noch meine Leute wären. Seit Luther denen weisgemacht hat, dass sie nicht alles glauben müssen, denken die, sie müssten garnichts mehr glauben. Wartmal... hey Luther!
* Luther: Ja, Chef?
* Gott: Das nächste Mal, wenn du da runtergehst, lässt du den Werkzeugkasten mit dem Hammer und den 95 Nägeln gefälligst hier, okay?
* Luther: Geht klar, Chef!Gott schlägt Muselmanen C4 mit Heiliger Granate B1
* Allah: Du hast Probleme. Bei meinen habe ich manchmal das Gefühl, sie haben noch nicht mal einen anständigen Werkzeugkasten erfunden...
* Gott: Jaja, keinen Werkzeugkasten haben, aber fremde Flugzeuge in irgendwelche Hochhäuser fliegen, das haben wir gern.
Allah schlägt Wachturm A1 mit großem fetten Turban H5
* Jehovah: Hey du Idiot, das war meiner!
* Allah: Halt die Klappe, du spielst gar nicht mit!
* Gott: Beruhig dich Mann, ich glaub das war tatsächlich seiner. Wir haben unsere Sachen noch nie so gut auseinanderhalten können.Gott ersetzt Wachturm mit Schiefem Turm von Pisa
* Allah: Sagmal, Jesus hat mir erzählt, du hättest Einstein widerlegt. Stimmt das?
* Gott: Ja, war auch nicht allzu schwer.
Allah schlägt Kardinal D3 mit Kamel F6* Allah: Ja aber ich hätte mir an deiner Stelle nicht den Stress gegeben, mich in die ganze Sache einzuarbeiten.
* Gott: Naja, das hab ich auch nicht wirklich. Die Widerlegung geht viel einfacher, pass auf:
Gott würfelt* Allah: Genial, da wäre ich jetzt nicht draufgekommen.
* Xenu: Hey Leute, sorry dass ich störe, aber hat jemand mein Raumschiff gesehen? Ich habs irgendwie verlegt...
* Gott: Hast du schon hinter den sieben Bergen bei den sieben Zwergen nachgeschaut?
* Xenu: Nein, gute Idee, danke!Allah zieht großen dicken Turban nach A6
* Allah: Wer war das denn?
* Gott: So ein Weltraumherrscher von den Scientologen. Ziemlich schrulliger Typ...Gott lässt Bischof D3 wiederauferstehen
* Allah: Ach was? Und woher kennst du den?
* Gott: Hat ne nette Spelunke hinten in der Milchstraße. Da gibts ziemlich guten Pangalaktischen Donnergurgler, deshalb bin ich da hin und wieder.Allah schlägt Schiefen Turm von Pisa mit Studie
* Allah: Hehe, zum Glück hab ich meinen Leuten den Alkoholgenuss verboten, da bleibt mehr für uns übrig!
* Gott: Warte mal, ich glaub dein Zug gerade war nicht regelkonform.
* Allah: Ja aber deiner! Du hast deinen Bischof schon nach 2 Zügen wiederauferstehen lassen, das darfst du eigentlich erst nach 4 Zügen!
* Gott: Pah, du hast doch keine Ahnung. Wart, ich ruf den Schiri. BUDDHA!!!
* Buddha: Was ist denn los, Jungs?
* Allah: Gott cheatet!
* Gott: Gar nicht wahr, Allah hat angefangen!
* Buddha: Jungs, ich hab für sowas keine Zeit, ich muss gleich aufs Nirvana-Konzert. Könnt ihr das nicht unter euch regeln?
* Allah: Na gut, aber diesmal ein richiges Spiel, ohne blödes Schachbrett.
* Gott: Geht klar. Wie wärs mit Iran?
* Allah: Gute Idee. Aber nicht jetzt gleich, lieber in 2, 3 Jahren. Sonst kommst du wieder mit deinem Bush, das ist unfair. Ach, und reparier mal den Schachtisch, der wackelt.
* Gott: Mach ich. Wartmal - wo ist mein Werkzeugkasten? HEY LUTHER, KOMM SOFORT ZURÜCK!!Gott rennt weg
* Allah: J3... der Typ hat doch echt keine Ahnung vom Schach!
By Mike Gerzanics
After launching the CJ4 in October 2006, Cessna's development efforts reached certification on 12 March. Flight International was recently able to fly the third production aircraft at Cessna's Wichita production facility.
The safety pilot for the flight was Gregory Pavlish, Cessna's manager of flight operations. Alex Unruh, a Cessna demonstration pilot, accompanied us. The pre-flight inspection was straightforward. No ladders or steps were needed to accomplish required checks. The two external baggage compartments were easily accessible - the nose and tailcone compartments hold 182kg and 272kg, respectively.
Two new features highlighted by Pavlish were the CJ4's single-point refuelling capability and its standard lithium ion battery. The Li-ion battery weighs 15kg less than available lead acid or nickel cadmium products. For extreme cold weather operations, the Li-ion battery can easily be removed and stored in a warm place before reinstallation for flight.
New for the CJ4 is its machined cockpit entry door frame. Previous CJs had a stamped frame. The machined frame allows for tighter tolerances and a single static door seal provides good acoustic sealing.
Primary exit in the event of a ditching is the aft emergency exit, but a water barrier is also standard on the CJ4's forward entry door. Raising the barrier allows the door to be opened with the aircraft floating in water.
The interior of the preview aircraft was configured with the standard single seat opposite the entry door. As expected, the level of fittings was quite high. The cabin had LED lighting as well as electronic window shades. Window shades could be actuated at each seat or remotely via the Venue's remote control.
The cockpit is separated from the cabin by a curtain, allowing easy access. Referencing the pillar-mounted eye alignment balls, the four-way adjustable cockpit seat made it easy to find a comfortable seating position. The throttles fell readily to hand, but the control yoke sat a bit too high for my liking.
SINGLE-PILOT OPERATIONS
The forward instrument panel is arranged to facilitate single-pilot operations. Even with a maximum take-off weight of 7,690kg, the CJ4 is single-pilot certificated, as are all CJs. The flight guidance control panel is just underneath the instrument panel's glare shield.
The ProLine 21's four 200 x 250mm LCDs nearly cover the entire instrument panel; a single electronic standby instrument display and landing gear lever are centred between the displays. Outboard displays are set as primary displays, with the two centre ones configured as multifunction displays.
The inherent flexibility of the displays allow for dispatch with one display inoperative. The CJ4 has an engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS), which should be standard on an aircraft in this price range. System control panels are along the lower edge of the instrument panel and aligned to the left for ease of single-pilot operations.
