Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Citations - Why The Upright Vert Stabs?  
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 473 posts, RR: 4
Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6980 times:

Skip to the later, marked paragraph for the question if you don't want to read why I am asking the question, and my thoughts leading up to the question.



So, to briefly summarize Cessna's Citation line as it pertains to my question...Sorry to insult anybody's knowledge of the Citation line.
It started with small, straight-wing biz jets, and the line grew from there when Cessna developed the III, a swept wing jet to compete with other faster biz jets. Since then, the X has continued on the faster evolution fork while the straight-wing Citations have grown faster along the way. Now, the straight wing jets range from the small Mustang to the larger Sovereign, which really has a mildly swept wing, along with the new CJ4. The X, soon to be replaced by the TEN, is the swept wing flagship of the Citations.

So, now to the point...
The Sovereign became the flagship of the straight-wing Citation fleet when it was developed, although it has a new style of mildly swept wing. I do find the aircraft to be very impressive in almost every aspect, but I always thought it had a rather large, upright tail. Almost ungainly for its proportions.
http://www.cessna.com/MungoBlobs/716/493/cit_sov_flt11_1280x1024.jpg

But, I dismissed this from its heritage of straight-wing Citations and their upright tails. Surely there must have been some design or engineering advantage for this? It fits the aircraft though, and doesn't ruin the lines. Aesthetically, I'm not entirely happy because of the tail, but the Sovereign is an impressive performer, so I can look past that. Although, the CJ's with their straight wings still have highly swept tails. Why is this?

So, fast-forward a decade+ to the launch of the Citation Latitude, a step above the Excel+. lt is proposed to have a wider cabin than the Excel/Sovereign/X with the mildly swept wing using Sovereign/CJ4 technology. It also appears to have the same ungainly tail as the Sovereign, but it doesn't seem to aesthetically work as well on the Latitude, imho.

http://www.bartintl.com/sites/default/files/headlines/006_1.jpg

So now, Cessna has announced their newest project, the Longitude. (What's up with those names too?) Longitude should be a true mid-sized biz jet with a cabin the size of larger mid-sized biz jets such the Falcon 2000, G280, Challenger 300, etc....marginally Citation X competitors simply because of the X's higher operating costs compared to similar sized aircraft (a by-product of its performance, I suppose). So, the Longitude seems to be a resurrection of the canceled Columbus project from years ago. The specs look promising....good price tag, proposed operating costs, and performance. But the computer renditions look ungainly....like a hodgepodge of Latutude with a new wing and a T-tail. Almost clumsy. The cabin space looks tiny in comparison to the total fuselage length, indicating wasted space.

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonline.com/files/uploads/citation_longitude_003web_0.jpg

It just doesn't really look right. The usable cabin appears to end around the wing's mid-chord at the route, factoring in the portion aft of window line, which I presume would be used for lav space and in-flight accessible baggage space. But, the Challenger 300, for example, also has a 2-zone cabin of similar length and width, with both a lav and in-flight accessible baggage area. But, it doesn't look nearly as awkward. I realize that appearance is from from anything, especially in aviation, where form must follow function to a drastic degree. But the Longitude just doesn't look right. Tiny winglets on a swept wing...would larger winglets be better? It seems to me like if somebody were to enlarge a Toyota Camry to Mercedes S-Class proportions and market it against the Mercedes E-Class. But, the vertical stab is still the primary issue here...

------------> The Longitude's computer renditions show another thick, upright tail that appears to be a T-tail adaptation of the Sovereign/Latitude tail. What is the benefit of such a large, upright tail for a jet with tail-mounted engines? Almost every other swept wing business jet seems to have a smaller, more swept tail in proportion to the aircraft. Although it could lower Vmcg and Vmca for certification, the CJ's have all gotten away with industry leading field performance with highly swept, although large, tails. Would higher sweep lead to higher weight? If so, does that offset the costs of burning fuel from having a higher drag tail? Maybe Cessna engineers have their aerodynamics down now, and the trend of the future is that what flies well doesn't always look good? I just wonder why this aircraft couldn't be a bit more compact while achieving the same, if not better specs, and look better doing so.

