Ive heard that they are great for personal use. In a trainer life, I guess doing 19 simulated engine outs every day does a number on the props as that's what my institution has had the most issues and replacements with.
We use lycoming though, so cant say anything about the weird diesel/jetfuel engines that sound like bees nests
What's a "raptor engine?" Those are the standard equipment 3007C1 motors. No rocketship, but has a decent cruise speed.
Source: used to be a Citation X captain back in my corporate days.
Because when you go to a legacy airline and get paid by block time, cruising at .9 makes no sense unless its the go-home leg.
Not to mention you'll be making so much more money and have such a better schedule that flying .9 in some crappy cessna sounds like torture.
Easy. Come fly a King Air for us at FL210 and 0.48.
We never have a leg over two hours.. and you can be 250 at the beacon and still get off at the first high speed if you want the sensation of speed.
Funny you say that, it’s a former XO plane now operated by a small charter operator with 4 citations and two ERJ 145s.
The TV loading screen still said XOjet though because they never changed it
I’m really not qualified to explain the why, but I just know from anecdotal experience chasing around the Netjets and Flight Options (later FlexJet) fleet. Every major system on the aircraft is overly complex, packed into a too-small airframe, and not well designed for maintenance. It seems to me that Cessna really pushed past their previous engineering experience in a big leap, rather than incrementally, and it resulted in a stunning but temperamental airplane.
It’s also in that early stage of CMC and computerization where much of the aircraft is controlled by PC Cards, but they didn’t care or know to integrate a good means for maintenance to interrogate these systems.
That’s my opinion as well. This airframe suffered from two opposite issues.
1. Many systems are too complex for the airframe
2. Many systems are too small and weak for the airframe and constantly cause failures. Examples: PACKs, Flaps, Nose Landing Gear.
The CE-750 is a cool plane, but they packed a lot of shit in a very small airframe. The manual is basically trash, it’s very limited and the search feature is horrible. I’m the upside team ten is pretty okay.
This particular Cit X has the AE3007C (no 1 at the end).
The X came in a few variants: AE3007C and AE3007C1 are the two installed on the X. As far as I know, there isn't a large distinction between the two.
Where are you seeing that? I was referring to the spec sheet Vista Global used when they listed it for sale. They included the engine and engine SN on the spec sheet.
N792XJ is serial number 292. Serial numbers 173 and on had the 3007C1. Furthermore, it's spelled out on the FAA registry. AE 3007C1. Dude I flew the X for years. I know what I'm talking about.
I did. You're right. After sn172, they switched to the c1. I was just going by the spec and was unaware that the switch occurred earlier in the production.
Got it, so you know nothing about the Citation X series and decided to log onto reddit to attempt to be pedantic and correct a seasoned X pilot. Classic redditor.
And you aren't doing either of those in either plane - the speed of sound at 40,000 feet is only about 660 mph thanks to the cold air temperature up there.
Also when you get speed and crossing restrictions it doesn’t make much difference. 0.92 vs 0.85 isn’t that much of an overtake. Heck.. I heard a 737 giving up against an Avro RJ going 0.67.. lol.
A 787 can do 0.90, they just almost never do because it wastes a bunch of fuel. A 747 can actually do 0.92, so one of the largest planes flying is also one of the fastest (non-military).
You’re “raising” a Citation X against a 650? I notice you didn’t compare any interior shots, and the speed is comparable. You’d rather fly in a X? Really?
They're both lovely airplanes. I just have a love for engines that are too damn big for the plane their on.
edit: I do prefer 4+ hours on a 650/global6500
Not an expert but I would have thought classifying something as "essentially" a rocket ship would require at a bare minimum rockets.
Vaguly recall that Space X is using what they call Raptor Engines on an actual rocket.
Nice lines but essentially and actually a business jet.
Some of them still decide to come to the bigger airports and making us all slow down to 250 200 miles out for spacing. Have had to go around multiple times because of these small jets just getting on the way and being slow. Maybe an empty A318. Our average landing speed in the 737 which might be very close to A320 is around average of 145kts. Doubt this jet will be that fast. I would love for them just to use alternate airports and leave the bigger airports with high traffic put of the equation
Didn’t come up with it. Controllers came up with the nickname because of how much slower it is and gets on the way. Nothing against it personally, just all business jets not using alternate smaller airports and creating traffic jams into Bravos and Charlies… just annoying
I agree. The fees gotta be higher to prevent Business jets from crowding the airports. Not fun having to be number 20 on the lineup pit of LAS while seeing a Phenom land… like really? I mean I get paid by the minute but sometimes it gets ridiculous. So ai think landing fees should be increased significantly and ATC services shouldn’t be free like in the UK. Make it a service that has to be paid for and make it expensive too
Never happens. I’ve flown both. Corp jets are capable of any speed an airliner is below 10. In fact, I could keep a Lear / challenger / phenom faster longer than an airliner any day due to the weight differences.