Before-start checks were done by reference to a paper checklist. The standard electronic checklist was not fitted in our aircraft. FADEC-controlled engine start was a snap - each engine started with the push of two buttons. After-start checks were typical of a light twin jet, apart from the electrical system checks.
In addition to two engine-driven generators, the CJ4 has engine alternators, the main function of which is to power the windshield heat for the cockpit windows. In the event of a dual generator failure, they can also power the essential electrical bus via a transformer rectifier unit that converts AC to DC.
The quick alternator check ensured this valuable back-up would be there if we needed it. Although I had flown out of Wichita's Mid-Continent airport many other times, I found the JeppView airfield diagram greatly enhanced my positional awareness.
The CJ4 has a central 207bar (3,000lb/in2) hydraulic system to actuate the landing gear, flaps and wing-mounted speedbrakes, but, like other CJs, the CJ4 has an independent wheel brake hydraulic system. During the taxi out, I found the toe-actuated wheel brakes easily modulated taxi speed.
With 1,755kg of fuel and flaps set to 15° (take-off/approach setting), the 6,547kg Citation had take-off indicated speeds of 94/97/109kt (V1/VR/V2). Aligned on Runway 19L, I pushed the throttles forward to the take-off detent, a green "TO" indication in the EICAS display confirming full take-off power.
Acceleration was brisk, with the CJ lifting off the runway in a 10° pitch attitude. Cessna lists a take-off distance of about 975m for our conditions, a number confirmed by our short ground run. At maximum take-off weight and standard day sea level conditions, take-off distance is only 1,006m.
Once airborne, I retracted the landing gear, followed by flap retraction. Changing yoke forces during the clean up and acceleration were countered easily by the electrical elevator trim. I used the flight director flight level change mode to capture and track the initial climb indicated airspeed of 240kt as we turned towards the west for our climb.
After engaging the autopilot, I retarded the throttles to the climb setting, the FADEC keeping the optimum N1 set for the changing ambient conditions. On a hotter than standard day (ISA +18°C), we transitioned to an indicated climb of Mach 0.62, passing through 28,000ft.The CJ4 levelled at FL400 about 21min after brake release with a total fuel burn of 250kg. In level flight, the throttles were retarded to the cruise setting, passing M0.75. The Citation settled into a M0.76 high-speed cruise condition, with a total fuel flow of 558kg/h giving a true airspeed of 440kt. The CJ4's listed maximum true airspeed of 453kt occurs at FL310. Next, the fuel flow on each engine was set to 172kg/h (344kg/h total) to approximate a long-range cruise condition.
As the aircraft slowed, I left the cockpit to sample the cabin's en-route comforts. The cabin floor was just a degree or so up at long-range cruise, allowing easy transit to the rear.
Ambient cabin noise level was fairly low, with the area opposite the entry door the loudest. I was easily able to carry on a conversation with Unruh as he expanded on some of the CJ4's features. The engines' FADECs have a feature that synchronises N1s to prevent the annoying reverberation heard with dissimilar engine settings. The improvements over the CJ3's cabin provided a more spacious interior. The Venue remote control device will please Alpha males in the cabin, with entertainment and comfort settings at their fingertips.
EMERGENCY DESCENT MODE
When I returned to the cockpit, I noted a cabin altitude of 6,600ft, the 0.6bar delta pressurisation system providing an environment on a par with civil airliners. Like several other Citations, the CJ4's autopilot has an emergency descent mode capability. If the cabin depressurises at altitude, the autopilot will start a descent to 15,000ft. As there is no auto throttle, it may take a while to reach the lower altitude, but the autopilot alone will get the aircraft going in the right direction.
The aircraft by then had stabilised at an indicated airspeed of 173kt, where the M0.586 cruise yielded a 339kt true airspeed. Compared with the high-speed cruise point, long-range cruise was about 100kt slower, but total fuel flow had dropped to 344kg/h. Long-range operations will certainly be at the slower cruise speed, but if a high-speed dash is needed, the CJ4 can do it, if you can afford the gas.
After the high-altitude work, I lowered the CJ4's nose for a high-speed descent to medium altitude. In the descent, we accelerated to M0.77 MMO, receiving both aural and visual indications of the impending overspeed.
At MMO, sharp inputs in each control axis elicited a dead beat response. Passing FL320 at an indicated airspeed of 285kt (VMO 305kt), I fully deployed the speedbrakes, the deployment of which can be modulated. Full speedbrake extension caused light buffeting and a slight nose-down pitching motion, countered by 4kg of aft yoke force. The aircraft was then slowed to an indicated airspeed of 250kt for the rest of the descent to 10,500ft, where I could further evaluate the CJ4's handling.
During the descent, I did a number of 45° and 60° angle of bank steep turns, with and without the yaw damper engaged. At medium altitude, the CJ4 was a pure joy to fly, with well harmonised aileron and rudder forces.
While at FL400, I had briefly hand-flown the aircraft. At altitude, some aircraft feel like they are balanced on the head of a pin - not unstable, but not rock steady either. At FL400, the CJ4 had felt solid and steady at the cruise conditions we sampled. Two approaches to stalls at 10,500ft further reinforced my feelings that the CJ4 had the best handling qualities of any Citation I had flown.
Both stalls, one in a clean configuration and the other with flaps set to 15°, were textbook affairs with no tendency to drop a wing at stickshaker activation. Recovery from both was accomplished by selecting take-off power and accelerating out in level flight.
With the medium altitude manoeuvres complete, we turned toward Mid-Continent airport for pattern work. Autopilot engaged, I followed air traffic control vectors to an instrument landing system final to Runway 19R. Pavlish helped me set up the box, the NAV radio autotuning the ILS frequency when the approach was selected and executed.
While still in a clean configuration on an extended final, I disengaged the autopilot and hand-flew the aircraft during configuration for landing. Slowing through an indicated airspeed of 180kt, the flaps were set to 15° and gear extended. Just before ground speed capture, flaps were set to 35° - the normal landing setting. Control force changes while slowing and configuring for landing were minimal, the pitch trim zeroing out pitch forces. Established on ground speed, about 62% N1 was needed on both engines to hold a target indicated airspeed of 111kt (reference plus 5kt).
Flight director guidance on final was easy to follow and I transitioned to visual references when "minimums" was announced. Passing about 30ft above the ground, I retarded the throttles to idle and initiated the flare manoeuvre at 10ft. After a smooth touchdown, I retracted the flaps to 15° and advanced the power for the "go" part of the touch and go.