That said, the Hawker 4000 also seems to have a large vertical stab, but it's more highly swept, and looks better...
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/hawker/4000/assets/images/global/gallery/hawker_4000-04-1024.jpg

As a side-note, I've heard rumors that in Hawker-Beechcraft's recent bankruptcy, Cessna has bought the Hawker 4000 design. Any truth to that? Being a competitor to the "Longitude", would Cessna rather develop the Hawker 4000 since it's still a relatively recent design? And when will the Hawker 4000 benefit from blended winglets?

Okay, so many sidetracks....my main question: Why has Cessna adopted such a large, upright vertical stab for even its future swept-wing, large midsize cabin flagship? What are the benefits of such a tail compared to a more swept tail? Does it really need all of this tail area? Why not just a slightly smaller, more swept tail with a larger rudder surface?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2434 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6511 times:

Also on the prop side with the 172 Skyhawk design, Cessna changed from the upright vertical fin to the more swept vertical tail, for asthetic purposes and to make the plane look faster.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tóth Gergely
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Unsworth - WorldAirImages




Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 473 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6427 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 1):
Also on the prop side with the 172 Skyhawk design, Cessna changed from the upright vertical fin to the more swept vertical tail, for asthetic purposes and to make the plane look faster.

Is this meant to be ironic? Don't take this offensively if you are being truthful, but Cessna is mixing it up now, apparently.... Swept to straight-tail. And I'm asking why.

Really, it's the same tail for the Latitude, Longitude, and Sovereign. What's the advantage? It just doesn't work for a Mach .80 optimized aircraft like the Longitude. I guess all 3 biz jets are in the same region of speed...within .10 Mach of each other....Since the extra 50kts don't matter for transcons or TATL's. And Cessna advertises a price of about $26 million, when you could buy a Challenger 300 or G280 for cheaper. I'd much rather have either of those or a Citation TEN.

And I would have added the Hawker 4000 in there too, but since the rumor is still that Cessna has bought the Hawker 4000 design (a composite biz jet, btw), maybe the Longitude is still damned yet. Just call the current Hawker 4000 an evolution and you are good.)

So, if the Cessna takeover rumors of Hawker/Beech are true, where does this put the Hawker 4000? Taken over by an inferior design? How would the Hawker 4000 design look with blended winglets? This is all the US biz model.

http://www.tayyareci.com/forsale/kod/2012hawker4000/kodtvB3.jpg

Mid $20 millions might make GIV/G450 operating costs, but this jet won't buy you anywhere near the package.



Really Cessna!? Use the Longitude to compete with this?

The biz jet market is well established in reputation and performance. It's larger cabin size vs performance at this point. I'm not quite sure that this is relevant at this point. Put up with a smaller cabin for pseudo-TATL, and then buy a larger used jet for the mission later. I'm thinking that the Hawker 4000 design is worth alot, especially since that segment is worth alot in sales.

Especially when sales pressures are rising with the Embraer Legacy 450 and 500...



[Edited 2012-05-22 01:32:18]

User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6403 times:

Can't comment on the stabilizer issue, since I'm not an aerodynamics expert (though it does puzzle me why the CJ3 vertical stabilizer is so swept on a straight wing airplane), but I'll have a go at some of these:

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 2):
And Cessna advertises a price of about $26 million, when you could buy a Challenger 300 or G280 for cheaper. I'd much rather have either of those or a Citation TEN.

Not a whole lot cheaper. And those don't have 4000nm mile range. The CL300 has about 3000nm, which is barely enough to do NYC-UK reliably both ways nonstop. The G280 has a couple hundred miles more, but it's still less than the Longitude. And as for the TEN, if you need speed then it's your plane, hands down (though you're only saving about a half hour, and that's over a 3000nm trip - a shorter trip means less time savings). But you'll pay for that in fuel consumption, which is going to become more and more important with rising fuel prices.

