Cessna Citation Bravo

© 1997, THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANALYSIS Step into the cockpit of the Citation Bravo and, at first, you’re likely to think you’re in an Ultra. No wonder. The Honeywell Primus 1000 system has the same three, eight-by-seven-inch display tubes and the familiar lay- out. A closer look reveals that AlliedSignal CNI 5000 SilverCrown panel- mount radios are installed in place of the Ultra’s remote-mount CNI radios. There is a single AlliedSignal GNS-Xls in the console. The package is as integrated as the one in the Ultra, even though it’s based on the same hub-and-spoke avionics architecture, which has an IC- 600 integrated avionics computer at the center. The CNI 5000 radios aren’t connected to the GNS-Xls, thus the FMS is limited to GPS naviga- tion only. It cannot use the CNI 500 radios for VOR/DME navigation in lieu of GPS and it cannot channelize the nav receivers for VOR, ILS or localizer approaches. In addition, the GNS-Xls essentially is a lateral navi- gator. There is no coupled VNAV function. Cessna officials say they have no plans to offer the Universal UNS-1K as an option. However, insiders told B/CA that such a plan is in the works. Other features of the avionics system include a Primus 650 weather radar, dual digital air data computers, dual flight directors and a single three-axis autopilot. Popular options include the AlliedSignal Flitefone VI, TCAS II, 117-VAC, 60-Hz cabin power outlets, cabin entertainment sys- tem and a Primus 870 Doppler turbulence detection weather radar. BRAVO AVIONICS CITATION BRAVO OPERATING COSTS Fixed Expense (Annual): Crew + Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . .$110,607 Hangar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34,728 Insurance—Hull (30%) . . . . . . . . . .13,650 Insurance—Admitted Liability . . . . . .2,250 Insurance—Liability . . . . . . . . . . . .14,000 Recurrent Training . . . . . . . . . . . . .11,150 Navigation Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,338 Updates/Uninsured Damage . . . . . .18,800 Refurbishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27,440 Computerized Maintenance . . . . . . .1,500 Weather Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,000 Total Fixed Expense . . . . . . . . . . .$238,463 Direct Expense (Hourly): Fuel (@ $2.02 per Gallon) . . . . . .$265.20 Maintenance—Labor . . . . . . . . . . . .72.80 Maintenance—Parts . . . . . . . . . . . .73.18 Engine Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132.30 Thrust Reverser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.00 APU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.00 Landing/Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.29 Crew Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135.00 Catering/Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.15 Total Direct Expense . . . . . . . . . . . .$723.92 Source: Conklin & de Decker Associates, Inc., Orleans, Mass. Cessna greater fuel efficiency of the engines more than makes up the difference. Jet pumps in the fuel tanks normal- ly supply fuel to the engines. Electric boost pumps provide fuel pressure for engine start, cross feed and in the event of a jet pump failure. The Bravo is refueled through conventional, over wing ports. The engines have 28-VDC starter- generators that are the main source of electrical power. These are fitted with new long-life brushes that also greatly extend armature life. Two 250-VA in- verters supply AC power for the VHF nav receiver and gyro analog inter- faces to the flight guidance system. A 24-volt NiCad battery provides power for engine starting and acts as an emergency power source. It’s rated at 44 amp/hours compared to the 39 amp/hour battery installed in the Cita- tion II. The Bravo’s open-center, on-demand hydraulic system is virtually identical to that of its predecessor. It powers the landing gear, speed brakes and thrust reversers. A separate, electrically pow- ered hydraulic system provides power for the anti-skid wheel brakes. A pneu- matic bottle provides emergency power for landing gear extension and wheel braking. The pressurization has been bumped up 0.2 psi to 8.9 psi to provide an 8,000-foot maximum cabin altitude at FL 450. A digital pressurization con- troller turns cabin altitude manage- ment into a no-brainer. Set the landing airport pressure altitude prior to takeoff and the controller, in con- cert with the Honeywell digital air data computers, does the