Pavlish called rotate at an indicated airspeed of 111kt and I established a take-off attitude of about 10°. Once airborne, Pavlish rapidly retarded the left throttle to idle, simulating a V2 cut. The CJ4 has a rudder boost system to aid control in the event of an engine failure, but it took most of the available rudder to keep the CJ4 tracking down the extended runway centre line on just the right engine.
I immediately retracted the landing gear, and retracted the flaps passing about 120kt. Initial climb performance was good, with full rudder trim alleviating most of the pedal force while at take-off power. Once level at pattern altitude and 180kt, less than 1/4 right rudder trim was needed to maintain co-ordinated flight with the asymmetric power condition.
Once established on a visual final for Runway 19L, with gear and flaps extended, I centred the rudder trim and was able to maintain co-ordinated flight with small rudder inputs. Even with just one engine, the CJ4 was easy to manoeuvre in the traffic pattern, another smooth touchdown delivered by the trailing link main landing gear.
LAST PATTERN
Both engines were used to accelerate the CJ4 for my last take-off. The last pattern was a visual one to a full stop landing on Runway 19L. Target indicated airspeed for the 5,740kg Citation was 110kt. Touchdown point was at the far end of the touchdown zone, and once alighted, I extended the speedbrakes. On the ground, as well as the two flight speedbrake panels on each wing, three large panels deploy to further reduce the landing roll.
Moderate toe braking, not cycling the anti-skid, rapidly brought the CJ4 to a safe taxi speed. The turn-off intersection was less than 1,000m from the runway threshold, and Cessna's listed landing distance of 823m seems realistic. During the taxi back to Cessna's parking ramp, I again found the JeppView airfield diagram a good aid to positional awareness.
My 2h preview flight in the CJ4 was a delight. Its handling qualities were the best of any Citation I had flown. More than a stretched CJ3, the CJ4's swept wing and expanded fuselage allow it to carry more further and faster.
Its common type rating with the CJ3 and single-pilot capability will make it a hit with owner operators. In broad terms, the CJ4's closest competitor is the Phenom 300, and many will doubtless opt for the Embraer.
I give the visceral edge to the Phenom. The CJ4 can carry more passengers and has a larger maximum payload, but costs more. They are two different, but highly capable, light jets.
With more than 150 orders booked for the CJ4, there seems plenty of room in the market for Cessna's largest Citation jet.
Quelle des vollständigen Artikels inklusive Bildern ist flightglobal.com!
[video]
Flying the Phenom 300
Eduardo Menini, a senior test pilot with Embraer, walked us around EMB 505-101, the first production-conforming aircraft to enter the flight test program, during the preflight inspection. He pointed out some of the Phenom 300’s high-utilization and operator-friendly design features.
Basic maintenance intervals, for instance, are 12 months or 600 flight hours. The aircraft’s MSG 3 maintenance-friendly design makes it possible to replace windshields in two hours. The third-generation L-3 SmartProbes eliminate tubes and pipes between probes and ADC boxes. All antennas and other external sensors, including the SmartProbes, can be changed from outside the airplane. Gel gaskets eliminate the need to use liquid sealants that must cure before flight.
All flight control cables and linkages are designed so that they cannot be reversed during installation. The front and rear batteries slide out on trays for easy access and replacement. The aircraft uses only one type of grease. The fuel boost pumps have brushless motors for long life and they are mounted in dry canisters so they may be changed without defueling the aircraft. The winglets are mounted with screws, making them easy to remove and replace.
All main electronic and avionics components, including the engine FADECs, are located inside the pressure vessel where they are protected from pressure and temperature extremes. A central maintenance computer (CMC) simplifies fault identification. The CMC can even check autopilot servo torque, thereby eliminating the need to remove them for bench tests.
The Phenom 300 is designed for easy access to systems and high-frequency utilization, similar to Embraer’s jetliners. The design expedites the crew’s preflight inspections. Credit: EMBRAER
Most line service tasks are easy. If needed, the oxygen bottle may be refilled through a port in the nose baggage compartment. The single-point pressure refueling panel has a utility light for nighttime operations and it has a selectable refill quantity feature. Engine oil quantity can be checked with sight glasses visible through doors in the nacelles. The toilet is externally serviced. The baggage compartment has a large, counter-balanced swing-up door and the sill is waist high for easy loading.
Menini, though, didn’t show us how to install and remove the landing gear pins without getting dirty. The gear must be pinned if the aircraft is towed and unpinned prior to flight. One must go on hands and knees to get access to the pins in the main landing gear wheel wells. The nose gear pin is mounted high in its wheel well, so it’s almost necessary to lie down on the ramp to reach it.
In addition, while the toilet is externally serviced, fresh water reservoirs in the galley and lavatory must be replenished internally. Those systems weren’t installed in the flight test aircraft we flew, so we could not assess the associated workload issues.
Still, because of all the flight test equipment and a ballast tank, 505-001 had an empty weight of 11,900 pounds, or about 450 pounds heavier than a completed production aircraft with standard equipment.
With my strapping into the left seat and Menini in the right, flight test engineer Leandro Bigarella at the console and Daniel Bachman at the videocam, the aircraft’s zero fuel weight was 13,000 pounds, including forward water ballast to keep it in the c.g. envelope. Loaded with 4,400 pounds of fuel, ramp weight was 17,400 pounds.
Bigarella computed takeoff V speeds for Flaps 1 (eight degrees) and a 17,300-pound takeoff weight or 96 percent of MTOW. He called out 107 KIAS for the V1 decision speed, 110 KIAS for rotation and 120 KIAS for the V2 OEI takeoff safety speed, based upon São José dos Campos’ 2,119-foot field elevation, 29.94 inch Hg barometer setting and 20°C OAT. Computed takeoff distance was 3,050 feet. Estimated OEI takeoff field length over a 35-foot obstacle was not available.
We plugged in ground power to save the batteries and to allow all the onboard test equipment to warm up before engine start. During cold weather operations, the batteries must be warmed to at least 0°C before engine start, even if external power is available. This assures adequate battery performance to meet the 45-minute emergency power requirement.
Menini pointed out that the aircraft’s automated electrical system requires only one button push to connect external power. All other system switches can be left in the “on” or “automatic” positions.
After electrical power is turned on, pre-start checks are quick, consisting of fire protection, baggage compartment smoke detector, annunciator light, stall protection and ice protection checks performed with a rotary test switch. Embraer also requires that the crew manually set in OAT as a reference for the FADECs, a procedure that dates back to the EMB-145. This provides a backup reference for the FADEC’s temperature sensor in the engine inlet. We also checked individual battery voltages to assure ample power reserves.
