Phenom 100 300 takeoff landing dist
04-15-2018, 02:18 AM
#32
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Small and slow
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
You asked for Phenom numbers, not Mustang numbers. You got Phenom numbers and they don't work.
04-15-2018, 02:32 AM
#33
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Small and slow
Posts: 64
[QUOTE=RI830;2572458]I have provided numbers twice. I have tried to attach the perf charts but the site has not allowed me to do.
Can't cut and paste? Besides you gave me numbers to show it doesn't work and keep dancing around the numbers that DO work. You honestly saying the numbers don't show a 100 able to depart at 2500ft at any weight?
Can't cut and paste? Besides you gave me numbers to show it doesn't work and keep dancing around the numbers that DO work. You honestly saying the numbers don't show a 100 able to depart at 2500ft at any weight?
04-15-2018, 04:37 AM
#35
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Small and slow
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
Your personality indicates a single pilot operation would suit you best. Plus, you would gain an extra 180 of fuel.
04-15-2018, 04:42 AM
#36
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,500
OP didn't ask for it, but here are the AFM tables from a CJ2+.
The airplane I flew, an early 2009 model, had a no-pilot empty weight of 7766 and a two-pilot BOW (in our operation) of 8125.
VFR fuel reserve (at 15,000ft) is listed as 307lb for 30min and 468lb for 45min; FUEL LOW LEVEL lights illuminate at 220lb per tank and I've seen them flash on takeoff with 600lb+ per tank. Our operational reserve fuel was 600lb.
In my professional opinion, having a couple thousand hours in 500/525-series Citations, the mission as described does NOT fit this airframe. You might get completely unfactored AFM distances and weights to work on paper, but I would never operate into 2500'.
The airplane I flew, an early 2009 model, had a no-pilot empty weight of 7766 and a two-pilot BOW (in our operation) of 8125.
VFR fuel reserve (at 15,000ft) is listed as 307lb for 30min and 468lb for 45min; FUEL LOW LEVEL lights illuminate at 220lb per tank and I've seen them flash on takeoff with 600lb+ per tank. Our operational reserve fuel was 600lb.
In my professional opinion, having a couple thousand hours in 500/525-series Citations, the mission as described does NOT fit this airframe. You might get completely unfactored AFM distances and weights to work on paper, but I would never operate into 2500'.
04-15-2018, 09:31 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Left seat on a kite
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by Kimo
Can't cut and paste? Besides you gave me numbers to show it doesn't work and keep dancing around the numbers that DO work. You honestly saying the numbers don't show a 100 able to depart at 2500ft at any weight?
In one breathe you act like you need the info for the performance and in the next breathe you act like you know that it will do it.
You are either a troll or dumber than a box of rocks. You have had multiple people with probably 100K plus of hours and experience tell you that this is a really bad idea and that the perf tables don't support it.
Give it up or we will watch for you in the papers and NTSB reports.
04-15-2018, 10:20 AM
#39
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Small and slow
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by RI830
You apparently don't read well. I gave you Phenom 300 numbers more than once. I have a electronic POH for the 300...NOT the 100.
In one breathe you act like you need the info for the performance and in the next breathe you act like you know that it will do it.
You are either a troll or dumber than a box of rocks. You have had multiple people with probably 100K plus of hours and experience tell you that this is a really bad idea and that the perf tables don't support it.
Give it up or we will watch for you in the papers and NTSB reports.
In one breathe you act like you need the info for the performance and in the next breathe you act like you know that it will do it.
You are either a troll or dumber than a box of rocks. You have had multiple people with probably 100K plus of hours and experience tell you that this is a really bad idea and that the perf tables don't support it.
Give it up or we will watch for you in the papers and NTSB reports.
04-15-2018, 10:22 AM
#40
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Small and slow
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by Mountain Man
Obviously the OP has never experienced the brakes on a 100.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