rest. An air cycle machine in the tail cone provides air conditioning, but a vapor- cycle air conditioner is available as a 91-pound, $36,625 option. Based on previous Citation experience, we rec- ommend the vapor-cycle air condition- ing option for anyone who routinely operates from warm airports, especial- ly in areas of high humidity. Ice and rain protection remain unchanged. Bleed air is used for engine and windshield anti-ice, and windshield rain removal. The air data and angle of probes, along with the inboard sections of the wing leading edge, are electrically heated. The out- board sections of the wing and the empennage are de-iced by pneumatic boots. FLYING THE BRAVO Straight-wing Citations are among the easiest aircraft to fly, and the Bravo is no exception. Preflight chores are easi- er than they are with the Citation II because of the aforementioned system improvements. However, the Bravo still doesn’t have an oxygen pressure gauge near the filler port in the nose baggage compartment, thus requiring the crew to check the one in the cock- pit during preflight or servicing. The Bravo has forward and aft unpressurized and unheated external baggage compartments. The 17.6- cubic-foot nose compartment holds 350 pounds, but it’s better to load the aircraft from rear to front to optimize the center of gravity. The 28.2-cubic- foot aft compartment holds 500 pounds. The optional, factory-installed ski tube is installed in the aft compart- ment of the demonstrator aircraft. The demonstrator has seven seats in the main cabin: a center club section of four seats, two forward-facing seats in front of the lavatory, plus one aft- facing seat behind the copilot. A refreshment center is installed aft of the pilot and forward of the cabin door. If an eighth seat is needed, the potty seat is certificated for occupancy dur- ing all phases of flight. There is 27.7 cubic feet of baggage volume in the aft lavatory, providing space for carryon items and coats. The demonstrator has a 9,342- pound BOW. Options—such as vapor- cycle air conditioning, an HF radio, FROM JULY 1997 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL AVIATION. © 1997, THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Pratt & Whitney Canada’s PW530A may be an evolutionary engine, but the performance numbers indicate how far light-turbofan engine technolo- gy has come in three decades. The PW530A, rated for takeoff at 2,887 pounds to 79°F (26°C), is the first application for the 3,000- to 4,500- pound-thrust PW500 engine family that is being developed with the Bavarian firm Motoren-und-Turbin Union, which is a 25-percent partner. The PW530A features a one-piece, integrally bladed fan wheel driven by a two-stage, uncooled low-pressure turbine. The high-pressure compressor has two axial stages and one centrifugal stage, thereby helping to achieve a 16-percent higher pressure ratio than the JT15D-4. The engine also has a 3.23 bypass ratio versus 2.62 for the JT15D-4, in part because it doesn’t have a supercharger stage driven by the low-pressure spool. Those are two prime reasons why the new engine has 13 percent better specific fuel con- sumption at altitude. The PW530A chalks up a 0.768 lb/lb/hr SFC score at the industry standard, 40,000 feet, 0.80 Mach (installed) benchmark. That’s the best of any engine in the PW500 family. The higher pressure ratio and improved fan, along with a deep fluted mixer nozzle, also mean that up to 23-percent more thrust is available for high-altitude cruise. That’s apparent when you see 405 KTAS on the EFIS display. The more-robust core and more-efficient fan also improve hot- and-high takeoff performance compared to the JT15D-4. Cessna opted for a conventional hydromechanical fuel control to help keep the cost down, but other PW500 configurations will be fitted with supervisory digital electronic engine controls. BRAVO’S PW530A ENGINES Pratt & Whitney Canada TCAS II, an air-to-ground radio-tele- phone, and various cabin amenities— added 521 pounds to the Bravo’s BOW as listed in the 1997 Planning & Pur- chasing Handbook. With 2,900 pounds of fuel, our ramp weight was 12,242 pounds. Based on a 12,000-pound takeoff weight, we set the airspeed bugs at 97 KIAS for the V 1 takeoff decision speed, 102 KIAS for rotation and 114 KIAS for the V2 one-engine-inoperative takeoff safety speed. The takeoff field length was 2,940 feet. The Citation AFM is easy to use because the numbers are in tables. There are no split-hair, fine- line