Once the cabin door was closed, we turned first the right, then the left, engine operating switch from Off to Run to Start. The vapor-cycle air conditioner automatically turned off during start to conserve electrical power. The FADECs handled all the starting tasks as we monitored the engine and systems indications on the MFD.
After engine start, the air-conditioning automatically came online and we disconnected external power. We checked battery reserve power, free control movement and proper takeoff trim and flap setting. We verified that the FMS had programmed in the landing field elevation of São José dos Campos for proper cabin depressurization upon our return and set Flaps 1, verifying the flap movement on the MFD.
Getting the aircraft to roll out of the chocks required very little thrust increase. Wheel brake action was smooth with the cold carbon brakes, but the aircraft required heavy pedal pressure, typical for Embraer aircraft. Nosewheel steering authority through the rudder pedals was adequate for most taxi maneuvering, but differential braking and thrust was required for tight maneuvering. Since the aircraft doesn’t have a tight turning radius, care must be taken when taxiing on crowded ramps.
We also checked the emergency brakes. Pulling up partially on the parking brake T handle actuates the emergency brakes smoothly and progressively through a secondary hydraulic circuit, but no differential braking or anti-skid is available.
Prior to takeoff, Menini pressed the takeoff configuration check button and we heard the integrated Prodigy avionics system say, “Takeoff OK,” verifying that flaps, spoilers, pitch trim and parking brake were in the proper position for departure. Having 10,200 feet of pavement available on Runway 15, we were not concerned by accelerate-stop distance. Using the Flaps 1 configuration results in lower drag than Flaps 2, thereby improving second-segment OEI climb performance.
On the runway centerline, we pushed up the throttles to the takeoff and go-around (TOGA) position, the third detent in the quadrant. There’s also a maximum thrust position, forward of the TOGA detent, but how much extra thrust it will command, and under what conditions, has yet to be determined.
Acceleration was smooth, but not sporty. Rotation forces were moderate, if not hefty, another trait of Embraer jets. We rotated to 12 degrees nose up and retracted the gear with a positive rate of climb. In the process, we had to increase pitch attitude to 25 degrees to prevent exceeding the 140 KIAS Vlo limit speed imposed on the test aircraft. Production aircraft will have more-robust landing gear doors and thus a considerably higher landing gear operating speed.
At 400 feet agl, we accelerated to 136 KIAS and retracted the flaps. We continued the climb, leveling off at 5,000 feet for air traffic control while we exited the local traffic area to the northeast. We noted that while the aircraft has a heavy stick force per g, it’s not particularly sensitive in pitch to speed or configuration changes. Pitch and roll control forces were moderate, well harmonized and more in line with what we’d expect from a midsize jet than a light jet.
Winter storm clouds created a choppy ride up to 10,000 feet, but the flexible wing structure seemed to soak up most of the bumps. At that point, we noted an anomaly in the weather radar display. Garmin has yet to develop the capability of overlaying the flight plan route on the onboard radar display. That makes it difficult to determine if the programmed flight plan track will steer clear of storm clouds. However, the flight plan track is displayed together with XM radio weather graphics, if one is operating in the continental U.S. coverage area.
When stabilized at 10,000 feet, we recorded a weight of 16,975 pounds, started the clock and began a direct climb to FL 450. Menini said best climb performance would be obtained using a 225 KIAS/0.60 IMN climb schedule.
During the climb we checked roll control response, noting heavy control forces at maximum yoke deflection, but achieving 60-degree-per-second roll response, according to Bigarella’s instruments. The effect of the roll spoilers on roll rate and roll control effort seemed negligible.
Later, we checked short-period stability, noting that the aircraft is well damped. We also noted that the current version of SmartProbe software has very little dampening, thus the VSI readout often jumped ±50 feet with no change in aircraft attitude or speed.
Eight- to 10-degree warmer-than-standard outside air temperatures during most of the climb didn’t help climb performance. OAT didn’t cool off to ISA until we crossed FL 400. But OAT dropped to ISA-6.5°C by the time we leveled at FL 450, stopping the clock at 22 minutes and recording a 550-pound fuel burn for the climb.
We accelerated to 0.66 Mach long-range cruise at FL 450. We attempted to use the aircraft’s cruise speed control (CSC) function, a feature that provides limited authority thrust adjustment, with the trim range of the FADECs, when altitude hold is engaged. But CSC wouldn’t hold speed without uncoupling, so it appeared to need more development work before it’s ready for service.
Once stable, we recorded 372 KTAS while burning 840 pph at a weight of 16,340 pounds (91 percent of MTOW) in ISA-6.5°C conditions. We also noted that the aircraft’s pitch trim seemed a touch sensitive, providing plenty of pitch trim change with very little movement of the trim switch.
We then evaluated high-speed buffet margins. We rolled into an increasing angle of bank, holding altitude. Flight test restrictions limited us to using a maximum 45-degree angle of bank. But we still recorded 1.5 g of load at 16,200 pounds with no evidence of buffet.
Capt. Menini demonstrated the operation of the counter-sprung airstair door. Credit: EMBRAER
We also checked spiral stability. When we rolled into bank angles up to 30 degrees, the aircraft gradually returned to wings level. At bank angles greater than 30 degrees, the aircraft slowly would roll off.
Long-period pitch (phugoid) stability proved to be a strong point for the aircraft. We trimmed for cruise at 180 KIAS at FL 435, pulled up until the speed decreased to 156 KIAS and let go of the yoke. After five up-and-down cycles, averaging 74-second periods, aerodynamic damping almost had eliminated the porpoising.
The Phenom 300 also exhibits strong Dutch roll damping, a product of its having primary and secondary rudder dual yaw dampers. While the primary rudder yaw damper can be shut off, the secondary dorsal fin rudder is activated automatically anytime the primary yaw damper is inoperative and it cannot be shut off.
After our checks at high altitude, we descended to FL 300 for a high-speed cruise check. On the way down, we evaluated the performance of the two-position air brakes. When extended, the air brakes produce moderate buffet and mild pitch-up. Retracting them produces the opposite effect. A software interlock prevents air brake extension with the flaps extended.
Setting the throttles at max cruise at FL 300, the aircraft stabilized at 448 KTAS at a weight of 16,000 pounds (89 percent of MTOW) while burning 1,586 pph in ISA+6.5°C conditions. The final static source error correction curves have yet to be programmed into the SmartProbes, so the aircraft actually was cruising at 453 KTAS, according to the onboard flight test instrumentation. Book cruise performance predicted 451 KTAS under those conditions, Bigarella said. Both numbers back up Embraer’s claim that the aircraft will cruise at 450 KTAS at 90 percent of MTOW.
