An extra $5 million for 500' shorter runway

This new business jet is twice the price of a venerable M1 citation jet which is over 25 years old. It is designed to take off from from very short runways. But how important is that? for 500' shorter runway, you gain one passenger seat, lose over 20% of range, and pay more than twice as much.

The Pilatus PC-24 is a twin-engine business jet produced by Pilatus Aircraft of Switzerland. for $8.9 million
Introduction: 7 February 2018
Capacity: 8 passengers
Range: 1,188 nmi
Take-off: 2,690 ft (MTOW, ISA, sea level, dry paved runway)
Landing: 2,525 ft (Over 50 ft obstacle, MLW, ISA, sea level, dry paved runway)
Length: 55 ft 3 in
Max takeoff weight: 8.005 tonnes

Cessna Citation Jet/M2 for US$4.7 million
Introduction: 1991-present
Capacity: 7 passengers
Range: 1,550 nmi
Takeoff distance: 3,210 ft
Landing Distance: 2,590 ft
Length: 42 ft 7 in
Maximum Takeoff Weight 4.853 tonnes

Cessna Citation Jet/3+ for US$8.3 million
Introduction: 2004
Capacity: 9 passengers
Range: 2,040 nmi
Takeoff distance: 3,180 ft
Landing Distance: 2,770 ft
Length: 51 ft 2 in
Maximum Takeoff Weight 6.291 tonnes

PC-24


CitationJe


Despite the fact that the passenger loading is 7 and 8, the PC-24 is clearly a larger jet with an extra 3 tonnes of MTOW and 12' 8" longer. So for your extra $5 million you can carry more luggage.

Sometimes rough fields and shorter runways are important. Differences in Rate of Climb?
How many crew for a citation jet?
How many crew for the more expensive plane?

Range is not always that important if a smaller airport with a shorter runway can make major inroads into total travel time.

Quote: Fleastiff

Sometimes rough fields and shorter runways are important. Differences in Rate of Climb?
How many crew for a citation jet?
How many crew for the more expensive plane?

Both planes are single pilot certified. The expensive jet has more powerful engines

Max Thrust: 15 kN (3,400 lbf) X2
Rate of climb: 20.67 m/s (4,069 ft/min) at Sea level

Max Thrust: 8.74 kN (1,965 lbf) X2
Rate of climb: 18.8 m/s (3,698 ft/min) at Sea level

Quote: Fleastiff

Range is not always that important if a smaller airport with a shorter runway can make major inroads into total travel time.

I realize that applies in general, but specifically the Citation already works on a pretty short runway. We are talking about 2,690 ft vs 3,210 ft . I wonder how many more airports the extra few hundred feet opens up?


We are talking about a significant cost differential here.

Quote: Pacomartin

talking about a significant cost differential here.

Yes. someone must have thought there would be a market for it. Seems strange.
Corporate bean counters are usually not fools and often such purchases have to pass muster even if the executives are enamored of a particular plane.
Fuel differences? fuel burn rates?
Gotta be some "marketing 'hook' of some sort"

Quote: Pacomartin

Both planes are single pilot certified. The expensive jet has more powerful engines

Max Thrust: 15 kN (3,400 lbf) X2
Rate of climb: 20.67 m/s (4,069 ft/min) at Sea level

Max Thrust: 8.74 kN (1,965 lbf) X2
Rate of climb: 18.8 m/s (3,698 ft/min) at Sea level



I realize that applies in general, but specifically the Citation already works on a pretty short runway. We are talking about 2,690 ft vs 3,210 ft . I wonder how many more airports the extra few hundred feet opens up?


We are talking about a significant cost differential here.

What is the difference in fuel costs per passenger?

Perhaps comparing the two planes is like comparing a Patek Phillipe wrist watch to a Timex. They both tell time, but one is much more expensive than the other.

Quote: kenarman

What is the difference in fuel costs per passenger?

The more expensive jet carries more fuel yet flies for a shorter distance. It is a bigger plane with much more room for luggage.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Perhaps comparing the two planes is like comparing a Patek Phillipe wrist watch to a Timex. They both tell time, but one is much more expensive than the other.

I am comparing an old design (1991) to a new design (2018). But supposedly the price is still good.

My mistake were corrected on another forum.

The newer plane not only requires a shorter runway but can be operated from dirt and grass airstrips and it has a full size cargo door. So it can be modified for use quickly.

Although it is marketed as a business jet it is also used as medevac or special-mission applications.

Even though the older plane says 7 passengers, and the newer one says up to 8 passengers. The cheaper plane is really assuming 7 people with briefcases.

So essentially it is 'rough field' issues and a more practical definition of passenger..

A large jet that can get seven executives and their briefcases to some destination often is not as good as a plane that can get a crew of technicians and their equipment and spare parts there. So 'passenger' is really a more vague term than I thought it would be. Payload and payload mix are things I should have thought of. Medevac requires a gurney, usually a large one as might be used in Search and Rescue work and it has to get into that door pretty darn quick.

Quote: Fleastiff

A large jet that can get seven executives and their briefcases to some destination often is not as good as a plane that can get a crew of technicians and their equipment and spare parts there.

When I first read the specs it seemed that the shorter operational length of the runway wasn't very important. Why would you pay double just to have access to 10% more runways?

There are around 10,650 airports in the world that you can access with an aircraft able to operate on runways with a length of 3,130 feet . There are an additional 1,050 airports that become available when your aircraft needs only 2,810 feet . Of course, in both cases these runways will have to be paved.


But if you look at the number of runways around the world that offer a length of at least 2,810 feet but feature unpaved surfaces – like grass or gravel. Over 20,000!

Quote: Fleastiff

So 'passenger' is really a more vague term than I thought it would be. Payload and payload mix are things I should have thought of. Medevac requires a gurney, usually a large one as might be used in Search and Rescue work and it has to get into that door pretty darn quick.

Full size cargo door comes in handy if you are loading more than briefcases.



On the other scale is the new private jet under $2 million that looks like an SUV. They already have 600 orders. Then the question comes up as to why you would buy a jet that can only go 345 mph, when for a third of the cost you could buy a prop plane that goes at 211 mph.

I recall one airplane designer (around the world on one tank of gas) who built a Bush Plane but it didn't sell too well when its door was too narrow to get a deer, moose or 50 gallon oil drum through it. Sometimes designers just don't see fundamental flaws but customers do and a glib salesman can't overcome a sharp businessman's analysis.

Of course owning a cheap fast prop plane is nothing like owning a jet.

Look at that BD5-J from Bede. It did a few beer commercials and it was in a movie but it could barely fly for a few minutes before it needed to refuel. Yet people wanted their own private one-person jet plane. Just as the snowblower engine operated BD5 was highly desired even though it flew one person and zero luggage.