graphs to plot, thus eliminating a frequent source of errors. The cockpit layout is familiar to any- one who has flown a straight-wing Citation. It’s even less cluttered than the original Citation II because of the Bravo’s large-format displays and panel-mount radios. In our opinion, FROM JULY 1997 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL AVIATION. © 1997, THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANALYSIS 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Range (nm) Gross Takeoff Weight (lbs) Balanced Field Length (ft) SL ISA 5,000 ft ISA+20°C Fuel Burn (lbs) Time (hrs) 1,132 1 1,884 2 2,635 3 3,386 4 3,554 4+16 RANGE/PAYLOAD PROFILE 3,600 5,520 14,800 3,480 5,270 14,500 3,310 4,880 14,000 3,150 4,510 13,500 3,000 4,180 13,000 2,860 3,890 12,500 2,720 3,630 12,000 2,600 3,400 11,500 Conditions: High-speed cruise, NBAA IFR reserves (200-nm alternate), zero wind, ISA Max Payload 1,500-lb Payload 1,000-lb Payload 500-lb Payload Zero Payload 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 300 325 350 375 400 425 FL 330 FL 350 FL 370 FL 390 FL 410 FL 430 Specific Range (nm/lb) SPECIFIC RANGE Speed (KTAS) Conditions: 12,000 lb, zero wind, ISA TIME AND FUEL VERSUS DISTANCE Time (hrs) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Distance (nm) 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Conditions: 800-lb payload, NBAA IFR reserves (200-nm alternate), zero wind, ISA High-Speed Cruise Long-Range Cruise 310 nm 1,132 lb 300 nm 1,089 lb 642 nm 1,735 lb 983 nm 2,365 lb 1,321 nm 2,973 lb 1,646 nm 3,549 lb 674 nm 1,884 lb 1,042 nm 2,635 lb 1,415 nm 3,386 lb 1,507nm 3,554 lb CESSNA CITATION BRAVO These three graphs are designed to be used together to provide a broad view of Citation Bravo performance. Do not use these for flight planning. For a complete operational performance analysis, consult the flight plan- ning and cruise performance manuals, as well as the FAA-approved flight manual. Time and Fuel Versus Distance—This graph shows two mission plots. The upper line rep- resents high-speed cruise and the lower line represents long-range cruise. The numbers at the hour lines indicate cumulative miles and fuel burned for those two cruise profiles. The intermediate points only are accurate for the full trip. They can, however, provide a rough approximation of the time and fuel required for trips of intermediate length. These data exceed Cessna’s original performance predic- tions for the Bravo. The chart assumes a four- passenger, 800-pound payload. Specific Range—The specific range of the Citation Bravo, the ratio of nautical miles flown to pounds of fuel burned (nm/lb), is a measure of its fuel efficiency. This graph shows specific range values at several alti- tudes at a mid-range, 12,000-pound cruise weight. These data illustrate that the Bravo’s fuel efficiency improves markedly at its high- est cruise altitudes and that its specific range performance falls off sharply above 350 to 360 knots. Range/Payload Profile—The purpose of this graph is to provide rough simulations of trips under a variety of payload and airport density- altitude conditions, with the goal of flying the longest distance at high-speed cruise. The payload lines, which are intended for gross simulation purposes only, are each generated from several points. Time and fuel burns, shown at the top of the chart, are plotted only for a four-passenger, 800-pound payload mission. Note: The takeoff distances are longer than those we published in the 1997 Planning & Purchasing Handbook because of the recent 500-pound increase in MTOW. The original MTOW was 14,300 pounds. Now, it is 14,800 pounds, providing substantially Data Source: Cessna it’s a near-perfect model of human-centered design. If you opt to earn single-pilot certification in the Bravo, it should be a lot less challeng- ing than checking out in a competitive turboprop. Start procedures are sim- ple. Press a start button on the engine start panel, wait for eight- to 10-percent N2 turbine rpm and advance the thrust lever into the idle detent. Repeat the process for the second engine, turn on the inverters, complete a few after-start checks and you’re ready to taxi. The Bravo’s rudder pedal controlled, bungee actuated, nosewheel steering is fine for taxiway use. However, maneuvering in close quar- ters requires using a little dif- ferential brake and thrust, similar to other straight-wing Citations. At ground idle, the PW530A engines produce enough thrust to