Descending to 15,000 feet, we put the aircraft through some basic air work maneuvers. A couple of near 60-degree bank angle turns revealed that the aircraft had the heavy stick force per g pitch control feel that’s characteristic of most Embraer aircraft with conventional flight controls.
Make a note: Trim into the turn or be prepared to use both hands on the yoke for your checkride.
Stall behavior was docile and predictable. At a weight of 15,870 pounds, we trimmed the aircraft to 122 KIAS in the clean configuration, equivalent to 1.3 Vs1. The stick pusher fired at 90 KIAS (94 KCAS) or 24.4 degrees AOA. Repeating the maneuver at a weight of 15,760 pounds with gear and flaps down, we trimmed to 111 KIAS or 1.3 Vso. Descending 500 feet and leveling off, the stick pusher fired at 82 KIAS (86 KCAS) or 22.7 degrees AOA. There was no tendency to roll off or yaw in either configuration during the maneuvers, but altitude loss was considerable because of the stick pusher. These are not conditions one would want to encounter at pattern altitudes.
Returning to São José dos Campos for pattern work, we coupled the autopilot and let the Prodigy system fly an FMS to ILS approach to Runway 15. Lateral and vertical navigation were very smooth throughout the procedure, with the multiple waypoint VNAV feature reducing much of the workload. However, both vertical and lateral navigation modes seemed a little soft in response, favoring smoothness over precision guidance.
Once the aircraft eventually stabilized on the 155-degree magnetic inbound course, a change in HSI course deviation needle from magenta to green signified the transition from FMS to ILS guidance. We clicked off the autopilot to get a feel for the aircraft during the approach. We again observed that the aircraft seemed to have somewhat overly sensitive pitch trim, yet was comparatively numb in speed stability. Thus, airspeed excursions of 10 knots or more didn’t result in much pitch force change.
Extending the landing gear and flaps produced very little pitch change. We bugged 110 KIAS for Vref for the Flaps 3 (26 degrees) configuration at a weight of 15,500 pounds. Final flight tests evaluating the use of full flaps on landing performance were not yet complete, so we couldn’t use that configuration.
Over the threshold, we reduced power to idle and started to let the aircraft decelerate for the landing touchdown. In retrospect, we should have chopped the power sooner. The aircraft had excess airspeed in the flare, resulting in a long float to touchdown.
Menini reconfigured the aircraft to Flaps 1 (eight degrees) and set the pitch trim into the takeoff position. We followed through with a touch-and-go, turning left downwind into the VFR pattern. This was followed by a normal touch-and-go.
The next pattern was designed to evaluate the aircraft’s OEI performance, especially its balked landing performance characteristics. Menini pulled back the right throttle on downwind, we simulated calling for the engine failure check and configured the aircraft for a simulated single-engine landing. Again we used Flaps 3 (26 degrees), but flew the approach at Vref+10. There were ample power reserves on approach.
When we neared 200 feet agl, we executed a balked landing. As we advanced the thrust lever to TOGA, Bigarella recorded a maximum 110 pounds of pedal force, indicating that the spring-loaded rudder boost system was helping to reduce pedal effort. As we rotated, we moved the flap lever to Flaps 2 and retracted the gear with a positive rate of climb. Changing to the Flaps 2 position, though, strictly was a procedural step. It didn’t change flap deflection from 26 degrees, so the aircraft climbed very poorly until we moved the lever to the Flaps 1 (eight degrees) position. We concluded that most pilots will want to use Flaps 1 for routine takeoffs because of better OEI climb performance. Flaps 2 will be better suited to light takeoff weights and very short runway operations.
The Phenom 300 features brake-by-wire with high-capacity carbon heat packs. Pedal pressure, similar the Embraer’s jetliners, is heavy but braking action is very smooth. Credit: EMBRAER
Once we climbed to flap retraction altitude, we cleaned up the aircraft and we matched the throttle positions in preparation for a normal landing, which followed. We then taxied back to Runway 15 in preparation for a simulated OEI takeoff. At a weight of 15,200 pounds and based upon using Flaps 1, Bigarella computed V speeds of 98 KIAS for V1, 103 KIAS for rotation, 115 KIAS for V2 and 127 KIAS for flap retraction.
Menini pulled back the right throttle at 93 KIAS, resulting in noticeable yaw as the aircraft reached V1. We countered with opposite rudder to maintain directional control. Bigarella recorded a rudder force of 100 pounds.
We initially rotated to 12 degrees and retracted the landing gear with a positive rate of climb. At this comparatively mid weight, the aircraft had strong OEI climb performance. We climbed to flap retraction altitude, cleaned up the aircraft and returned for a normal, albeit maximum effort landing.
Based upon a 15,000-pound landing weight and using Flaps 2, Bigarella computed a 110 KIAS Vref speed. Rolling to final, we delayed reducing thrust until reaching the threshold. Again, this resulted in excess airspeed in the flare and delayed touchdown. The aircraft decelerated smartly, with little tendency to engage the anti-skid function above 60 knots. The maneuver reminded us that Embraer aircraft require comparatively heavy pedal force to achieve maximum braking performance.
After the maximum effort landing, the carbon brakes were quite warm and they exhibited some jerkiness as we taxied back to Embraer’s delivery center. Menini said that was expected and that braking action is smooth when they are cool. Total fuel burn for the two-hour, 24-minute mission was 2,500 pounds.
Final Steps Toward Certification and Entry Into Service
Embraer now has four production-conforming aircraft in the flight test program, racing toward final Brazilian ANAC and FAA type certification late this year. All flight test data collected up to September 2009 indicate that the aircraft will meet or beat Embraer’s projections. Speed, range and sea-level runway performance numbers are on target. Hot-and-high takeoff performance appears to exceed the original estimates by a wide margin.
Embraer has been working closely with training services partner CAE to develop an FAR Part 142 training system. The first full-flight simulators will be installed at CAE locations in Dallas and Burgess Hill, United Kingdom this year. CAE and Embraer plan to open a second U.S. training center in Florida or the Northeast United States in 2010. But it’s not clear if the simulator will earn full FAA approval by the end of this year. Much the same as with the Phenom 100, the first Phenom 300 operators may have to train their pilots in their aircraft until the simulators are certified.