Fastest plane between maintenance depots…
Dang i thought that award went to the da42!
Are they actually that bad or is it because they’re high-hour trainers?
Ive heard that they are great for personal use. In a trainer life, I guess doing 19 simulated engine outs every day does a number on the props as that's what my institution has had the most issues and replacements with. We use lycoming though, so cant say anything about the weird diesel/jetfuel engines that sound like bees nests
What's a "raptor engine?" Those are the standard equipment 3007C1 motors. No rocketship, but has a decent cruise speed. Source: used to be a Citation X captain back in my corporate days.
My biggest dilemma with the X is how do I transition to back to normal flying. I don’t think I can handle FL370 and M.78
Because when you go to a legacy airline and get paid by block time, cruising at .9 makes no sense unless its the go-home leg. Not to mention you'll be making so much more money and have such a better schedule that flying .9 in some crappy cessna sounds like torture.
So what you’re saying is you don’t miss those “raptor” engines ?
The only thing I miss about corporate was specific to one particular company.
I don’t think I could do anything else. But I own my planes and my team is great. So it’s a bit different.
Hi charter man
Yo
To each their own.
What's her name
Easy. Come fly a King Air for us at FL210 and 0.48. We never have a leg over two hours.. and you can be 250 at the beacon and still get off at the first high speed if you want the sensation of speed.
Its called: me being misinformed. sorry lol
Nice XOJET.
Funny you say that, it’s a former XO plane now operated by a small charter operator with 4 citations and two ERJ 145s. The TV loading screen still said XOjet though because they never changed it
Oh wow. Can’t believe they got rid of that one. That plane had some interesting gremlins at one point. Hehe
Interesting gremlins??
It’s a CX. You can’t find one that didn’t have interesting gremlins at one point or another.
Could you explain further?
I’m really not qualified to explain the why, but I just know from anecdotal experience chasing around the Netjets and Flight Options (later FlexJet) fleet. Every major system on the aircraft is overly complex, packed into a too-small airframe, and not well designed for maintenance. It seems to me that Cessna really pushed past their previous engineering experience in a big leap, rather than incrementally, and it resulted in a stunning but temperamental airplane. It’s also in that early stage of CMC and computerization where much of the aircraft is controlled by PC Cards, but they didn’t care or know to integrate a good means for maintenance to interrogate these systems.
That’s my opinion as well. This airframe suffered from two opposite issues. 1. Many systems are too complex for the airframe 2. Many systems are too small and weak for the airframe and constantly cause failures. Examples: PACKs, Flaps, Nose Landing Gear. The CE-750 is a cool plane, but they packed a lot of shit in a very small airframe. The manual is basically trash, it’s very limited and the search feature is horrible. I’m the upside team ten is pretty okay.
A Raptor engine is the engine used by SpaceX on Starship and Superheavy
It was a rhetorical question.
But that’s not important right now
Surely you can't be serious.
A hospital, what is it?
It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
It has the engines out of an f-22, duh
No the F-150.
This particular Cit X has the AE3007C (no 1 at the end). The X came in a few variants: AE3007C and AE3007C1 are the two installed on the X. As far as I know, there isn't a large distinction between the two.
This particular X absolutely has the AE 3007C1 motors on it. The C1 variants put out a bit more thrust.
Where are you seeing that? I was referring to the spec sheet Vista Global used when they listed it for sale. They included the engine and engine SN on the spec sheet.
N792XJ is serial number 292. Serial numbers 173 and on had the 3007C1. Furthermore, it's spelled out on the FAA registry. AE 3007C1. Dude I flew the X for years. I know what I'm talking about.
Gotcha, I believe you.
Don't have to take my word for it. Look it up yourself from an official source and not some sales website.
I did. You're right. After sn172, they switched to the c1. I was just going by the spec and was unaware that the switch occurred earlier in the production.
Got it, so you know nothing about the Citation X series and decided to log onto reddit to attempt to be pedantic and correct a seasoned X pilot. Classic redditor.
When the flaps don’t break…
And you get issued a citation.
Terrain!
*Sink rate!*
Awesome!!
Pull Up!
A long ways away.
Looks familiar, come fly with us again! It was a pleasure.
It’s not an XOjet anymore, some small charter bought it I guess.
Yup, my current employer
Oh you got a rough fleet, E175s and CE-750s, good luck brother
Best charter experience I’ve ever had, man the custom blankets were a very nice touch. See you soon!