The super-mid-size field is getting interesting. The CL300 and G280 are pretty close (the G280 is better by virtue of being newer, but I'd suspect that Bombardier is working on an updated 300 to claw back at least some of that difference). Now there's the Falcon 2000s, which is bargaining that people will pay a bit extra for far more cabin room with the same performance (I suspect they will). And it would seem that Cessna is hoping that people will pay a bit extra for the same cabin room but with substantially more performance (4000nm is getting into the territory of the older Falcon 900s). I think there's plenty of market out there for that. As for what the Legacies will bring...remains to be seen.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 2):
Really Cessna!? Use the Longitude to compete with this?

It's competitive with the 450 from a performance standpoint - not quite as fast, about 400nm less range. But you can bet the fuel burn numbers will be better. It doesn't hold a candle to the G550 in terms of performance, of course, but it's also at least $8-10 million cheaper (and that's comparing a used G550 to a new Longitude).

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 2):
I'm thinking that the Hawker 4000 design is worth alot, especially since that segment is worth alot in sales.

Yet it hasn't sold well at all.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1527 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6291 times:

Those straight wing Citations climb like a chased monkey. Good second segment climb as well. They can depart under weights and conditions at mountainous airports (think ASE, EGE) that the swept aircraft can't.

I don't know what kind of climb perf the Ten will have, but the original X sucks at hot and high airports. During the summer at ASE we were either flying max economy or taking a fuel stop going to the East Coast every time. Put more than 1, maybe 2 pax in the aircraft and you're stopping shortly after takeoff for fuel. The 680s were able to go non stop.

Your question about the tail. The only reason I can think for single engine control ability at low speed. Same reason you only get 83-85% N1 on every Citation X takeoff.


User currently offlineaerodog From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6207 times:

In the 50's and 60's Richard Ten Eyck working as an contract stylist for Cessna, had a great deal of influence over appearence items on the piston line. The last time I visited the EAA museum in Oshkosh, they had an exhibit of Richard's renderings for things like control wheels and future paint stripes for the high wing singles.

Years ago I was told Cessna Engineering did not allow RTE any involvement in the jet designs. I guess the choice was good engineering or good styling and the engineers won out.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5983 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I think it's possible the variation in vertical stab sweep might have more to do with structural concerns and less to do with aerodynamics. Adjusting the sweep is one way...and perhaps one of the only ways...to shorten and lengthen the moment arm of the elevator.


Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2286 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 5774 times:

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 2):
Really Cessna!? Use the Longitude to compete with this?

G450's are Large Biz Jets, not exactly what the Longitude is going after. The G450 is more of a Falcon 2000/900, Legacy, and Challenger 605 competitor. The Longitude will take some of the lower of this segment as a super mid-size jet more along the lines of the Galaxy's, Hawker 4000, Falcon 2000 and CL30's. It also competes with the upper end of the Citation TEN, Sovereign, and the classic cheap to acquire jets like the older Challengers, GII/III/IV's, Falcon 50's etc.


I bet the engineer's have a good reason for the tail being such as it is. Single engine controllability as others have stated is my wag at what it is for. Im not one for "looks" (the CL30 is the sweet imho) but I think the tail looks fine. The airplane, likes its predecessor the X/TEN screams speed to me. People dont buy X's for spacious cabins. They buy 2000's and Challengers for that. They buy the X for speed and the Sovereign for mission capability.

atct



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 473 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Can't comment on the stabilizer issue, since I'm not an aerodynamics expert (though it does puzzle me why the CJ3 vertical stabilizer is so swept on a straight wing airplane), but I'll have a go at some of these:

This is very puzzling, but why not decrease drag anywhere possible? Seems like the tail is a good area to start...even the KingAir's have swept tails with their straight wing. Looks good, but I wonder what the engineering advantages are?