Officials concede that the Phenom 300 development program is about two weeks behind schedule, but are confident they will earn TC and start initial customer deliveries in the fourth quarter of the year.
That’s good news for Phenom 300 customers, including Flight Options, which has ordered 100, Executive Airshare with four orders and four options, Falcon Aviation Services of Abu Dhabi with six orders and four options, Eagle Creek Aviation Services with four positions and Dusseldorf-based Vibroair with two orders. Embraer won’t release the total number of orders it has for the aircraft, but the large block from fractional operator Flight Options could be spread out over several years because of softness in the business jet market.
Long term, though, the Phenom 300 should be a strong contender in the light jet market because of its price, cabin, performance and fuel efficiency, plus its airliner-inspired, maintenance-friendly design. In addition, Embraer’s aftermarket product support is earning high marks from Phenom 100 and Legacy 600 customers, so that reputation should help bolster Phenom 300 sales. Two levels of Embraer Executive Care will be offered, with the standard service providing just parts and freight and the enhanced service providing parts, freight, both scheduled and unscheduled labor, and emergency field service. Pratt & Whitney Canada will offer its Eagle Service Plan power-by-the-hour program to cover the engines.
Quite clearly, Embraer is making a major investment in the business aircraft market, making bold moves to unseat long established firms such as Bombardier, Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft from their positions of dominance. The design of the Phenom 300 demonstrates Embraer’s engineering muscle. The Phenom 300’s airliner toughness and 28,000-hour design life also could make some other light jets seem like spoiled prom queens in comparison. And should something break, Embraer’s growing commitment to product support is second to none. That all bodes well for the Phenom 300.
The business jet industry, particularly the light jet sector, is forecast to rebound slowly as the economy recovers. And with its Phenoms and other executive aircraft models, in production or in development, Embraer is becoming well positioned to seize a significant share of this sector over the next several years.
........The sensation of flying the 7X is immediately natural with the airplane responding smoothly, and exactly as I expected, to stick movement. However, once the airplane is heading where I want it to go, I notice the difference because I have always had to trim off the stick force in every other airplane. But not in the 7X. When the flight path indicator on the primary flight display (PFD) is on target, you simple release pressure and the stick centers and the 7X stays on that path. It only takes a couple of minutes to forget about trim, but after a lifetime of flying other airplanes, it comes initially as a pleasant surprise.
For example, on rotation for takeoff you are holding the same stick force against springs when the flight path reaches the target as you were when you started to bring the nose up. In any other airplane if you release back pressure the nose will drop, seeking its trim speed, so you have to hold the stick back until you can trim off the pressure. But the 7X is constantly trimming automatically to maintain a constant flight path.
One of the most impressive displays of the way the DFCS holds flight path is by making huge airspeed changes. In level flight, hands off, I pushed the power and airspeed up to 300 knots indicated and made no flight control inputs while the 7X held a steady flight path. I then brought the power back to flight idle, and as speed limits were reached, extended slats and flaps, again hands off, and the flight path remained constant. The attitude of the airplane changed enormously from nearly level to way nose up, but the DFCS held the flight path.
The 7X allows pilots to think about the mission in a new way. Instead of concentrating on how to make the airplane go where you want it to, you can focus on where you want it to go. The 7X completes the design logic loop and makes ultimate use and sense of the EASy glass cockpit, which displays flight path instead of attitude as primary. You see the flight path on the PFD, you see the flight path command, and you adjust the path to where you want it, and it stays there. Pilot workload is cut to a fraction of what it takes to fly a conventional airplane.
The 7X is the first “all new” Falcon since the three-engine Model 50 was developed in the 1970s. The big cabin 900 series and the twin-engine 2000 family are all derivatives of the excellent work done on the 50. Dassault has pioneered the use of computer aided design (CAD) and created the CATIA system that is used in all sorts of product design, including by Dassault’s competitors. Though the company has used computers in the design of all of its airplanes since the Falcon 50, the 7X is the first that is truly a virtual design. Human experts used computers in every phase of the creation to optimize performance of the finished airplane, as well as to minimize weight, streamline manufacturing, and reduce maintenance requirements and complexity. And as final proof that aviation is now a complete and total global enterprise, all original documentation of the 7X was done in English, a big step for the French.
Dassault used what it calls “product life management” teams linked by computers with 400 people working on the design, even though they were spread across seven countries. Major airframe elements are built by half a dozen different companies and are brought together for final assembly at the Dassault facility in Bordeaux. The unfinished “green” airplanes are flown to Little Rock where all paint and interior completion is done. All business jets are at least a little international efforts, but the 7X is truly a global product from initial design to final completion, and support when in service. The 7X was the first business jet to be certified jointly by the FAA and the European authorities.
What didn’t change in design of the 7X were Dassault’s basic assumptions about intercontinental range airplanes, foremost being that they should have three engines. The 7X is undoubtedly the most technologically advanced business jet yet, but the company sticks to its conservative streak when it comes to the number of engines you should have when launching out over a big ocean. While the rest of the industry has moved to an extended twin engine operation (ETOPS) position that allows enormous twin engine airline jets to roam four hours away from a suitable alternate, Dassault and Falcon owners just feel more comfortable with that third engine. And the 7X is so comparatively light, and the design so low in drag, that even with three engines it has the best fuel efficiency in the ultra-long-range business jet class.Another benefit of the third engine is on takeoff. The rules require that you calculate a takeoff path with the most critical engine failing at decision speed on the runway. So twin engine jets have to meet the takeoff flight path minimums with half the power gone, but with three engines you only lose one third of the power. That means the 7X can use shorter runways, or thinking of it the other way, it needs less total power for the same runway requirement, which is part of the reason for its excellent fuel efficiency.
A center engine has an aerodynamic advantage, too, in that it makes the airflow behave as though the fuselage were longer. The high velocity exhaust of the center engine helps smooth the air flow over the aft part of the fuselage just as though there were a long, tapering tailcone. You can see the impact of this phenomenon by comparing the twin-engine Falcon 2000 with the 900. The 900 cabin is 7 feet longer than the 2000 cabin, but the overall length of the fuselage is the same because Dassault had to extend the tailcone of the 2000 to make up for the missing aerodynamic effects of the center engine exhaust.
Lower fuel burn compared to other airplanes with similar-sized cabins is doubly important these days with the requirement to account for, and pay for, our carbon emissions. When you burn less fuel you save twice -- at the pump, and when picking up the carbon offset bill. Being headquartered in Europe, Dassault was aware of the carbon issue before it become apparent in the United States, but in any case, paying for carbon emissions is now a fact in Europe, and will probably also be a reality in most of the world soon.