require frequent use of the wheel brakes. Pilots may want to consider deploy- ing one thrust reverser dur- ing prolonged taxi runs to avoid riding the brakes. The Bravo has brisker acceleration during the take- off roll than the Citation II because of its improved thrust-to-weight ratio, but not enough to alarm the pas- sengers. What they will notice is its rapid climb rate and ability to top clouds and turbulence. Departing at a relatively light 12,000 pounds, we lev- eled off at FL 430 in 23 minutes, with a fuel burn of 400 pounds in the climb. (FL 450 is the aircraft’s maximum cer- tificated altitude and it’s usable at typ- ical operating weights.) At a weight of 11,600 pounds, the Bravo settled into a 370 KTAS cruise on 730 pph at FL 430 in ISA+5°C con- ditions. That’s about two percent bet- ter specific range than Cessna predicts for the Bravo. At FL 330 in ISA+5°C conditions, the Bravo, at a weight of 11,000 pounds, nudged MMO at a speed of 405 KTAS. The book predicted a fuel flow of 1,208 pph. The actual fuel flow was 1,110 pph. Subjectively, the Bravo’s passenger cabin seemed quieter than the Cita- tion II, but we did not measure interi- or sound levels. At high cruise speeds, the wind noise rush is more prominent than the low drone of the engine fans. The Bravo, similar to the Citation II, has excellent high- and low-speed sta- bility characteristics. Stalls are gentle, accompanied by moderate wing roll off, if you press the aircraft to the stall break. The aerodynamic pre-stall buf- fet and stick shaker provide such unmistakable warnings of the impend- ing stall that if stall recovery is initiat- ed promptly, there is virtually no altitude loss. Flap and landing gear configuration changes produce generous pitching moments. Passengers will appreciate your slowing the aircraft well below the maximum extension speeds prior to making configuration changes. In addition, flap movement fol- lows the movement of the flap lever. Moving the flap lever very slowly cause the flaps to reposition at the same rate, thereby easing the pitching moment and accom- panying pitch trim change. The Bravo requires more rudder pedal pressure during simulated one-engine-inoper- ative maneuvers than the Citation II because of its improved thrust-to-weight ratio and nearly identical air- frame. The upside is substan- tially better one-engine-inop- erative climb performance, especially when operating out of hot-and-high airports. The trailing-link landing gear cushion the touchdown and make for a more com- fortable ride over bumpy taxiways. In our opinion, however, pilots will still need to flare close to the runway and fly with finesse in order to achieve consistently smooth landings. Brickbats? The AlliedSig- nal GNS-Xls essentially is a limited function, lateral navi- gator. There is no coupled vertical navigation capability and it’s not capable of provid- ing guidance for all ARINC 424 procedures. We’d prefer having a 3-D nav, GlobalStar 2100 or a Universal UNS-1K system offered as an option. In addition, the GNS-Xls has no interface to the AlliedSignal CNI 5000 VHF nav and DME boxes for rho-theta navigation. As installed in the Bravo, it’s a GPS-only nav system. The Honeywell Primus 1000 system has a ram-air temperature readout on the EFIS, but no static air tempera- ture display. If you need OAT or SAT, you have to use a ram rise conversion chart contained in the AFM. PRICE AND PERFORMANCE Escalate the 1992 price of the Citation II for five years of inflation and you’ll find that, dollar-for-dollar, the Bravo is a close match to its predecessor. The Bravo’s climb, cruise and altitude per- formance, however, is in a much high- er league. Even more impressively, with its recent 500-pound weight increase, the Bravo has substantially FROM JULY 1997 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL AVIATION. © 1997, THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 52.2' (15.9 m) 19.0' (5.8 m) CESSNA CITATION BRAVO 15.0' (4.6 m) 47.2' (14.4 m) Source: Cessna better range/payload flexibility than the Citation II, especially when operat- ing from hot-and-high airports. The Bravo, as shown by the Com- parison Profile ® , is competitive in most areas with other aircraft in its class, including time to climb and speed on typical business trips. How- ever, its comparatively high max pay- load, weight-efficient structure and range with max payload make it a standout in the light jet class. When measured against the price index