Quoting aerodog (Reply 5):
Years ago I was told Cessna Engineering did not allow RTE any involvement in the jet designs. I guess the choice was good engineering or good styling and the engineers won out.

Interesting insight. Form should always follow function, imho, but there seems to be a wonderful harmony that allows for a functional, beautiful design with room for minimal risk design cues that set an aircraft apart. Citations have always been beautiful in their own way, and even the new designs have tended to perform the original mission perfectly and expand greatly in efficiency, performance, and speed.

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Not a whole lot cheaper

After price checking, this is true. EBACE videos made it sound like more plane for the money than what it might turn out to be.

Quoting atct (Reply 7):
G450's are Large Biz Jets, not exactly what the Longitude is going after.

I completely agree. I was being sarcastic (if not too sarcastic...as usual) with my caption beneath the Gulfstream photo, partially in response to Cessna's ad's at EBACE claiming to be an alternative to the G450, which it still could be...just a bit of a step down. (And I can't/won't quote what I was going from there, but only the sentiment that I collected after watching EBACE coverage. After the Longitude's launch, I had to mock it, since it came as a disappointment to me after seeing the Columbus proposition.)

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
The CL300 has about 3000nm, which is barely enough to do NYC-UK reliably both ways nonstop. The G280 has a couple hundred miles more, but it's still less than the Longitude.

Yea, stopping in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland before hopping over to the UK or farther would be common under many conditions. Not quite reliably TATL aircraft.

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
As for what the Legacies will bring...remains to be seen.

Exactly. I'm expecting a CL30 performing aircraft, maybe with better economics via the newer design. But still just a solid US transcon platform with marginal TATL capabilities, once again via Canada/the Isles for TATL.

Quoting atct (Reply 7):
The airplane, likes its predecessor the X/TEN screams speed to me.

Not to me....the tiny, after-thought winglets, upright tail, and odd window-line seem awkward to me. Nowhere near the Citation X/TEN in looks. I do like the electric windshield heat though...the C750's (and most other Citations') eyelids aren't beautiful, but maybe more simple? Why not have electric windshield heat for the Citation TEN as a portion of the update?

I actually took the liberty to sculpt the TEN into an electrically heated windshield aircraft...In my opinion, this makes it the most beautiful biz jet. Why not electric windshield heat? Can't be that complex? Anyways, this is a copyrighted Cessna image, and I just shopped out the pneumatic blocks ("eyelids") beneath the L/R windshield to show how it would look with the same glass with an updated system.

This is not my photo. This is a Cessna image of the Citation TEN, copyrighted by Cessna. I just altered it.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7220/7276993072_23532c72cd_b_d.jpg

Better? Hopefully the eyelids weren't an integral part of this structure.


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 8):
EBACE videos made it sound like more plane for the money than what it might turn out to be.

Keep in mind that you have to look at what year the price you're looking at is from. A manufacturer might set a price at $25 million, but a few years later it'll be $30 million due to inflation, extra equipment/capability that's been added on in the meantime, etc.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 8):
Cessna's ad's at EBACE claiming to be an alternative to the G450, which it still could be...just a bit of a step down.

The thing about bizjets is that, unlike airliners, very few of them are used to their full capacity on a regular basis. It is rare to fill up a bizjet with passengers. It is also rare to use the max range of a bizjet (except for light jets). So while the G450 has an edge over the Longitude in both those categories, if you're an owner who looks at how often you actually will need those extra 500nm that the G450 gives you, and sees that it's maybe once or twice a year, you may be swayed by the Longitude's economics. There's a saying in private aviation: "buy the plane that does 90% of your missions, and charter the other 10%".

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 8):
I'm expecting a CL30 performing aircraft, maybe with better economics via the newer design

Embraer is marketing the Legacy 500 as slightly behind the CL30 in terms of performance, so I'd definitely expect the economics to be better.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 8):
Why not electric windshield heat?