The 7X cabin cross section is essentially the same as the Falcon 900 and 2000 family with 6-foot 2-inch finished headroom over a flat floor. Cabin width is just 2 inches short of 8 feet at its widest point. Passengers have been very happy with the space and comfort in the 900 so Dassault stayed with it, but stretched the length out to just over 39 feet, about 7 feet longer than the 900.
There is plenty of space for three separate seating areas, a big forward galley and crew rest area and lava-tory, large passenger lavatory in the rear, and access to the aft baggage compartment in flight. And Dassault has upped the cabin pressurization differential to 10.2 psi so the cabin altitude will be only 6,000 feet when the airplane is at its 51,000-foot ceiling.One big change to the 7X fuselage is the windshield, which is the first curved windscreen in a large Falcon. All other Falcons have an array of seven flat panels. Visibility from any Falcon cockpit is good, but it’s better in the 7X, and the curved windshields blend more smoothly into the canopy to reduce drag and slipstream noise. And Dassault gave passengers a better view with more and larger windows, so the 7X has 30 percent more window area than a 900.
The 7X is the first Falcon without a tiller to control nosewheel steering, so you use the rudder pedals. I found it very easy and natural to maneuver the 7X because the DFCS adjusts nosewheel deflection to suit your speed. At slow taxi speeds you can spin the 7X on the ramp with the pedals commanding 60 degrees of nosewheel deflection. But on takeoff and landing the effect of pedal inputs washes out so you don’t swerve at high speeds. An important feature is that the pedals have a strong centering spring, so when you want to taxi straight just release all foot pressure and the airplane goes straight. Other jets I have flown with pedal steering lack a centering spring, so you have to kind of lock your legs in position to taxi straight ahead without unintentionally moving the pedals.The 7X has an autothrottle system but you don’t use it for takeoff as in other jets. Instead, you simply move the power levers full forward and the computers set takeoff power. It’s the same for go-around. Once up and climbing you engage the autothrottle with odd little buttons that are somewhat hard to reach on the back of the levers. Then you select the airspeed you want, or as assigned by ATC, or you turn the knob and have the system look up the optimum or required speed from the flight management system. I like the automatic airspeed selection because it observes the airport traffic speed limits, and then the transition speed limits, and finally goes to optimum performance climb. It does the same on descent and arrival, and if the STAR has airspeed limits it will automatically observe those, too.
It was a windy day with gusts to 35 knots when I got to fly the 7X at Istres, a military airfield in the south of France where Dassault has its flight test headquarters. With that much wind blowing from the north over the rugged Mediterranean coast of southern France, there was turbulence. The design of the 7X couldn’t overcome every disturbance, but I have to say the ride was excellent, with no sharp jolts and very little deviation from the present flight path.
At altitude I made steep 2 G turns at high speed, which are possible only by holding the stick over. If you release pressure on the stick in a steep bank the 7X will roll back and hold a constant bank angle of just over 30 degrees, the normal maximum bank angle for maneuvering any jet. But the DFCS gives the pilot the authority to roll the 7X to any angle by holding the stick over. And the roll rate is a brisk 60 degrees per second if you jam the stick hard over. However, during normal maneuvers the initiation of a bank is so smooth you couldn’t feel it if you closed your eyes.
The DFCS does not give pilots the same unlimited authority in pitch because the human could stall the airplane on the low end, or overstress the airframe on the high-speed side. If you pull the stick back to a flight path that there is not enough energy to sustain, the DFCS will yell at you and flash an urgent message on the PFD, but if you insist on pulling back it will automatically deploy the wing slats to keep the ailerons active at low airspeed. If you still persist and the autothrottle is engaged, it will automatically add power. If the autothrottle is not engaged, the DFCS will lower the nose to keep the 7X flying even though you are holding full aft stick. Other jets have stick pushers that grab the yoke out of a pilot’s hand to shove the nose over and prevent a stall. The DFCS accomplishes the same with total smoothness and always keeping the airplane near, but on the safe side, of the stalling angle of attack.With the stick full aft the 7X has very positive and smooth roll control in any configuration. The DFCS is really helpful in a wind shear encounter because you simply add full power and full aft stick and the system keeps the 7X flying at the maximum safe angle of attack with no risk of a stall.
On the high-speed end the DFCS limits indicated airspeed or Mach to just a hair over the red line by raising the nose no matter how much you push on the stick. The autothrottle does its best to keep the airplane flying within the limits, but raising the nose to keep the 7X right on the limits is the final protection for the airframe. Again, not a new concept -- many Learjet models had stick pullers to prevent an overspeed -- but the DFCS protects the airplane with perfect smoothness and precision.
The 30-knot-plus winds were waiting for my return to the runway, but were blowing within 20 degrees of runway heading, so it was gusts and bumps, not a crosswind that would be the test. Thanks to its very effective leading edge slats and big flaps the 7X has very low Vref approach speeds, around 105 knots at typical weights. With the gusty conditions I maintained about 15 knots above Vref and found that the less I did with the stick, the better the approach was. I pushed over to aim the flight path marker at the touchdown zone and to match the VASI, and then left the stick alone. It is hard at first not to jump in and try to correct for every temporary attitude change made by the gusts and turbulence, but if you set it and watch, the DFCS does a spectacular job on approach.
As the radio altimeter calls out the height above touchdown you reduce power to idle and pull back on the stick to reduce the descent rate. My touchdowns were great on the trailing link gear and the spoilers deployed automatically to keep the wheels on the runway. Unlike other jets where you need to continue pulling back on the yoke, or at least hold back pressure to keep the nosewheel from banging down, the DFCS has a “de-flare” logic so you immediately release backpressure on touchdown and the system automatically and very smoothly lowers the nosewheel.
We pulled an engine back on takeoff and made another approach and landing, but again, the third engine means this was just an “abnormal” procedure, not an emergency as in a twin, so you use the same speeds and flap configurations as with all three turning. The rules require that it must be possible to hold the wings within 5 degrees of level using rudder only after an engine failure in a transport airplane, but the DFCS helps here, too. Even though the pilot only moves the pedals after an engine failure, the DFCS uses aileron and spoiler along with the rudder to hold the wings level so the rudder and fin can be smaller, lighter and create less drag than on a conventional airplane.
With its big cabin, 5,950 nm IFR range and 5,505-foot runway requirement for a max weight takeoff, the 7X is a remarkable airplane. As a pilot it’s easy for me to become absorbed in the technology of just how the 7X delivers so much runway performance, speed, range, comfort and safety, but the people who buy large business jets have also noticed and the airplane is sold out for several years in advance. The first all-new Falcon in many years is truly something special in every respect.
