Cessna 501 or 551 Single pilot versions. What is involved?

A few years ago, I happened to be sitting at a big UK bizjet maintenance company. The N-reg jet in question had a defective instrument in the panel and a replacement was sourced but it came with an EASA-1 form, not an 8130-3. The mechanic was adamant they cannot install it. I was just a bystander (wasn’t my plane though I was going to fly RHS in it) and I told him the FAA accepts EASA-1 like an 8130-3 but he was having none of it, and a few thousand quid was wasted via more hassle all around.

Just because a mechanic works on upmarket hardware, doesn’t mean he knows anything special.

I used to know of an operation in the UK, where they had their own private hangar with some jets in it, and an A&P/IA who practically lived in the hangar, looking after these. That way, they got everything done exactly right, at the right price. They are probably still there…

You have to follow an inspection program, but not a maintenance program. This is not anything worse than any annual, it just sounds like it. Part 91 you do not have to comply with any overhaul items unless they’re A: and AD or B: part of the actual type certificate. This has been clarified by FAA. Inpections yes, that’s why hot sections need to be complied with, but since overhauls are considered maintenance, you don’t need to overhaul.

FAA clarification

I had exactly the same thing on my props last year. Service center wanted to send props off for overhaul as they’ve reached their 6-year limit. But when they overhaul them, they grind them down, reshape them, eliminating metal. This means they’ll be weaker and get thinner for each overhaul, making sure they’ll eventually fail the inspection. This is not a co-incidence, it’s all by design. We must never forget that the prop companies themselves set these overhaul rules and they have an interest in you buying new props. I said “no, it’s an SB, not an AD to overhaul them, I just want them inspected”. This threw service center into a kind of legal spin of resistance since they’re simply not used to part 91 owners that much – part 135 have to comply. Eventually they came back and said, “yes, you’re right”. No need to overhaul, just inspect. This is a different of about $15K in price and has the added benefit of actually making your blades last longer.

It’s very easy to get shafted in the aviation industry unless you know some of the fine print.

Peter wrote:

He’s probably operating them under Part 91, not on a maintenance programme, plus being based in the US makes it easier to find people who know them, etc. You have a much better “ecosystem” out there for “projects”.

I was recently told that on Jets you seem to have to follow the manufacturers maintenance program even on n-reg. I did investigate at bit what it would mean to operate an Eclipse jet and the bottom line was that the purchase of the airframe seemed to be the smallest issue. You have to follow the expensive maintenance program, you have very expensive parts, very expensive training, lots of paperwork for RVSM, NCC etc., higher fees due to the higher MTOW of typical jets. Then higher fuel burn and range problems as soon as you can not climb to FL400. As cool as it might be there seems to be a reason the TBM sells so well…

He’s probably operating them under Part 91, not on a maintenance programme, plus being based in the US makes it easier to find people who know them, etc. You have a much better “ecosystem” out there for “projects”.

There’s a guy over at the BeechTalk forum who does nothing but buy these old SP’s, fly them and sell them. And I gotta say, if you can live with the fuel burn of the JT15D’s, they sure offer a lot of bang for the buck. Not only that, they’re simple machines, well built and don’t break much. “Stupid simple to work on”, as he says. And there are literally tons of parts available, cheaply. Engines too. Run them over TBO, change them for one with some more time when the time’s up. But you’re looking at 120gal/hr in fuel burn and 350kts, 1000nm range.

I’d honestly go for one myself, if I wasn’t tied up financially.

The 95K Citation 1 has run out engines. Budget $500k each for overhaul.

So its over a million really. For that money there are more modern options.

The catch is probably the „no free lunch“ and „you get what you pay for“ rule. Sure, small variations in price are legit, but a nice jet is somewhere in the 1-3 mil range.

So, a 95k airplane will require another few hundred k to become the equivalent of those other „lower priced“ jets the market has on offer.

Maybe in some shady jurisdiction somewhere you can fly a run down jet for the price of fuel and never fix anything :)

Peter wrote:

Flapless, gear down, it may even do 3 degrees.

I somehow doubt, 3 degrees is 19:1 ratio. And that assumes still air, while the approach will normally be against the wind so you’d need an even better way. I think airlines have a glide ratio of about 15:1, with gear up.

The only approaches you might do that way (ILS with a handheld radio maybe? – Although I think they only do the LOC) are City EGLC, Lugano LSZA. At lugano even the DA40 will happily do the ILS with propeller windmiling.

JasonC wrote:

Do you have a separate BATT DISCONNECT switch? We have BATT DISCONNECT and INTERIOR DISCONNECT switches on pilot’s side panel.

Our 560 Encore has both switches installed as an option. The two 550 Bravos on our fleet don’t have them. They had probably not yet been “invented” then…