Actually, the X does have electric windshields. The eyelids are there for rain removal air on the ground. It's not bleed air - it's actually air from the avonics cooling system. I guess they wanted wipers but didn't think they'd stand up to .92 airflow.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 473 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 6):
I think it's possible the variation in vertical stab sweep might have more to do with structural concerns and less to do with aerodynamics. Adjusting the sweep is one way...and perhaps one of the only ways...to shorten and lengthen the moment arm of the elevator.

I'm just not sure...other manufacturers have made higher sweep angles work. I'm sure Cessna has their reasons though, and if the aircraft is delivered on-spec, then it will be a great machine. Just not beautiful imho, and that would be reason enough for me to purchase a competing design. I'm not in the market though.

Quoting atct (Reply 7):
I bet the engineer's have a good reason for the tail being such as it is.

Hope so.

Quoting atct (Reply 7):
They buy the X for speed and the Sovereign for mission capability.

The X is, for sure, all about speed, having transcon range with a smaller cabin and higher operating costs than the aircraft with similar missions. It's all about the additional .1 Mach in cruise.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 4):
Those straight wing Citations climb like a chased monkey. Good second segment climb as well. They can depart under weights and conditions at mountainous airports (think ASE, EGE) that the swept aircraft can't.

I don't know what kind of climb perf the Ten will have, but the original X sucks at hot and high airports. During the summer at ASE we were either flying max economy or taking a fuel stop going to the East Coast every time. Put more than 1, maybe 2 pax in the aircraft and you're stopping shortly after takeoff for fuel. The 680s were able to go non stop.

I always enjoy hearing about flying the X. Seems like the X would have a shallow climb gradient for ASE, with its wing being optimized for high speeds. ASE is a challenging environment that definitely seems to favor a more straight wing or light loads. Very interesting to hear this though. I would have almost expected the X be capable of ASE-East Coast no prob with most loads.

The Sovereign sounds like a beast, and the Longitude seems to have Sovereign heritage. Sovereign>Latitude>Longitude. All share the same vert stab, it seems. The Sovereign/Lat share a similar mission as evolutions of the straight wing Citations, while the Longitude seems to be more of a 750 evolution/Columbus reincarnation, so I would have expected more commonality with the 750 than a Sovereign evolution, but at this point, I guess they have evolved to the point where the line between is blurred between straight wing and swept wing Citations. Maybe Cessna is announcing that from the top of their line with the Longitude?

So, revisiting this post....

Quoting aerodog (Reply 5):

Years ago I was told Cessna Engineering did not allow RTE any involvement in the jet designs. I guess the choice was good engineering or good styling and the engineers won out.



Engineering philosophy merged or abandoned, if that's the case?

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 4):
Your question about the tail. The only reason I can think for single engine control ability at low speed. Same reason you only get 83-85% N1 on every Citation X takeoff.

And another good point that I didn't know about the X, which seems to have a proportionally adequate tail, but then again, lots of excess thrust is necessary for a true FL510/ OR .92 aircraft like the X. But say, you are taking off full thrust from a 5,000ft runway at a max allowable weight for the C750...what would the full thrust N1 setting be, std conditions? Or if you can think of a more suitable example, name it.... It's a fascinating aircraft.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5436 times:

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 8):
This is very puzzling, but why not decrease drag anywhere possible?

It has to pay for itself; if you myopically just focus on drag to the detriment of all else, you end up with an aircraft that's too heavy, too complicated, and too expensive.

Vertical tails are rarely called on to generate much lift, and almost never to do so at high speed, which is the only time sweep helps you. Unless they really screw up the airfoil choice, sweep on a vertical tail probably has very limited drag benefits.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 8):
Seems like the tail is a good area to start...even the KingAir's have swept tails with their straight wing. Looks good, but I wonder what the engineering advantages are?