Quelle des vollständigen Textes
Im März oder April kommt der erste nach Deutschland. Nach STR. Dann schauen wir mal, wie er real ausschaut.
Weitermachen??
Kommt sofort.....
Flying the CJ4
By last December, Cessna had completed all testing for the FAA, a task that required more than 1,800 hours of flying in three airplanes. I was invited to fly the first production airplane, which had participated in the flight testing along with the prototype and the No. 2 production airplane. Even though it was built on production tooling, it was still laden with test equipment and ballast, so with just engineering test pilot Peter Fisher and I on board, we could bring the weight up to 16,650 pounds for takeoff, just about one or maybe two passengers short of the 16,950-pound takeoff limit.Climbing into the CJ4 cockpit, you will immediately appreciate the short pedestal while clamoring into the seat. The CDUs and most other controls have been moved to tilt panels forward of the throttles, which cuts the pedestal length dramatically.
The CJs have had fadec engine controls for several years, but the CJ4 is the first to not have mechanical fuel-cutoff positions on the throttles. Cessna and Williams have acknowledged that the computer is in charge, and it will put fuel into the engines when it's ready during start and will shut it off when you push the engine button from run to stop. It's an important cultural step and one that recognizes automation is here to stay.
The CJ4 checklist is somewhat shorter than those for others in the family, thanks to more automation. For example, as in many other newer jets, the pressurization system looks up the elevation of the destination you have loaded into the FMS and enters it, saving pilots an unnecessary step.
Every light in the CJ4 is some sort of an LED, so turning on any and all lights that can help in visibility won't shorten bulb life. The LEDs could last as long as the airframe, and maybe even outlast CJ4 pilots.
Cessna seems to have gotten the steering and brakes just right on the CJ4, and smooth, precise taxiing is easy. The flight control and throttle positions are totally familiar to anyone who has flown any CJ. And the takeoff speeds of 107 knots for V1 and VR and 116 knots for V2 are just about the same for a near-maximum-weight takeoff in the others.
The new, bigger wing and more powerful Williams engines teamed up to give an initial climb rate of near 4,000 fpm. Normal-climb airspeed target is 240 knots until reaching Mach .64. With one brief level-off on the way up, the CJ4 was through 30,000 feet in just over 10 minutes. There was moderate turbulence as we climbed through 37,000 feet in under 14 minutes. Air temperatures were within a degree or two either side of standard, and we arrived at 45,000 feet before the clock hit 23 minutes. Those are climb rates pilots of the first CJ could never have imagined.
At the certified ceiling of 45,000 feet, the CJ4 quickly accelerated to Mach .75, which equals about 425 knots true airspeed. Total fuel flow was 1,040 pounds per hour (pph). That is more than 10 knots faster than Cessna engineers predicted, but the fuel flow is on target, so the range is longer than forecast. Flying faster on the same fuel flow is a very good thing. If you had a big tailwind, you could pull back to the long-range cruise of around 390 knots and stay up longer and thus go farther, but in light winds or with a headwind, the maximum power cruise comes close to matching the slower long-range cruise in distance covered.
I made some steep turns at 45,000 feet and couldn't make the wing buffet until the angle went well past 45 degrees, and I pulled pretty hard, and then there was only a very small rumble of complaint. The new wing clearly has lots of margin even at its ceiling.
The new variable-position speed brakes are a delight to use, making it easy to stay right on airspeed limits while still achieving the necessary rate of descent to meet controller demands. Down at 31,000 feet, where the CJ4, like most turbofan-powered airplanes, hits its maximum cruise speed, the air was three degrees below standard, and with max cruise power set, the jet blew right through its Mach .77 limit. With power pulled back to keep the speed right on the Mmo maximum Mach red line, the colder temperatures held true airspeed down to 448 knots, clear evidence that the airplane easily makes the brochure maximum of 453 knots with air temperature at standard.Despite having an all-new wing, the overall flying qualities of the CJ4 seem to match the rest of the family with totally predictable and docile behavior. The new all-electric trim system matches its speed perfectly to the airplane configuration, so there is little pushing or pulling with speed change and flap extension or retraction. Some pilots may miss the trim wheel spinning against their right knee, but I never touch the thing except to grab and hold on when it runs away in the simulator. If the primary trim fails in the CJ4, there is a second system with a rocker switch on the pedestal under your right hand.
Cessna has done a great job of establishing easy-to-remember speed limits, and there are really only two. For all gear actions the speed limit is 200 knots, and the same for approach flap setting. Landing flaps can go out at 160 knots. None of that 197 knots, or 154 or whatever, that is such fodder for oral exams on type-rating checks.
Around the airport the CJ4 is as easy to fly as any airplane, jet or propeller. Landing approach speeds will usually be just over 100 knots, and the trailing-link landing gear that Cessna perfected many years ago smoothes every touchdown. The lift-dump flap extension of the other CJs is eliminated because the six panels of ground spoilers are so effective. It is perfectly natural to move your hand from the throttles to the longer speed-brake lever on touchdown to extend the spoilers.
Though all testing was complete at the end of last year, Cessna was still awaiting FAA certification, which undoubtedly will have happened by the time you read this. Single-pilot eligibility had been established, and it certainly looked like the CJ4 would qualify to be flown by pilots holding the CE-525 type rating assigned to all other CJs. If I had a vote, I would certainly put the CJ4 under the same type rating with a few days of required "differences" training to learn how to use the system and avionics advances.
In an otherwise dismal market for light jets, the CJ4 is a bright spot with a big order book with essentially no cancellations. Deliveries are expected to begin early in the second quarter. With its longer cabin, advanced avionics and systems, 2,002 nm range and 425-knot cruise speed, the CJ4 delivers what other light jets can't. That, along with the rock-solid reputation of Cessna and the CJ family behind it, is the recipe for success in any market condition.
Der Verkaufsprospekt!
Beschreibung und Spezifikationen!
Sonderausstattungsliste mit Preisen!
Unterhaltskosten des Musters, vielfältig aufgeschlüsselt!
Flight Planning Guide!
Viel Spaß beim Lesen! :beer:
[video]
KC 135?? Meines Wissens nach hatten die Israelis nie die KC 135 im Bestand. Sind das nicht von Bedek umgerüstete, ex-zivile 707?? Auch der Rumpf erscheint mir länger, als der der KC-135, die direkt auf der Dash 80 basiert........ 