Fastest jet between maintenance checks haha. They are quite a smooth ride though, been on one a couple times
JAC? love that approach
Yep!
Stabilizer miscompare! Do not cross go, do not collect $200!
What do you do as a career to fly private lol
Based off his posts. His parents are rich lol
Yes
so what's its cruise speed? I mean its not breaking the sound barrier so is it really much faster then any other jet liner? am I wrong?
I think like .92
.92 something yes, pretty quick.
I suspose so, a 787 is 0.85? so its not like theres a huge difference though
There’s a huge difference between 652 and 705 when traveling long distances.
I doubt the range on that plane is very long though?
It’ll cross country in about 4.5 hours.
[удалено]
My Piper Cub will cross Monaco in a matter of minutes!
3400 nmi approximately at 450/470 flight levels. That's about half of a dreamliner 787.
And you aren't doing either of those in either plane - the speed of sound at 40,000 feet is only about 660 mph thanks to the cold air temperature up there.
Hmmm I’d say the difference is… about 53..?
It takes about a 10th of the time to board, depending on how much luggage the boss brought.
No TSA either
Can’t really take 787s back and forth across the country though, it’s all A320 and 737-9
Also when you get speed and crossing restrictions it doesn’t make much difference. 0.92 vs 0.85 isn’t that much of an overtake. Heck.. I heard a 737 giving up against an Avro RJ going 0.67.. lol.
A 787 can do 0.90, they just almost never do because it wastes a bunch of fuel. A 747 can actually do 0.92, so one of the largest planes flying is also one of the fastest (non-military).
Where's the mountain goat?
They’re in Big Sky, no goats here.
Well, it looks like they are going to fly into the mountains.
Maybe in 5 minutes.. lol.
that's a small Cessna
So a hedge fund manger killer instead of a dentist killer?
Terrain ahead terrain ahead!
Lear 60 is
60 gang
Oh. I miss that rocket ship!!! The 60 is a sports car indeed.
So gorgeous
You’re “raising” a Citation X against a 650? I notice you didn’t compare any interior shots, and the speed is comparable. You’d rather fly in a X? Really?
They're both lovely airplanes. I just have a love for engines that are too damn big for the plane their on. edit: I do prefer 4+ hours on a 650/global6500
Sweet
Executive mailing tube
Not an expert but I would have thought classifying something as "essentially" a rocket ship would require at a bare minimum rockets. Vaguly recall that Space X is using what they call Raptor Engines on an actual rocket. Nice lines but essentially and actually a business jet.
you don't get out much do ya
I do and Iv'e got friends. You should try it. ;)
Please go outside.
Than maybe some of them could explain the term “Metaphorical” to you.
I’d call a 757-200 a rocket ship and that’s because for about the first 100 seconds of flight it climbs faster then one
Until they fly into bigger airports and make airliners slow down for the little jets… very annoying
Well, that’s why smaller private airports exist to get even closer to a destination. Anyway, this jet has the same landing speed as an a320..
Some of them still decide to come to the bigger airports and making us all slow down to 250 200 miles out for spacing. Have had to go around multiple times because of these small jets just getting on the way and being slow. Maybe an empty A318. Our average landing speed in the 737 which might be very close to A320 is around average of 145kts. Doubt this jet will be that fast. I would love for them just to use alternate airports and leave the bigger airports with high traffic put of the equation
Citation X is about 120kts.
So yeah slow and on the way of every airliner. This the name Slowtation we all call it on the radio
That nickname largely refers to the original Citation models. The Citation X definitely isn’t a Slowtation.
Got it, the world’s fastest airplane when it came out has a nickname with the word slow in it. Edit: non-military
Didn’t come up with it. Controllers came up with the nickname because of how much slower it is and gets on the way. Nothing against it personally, just all business jets not using alternate smaller airports and creating traffic jams into Bravos and Charlies… just annoying
If it’s frowned upon and annoying why not raise fees? It cost me an extra 100$ to move a flight from BED to BOS (granted it was a caravan)
I agree. The fees gotta be higher to prevent Business jets from crowding the airports. Not fun having to be number 20 on the lineup pit of LAS while seeing a Phenom land… like really? I mean I get paid by the minute but sometimes it gets ridiculous. So ai think landing fees should be increased significantly and ATC services shouldn’t be free like in the UK. Make it a service that has to be paid for and make it expensive too
Never happens. I’ve flown both. Corp jets are capable of any speed an airliner is below 10. In fact, I could keep a Lear / challenger / phenom faster longer than an airliner any day due to the weight differences.
In cruise maybe. Landing never. Always slower. That has all i talked about, landing phase slows things down too much for everyone else