Among other things, it gets the fin farther back for a particular fuselage length, increasing tail volume, allowing a smaller (lighter) fin.

Tom.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4457 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

I think the vertical Tail on the Sovereign looks great.


Reminds me of the Jetstar a little.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 473 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
rare to fill up a bizjet with passengers. It is also rare to use the max range of a bizjet (except for light jets). So while the G450 has an edge over the Longitude in both those categories, if you're an owner who looks at how often you actually will need those extra 500nm that the G450 gives you, and sees that it's maybe once or twice a year, you may be swayed by the Longitude's economics.

Interesting. I have noticed that the payload-range charts seem to have sharper curves than those of airliners too. And, I have always thought of them as having more "niche" performance....300nm might not be a deal-breaker for an airliner, as long as certain other parameters are met, such as fleet commonality. But for a biz jet, this might be vital, and increasingly so for smaller biz jets with more focused missions.

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Embraer is marketing the Legacy 500 as slightly behind the CL30 in terms of performance, so I'd definitely expect the economics to be better.

Also looking at Embraer's payload range chart, comparing to Cessna, it appears that the Embraer offers a wide envelope between max payload range and max range than many other biz jets. Odd, but that would also facilitate better economics or more flexible economic arguments for certain missions.

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Actually, the X does have electric windshields. The eyelids are there for rain removal air on the ground. It's not bleed air - it's actually air from the avonics cooling system. I guess they wanted wipers but didn't think they'd stand up to .92 airflow.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Makes me appreciate the design more. I still think it looks better without the eyelids though...


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21565 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 13):
I have always thought of them as having more "niche" performance....300nm might not be a deal-breaker for an airliner, as long as certain other parameters are met, such as fleet commonality. But for a biz jet, this might be vital, and increasingly so for smaller biz jets with more focused missions.

It's true that there are a lot more niches to be filled in the bizjet market than in the airliner market. Fuel prices are such that more and more people and companies can't afford to buy a particular plane just for that extra 300nm that's hardly ever going to get used if it means a significant fuel burn penalty for the average trip, but even with that extra rationality in the market, there are still plenty of people who see their jet as the extension of their penis, and they want the biggest and the flashiest. So you can sell a jet to those people that offers minimal advantages over the competition strictly because it offers some advantages, regardless of cost. Whereas the airlines are motivated strictly by costs - it doesn't matter if an airplane can fly .02 faster than its rival - if it's more expensive to operate, it's not going to do well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 473 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
there are still plenty of people who see their jet as the extension of their penis

Probably one of my least favorite things about aviation since this is so prevalent. Fly anything with turbines, and even with a prop, max testosterone wins EVERYTHING in aviation.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
So you can sell a jet to those people that offers minimal advantages over the competition strictly because it offers some advantages, regardless of cost. Whereas the airlines are motivated strictly by costs - it doesn't matter if an airplane can fly .02 faster than its rival - if it's more expensive to operate, it's not going to do well.

Yea, the economics and performance seem to have smaller margins, but the market demand seems to be about the same, perhaps set by the provider during the dawn of the industry. Incremental equipment gains seem to be about the same for corporate as for airline.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Among other things, it gets the fin farther back for a particular fuselage length, increasing tail volume, allowing a smaller (lighter) fin.

Thanks for your insight, Tom. As long as weight gains didn't negate the benefits, it seems that a more upright tail still doesn't have a purpose. But, I had no idea that weight was so much more important than aerodynamics for tail design.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
I think the vertical Tail on the Sovereign looks great.


Reminds me of the Jetstar a little.

Upright tail on the Sovereign looks great...greatest evolution of the straight-wing Citation. Aesthetically pleasing for the JetStar too, being one of the first purpose-built biz jets. Those are two aircraft of different missions from different timelines. I can only think of a particular JetStar operator from FLL who really gains clientel from his charter fleet of retro JetStars...don't know if it's still in biz. But, if the retro theme is invoked here, then I don't think it will work....it already failed for cars, and that's a VERY poor argument on my part. I know you're just stating a subjective observation here, and I agree with your taste.