line of the Comparison Profile®, the Bravo has a clear advantage com- pared to the light-jet class average. Only the CitationJet is priced lower. This is a tribute to Cessna’s design-to- cost discipline for the Bravo. Considering the Bravo’s cabin dimensions, it’s also a head-to-head competitor with the Raytheon King Air 200. Competitive turboprops maintain their long-time edge in fuel economy, but the Bravo’s overall oper- ating costs should rival those of the bestselling turboprop. However, the Bravo’s acquisition cost is still about 20 percent higher than the King Air 200. The 550-series aircraft have been Cessna’s bestselling Citations. More than 850 units have been sold. They’ve racked up more than 3.9-mil- lion flight hours. The Comparison Pro- file® makes a compelling case for the Bravo’s potential to increase that trend. According to a top management source, Cessna had sold 55 Bravos as of May, representing an 18-month backlog of orders. In spite of its modest early sales figures, though, the price versus per- formance numbers in the Comparison Profile® are clear and convincing. The Bravo is a class winner. We expect it to widen its lead in the coming years. n By Fred George FROM JULY 1997 BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL AVIATION. © 1997, THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANALYSIS ® B/CA COMPARISON PROFILE (% Relative to Average) Below Average Average Above Average 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 Price Index DOC Index Pressure Differential 8.9/3 Cabin Length 15.7/3 Cabin Height 4.7/2 Cabin Width 4.8/3 Max Payload 2,677/1 Fuel (Max Payload) 4,000/2 Ratio--Max Payload: BOW 0.30/1 Ratio--Useful Load: BOW 0.70/1 Ratio--Landing Weight: MTOW 0.91/5 TOFL (SL, ISA) 3,600/4 TOFL (5,000 ft, ISA+20°C) 5,520/2 Time to FL 370 19/4 Max Certificated Altitude 45,000/2 Service Ceiling 45,000/2 TOFL (1,000-nm Mission) 3,091/4 Time (1,000-nm Mission) 2+48/4 Block Fuel (1,000-nm Mission) 2,449/2 TAS (High-Speed Cruise) 402/4 TAS (Long-Range Cruise) 336/4 Specific Range (High-Speed Cruise) 0.352/4 Specific Range (Long-Range Cruise) 0.556/2 Range (Max Payload) 891/1 Range (Max Fuel) 1,500/2 Tradeoffs are a reality of aircraft design, although aeronautical engineers attempt to give each model exceptional capabilities in all areas at an affordable price. The laws of physics, however, do not allow one aircraft model to do all missions with equal efficiency. B/CA compares the subject aircraft’s performance and characteristics to the composite traits of the aircraft in its class. We do this to evaluate the strengths and compromises of the subject aircraft. We average parameters of interest for the aircraft that are likely to be considered as com- petitive with the subject of our analysis, and then compute the percent differences between the parameters of the subject aircraft and the composite numbers of the competitive group as a whole. The percent differences are presented in bar-graph form. We also include the absolute value of the parameter under consideration, along with its rank with respect to the composite. For this Comparison Profile®, we present selected parameters of the Cessna Citation Bravo in relation to a composite group consisting of the Citation Ultra, CitationJet, Learjet 31A and Raytheon Beechjet 400A. The Comparison Profile® is meant to illustrate the relative strengths and compromises of the subject aircraft; it is not a means of comparing specific aircraft to each other. Source: 1997 Planning & Purchasing Handbook CITATION BRAVO SPECIFICATIONS B/CA Equipped Price $4,550,000 Characteristics Wing Loading 44.3 Power Loading 2.56 Noise (EPNdB) 73.2/90.7 Seating 2 + 7/11 Dimensions (ft/m) External See Three Views Internal Length 15.7/4.8 Height 4.7/1.4 Width 4.8/1.5 Power Engine 2 P&WC PW530A Output 2,887 lb ea. TBO 4,000 hrs Weights (lb/kg) Max Ramp 15,000/6,804 Max Takeoff 14,800/6,713 Max Landing 13,500/6,124 ZFW 11,300/5,126 BOW 8,823/4,002 Max Payload 2,477/1,124 Useful Load 6,177/2,802 Executive Payload 1,400/635 Max Fuel 4,824/2,188 Payload—Max Fuel 1,353/614 Fuel—Max Payload 3,700/1,678 Fuel—Exec. Payload 4,777/2,167 Limits MMO 0.700 FL/VMO FL 279/275 VFE (app.) 200 PSI 8.9 Climb Time to FL 370 19 min FAR Part 25 OEI Rate (fpm/mpm) 998/304 FAR Part 25 OEI Gradient (fpm/mpm) 468/89 Ceilings (ft/m) Certificated 45,000/13,716 All-Engine Service 45,000/13,716 Engine-Out Service 27,750/8,458 Sea-Level Cabin 23,586/7,189 Certification FAR Part 25, 1978/97