Bleeeh....since it seems as if the tail doesn't even matter much, and that Cessna is almost attempting to assert their market share via tail size (okay, cost-savings via design cuts), how about the Hawker rumor?

At this point,with the established and proven Hawker-Beech line in Bankruptcy, will Cessna at least buy the Hawker 4000 design? They have evidently been awaiting a moment to enter the true mid-size biz jet market for a while now, and the 4000 would be perfect with some improvements.


User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1527 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4839 times:

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 10):

And another good point that I didn't know about the X, which seems to have a proportionally adequate tail, but then again, lots of excess thrust is necessary for a true FL510/ OR .92 aircraft like the X. But say, you are taking off full thrust from a 5,000ft runway at a max allowable weight for the C750...what would the full thrust N1 setting be, std conditions? Or if you can think of a more suitable example, name it.... It's a fascinating aircraft.

The FADEC gives you whatever it gives you. It puts bugs on the N1 tape and advertises what you're going to get in the middle of the tape. I've never seen any charts on thrust settings. All electronic.

Most of the time it's pretty low, in the mid to low 80%s. You might see high 80s at a high / hot airport.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Citations - Why The Upright Vert Stabs?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why The Bigger Intake On The Same 727? posted Sun Feb 27 2011 10:38:51 by c5load
Why The A332F Has A Short Tail Than The A332? posted Sun Feb 20 2011 15:39:31 by 747400sp
Why The Sawtooth Edge On 787 Engine? posted Sat Feb 12 2011 11:48:38 by KevinPDX
A330 Vs A340: Why The Range Difference? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 18:58:00 by YULWinterSkies
IT New Technology For The Airline Industry? posted Thu Oct 7 2010 18:53:54 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
Why The Change Of Call Sign/flight Number? posted Fri Aug 6 2010 00:53:41 by MSJYOP28Apilot
Why The Extra Door On This 767 And Not This 767? posted Thu Apr 1 2010 18:39:46 by c5load
A320/A330 Winglet Styles-Why The Difference? posted Wed Mar 10 2010 16:13:02 by c5load
A330 Freighter: Why The "chin?" posted Tue Feb 16 2010 15:10:16 by KELPkid
Why The C-919 Is Not Wider Than An A320? posted Sun Feb 14 2010 17:36:52 by 747400sp
Why The Sudden Obsession W/ Ash Clouds? posted Thu Jul 7 2011 18:12:42 by peh
Why The Bigger Intake On The Same 727? posted Sun Feb 27 2011 10:38:51 by c5load
Why The A332F Has A Short Tail Than The A332? posted Sun Feb 20 2011 15:39:31 by 747400sp
Why The Sawtooth Edge On 787 Engine? posted Sat Feb 12 2011 11:48:38 by KevinPDX
A330 Vs A340: Why The Range Difference? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 18:58:00 by YULWinterSkies
IT New Technology For The Airline Industry? posted Thu Oct 7 2010 18:53:54 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
Why The Change Of Call Sign/flight Number? posted Fri Aug 6 2010 00:53:41 by MSJYOP28Apilot
Why The Extra Door On This 767 And Not This 767? posted Thu Apr 1 2010 18:39:46 by c5load
A320/A330 Winglet Styles-Why The Difference? posted Wed Mar 10 2010 16:13:02 by c5load
A330 Freighter: Why The "chin?" posted Tue Feb 16 2010 15:10:16 by KELPkid
A330 Vs A340: Why The Range Difference? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 18:58:00 by YULWinterSkies
IT New Technology For The Airline Industry? posted Thu Oct 7 2010 18:53:54 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
Why The Change Of Call Sign/flight Number? posted Fri Aug 6 2010 00:53:41 by MSJYOP28Apilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format