Sign in to follow this  
flapsdown

S550 owner wondering if there is a reason to get the CJ2

Recommended Posts

Per the topic,

 

Been flying the S550 with a Flight1 GTN750 integration (thx Bert), and actually find I have been enjoying it quite a bit, but I am curious if folks who now own both think the CJ2 is really worth getting as well - I know this will vary from person to person, so I understand it will depend on your individual perception of the additional "value"...

 

...but, what say you?

 

Regards,

 

Chris B - aka "Flapsdown"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Not a fan of GTN - that said enjoying the CJ2 can speak to 550 - FMS in CJ2 well all of those carenado fms are easy to setup a plan takes no time and follows them perfectly in CJ2 I have not been using flc instead just using VS and it goes right to your designated alt perfectly may not be the correct way of doing it but it works - pretty easy to fly this CJ2 - need to revisit Hawker to try same process and see if it does the same thing

 

CJ2 here = happy camper - thing is very fast - Hawker felt sluggish compared to CJ2 - watch your speeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, "my other jet is a PMDG",  to ripoff  err, pay homage to the well known bumper-sticker, so using the GTN was not my first choice for the 550, but the FMS add-on Carenado put out after the 550 was so crippled/horrible that it ruined the plane for me for a while, so I was hoping that perhaps there were enough improvements in that area alone to justify adding the Cj2 - guess I will continue to ponder the purchase for a while - thx...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, "my other jet is a PMDG",  to ripoff  err, pay homage to the well known bumper-sticker, so using the GTN was not my first choice for the 550, but the FMS add-on Carenado put out after the 550 was so crippled/horrible that it ruined the plane for me for a while, so I was hoping that perhaps there were enough improvements in that area alone to justify adding the Cj2 - guess I will continue to ponder the purchase for a while - thx...

 

No FMS changes in operation same as all the others - bare bones but I actually like the simplicity - I use PMDG for non simplistic fun

 

You still cant save a flt plan nor import as someone has stated here - its not possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thoughts here, why change the Hawker for the CJ2. For more adventurous flying I have the Lear 35. Still pondering. Can't get why the folks at Carenado are unwilling to implement a few missing features that sure not few people would like to have. Their Phenom 100 reads all stored flight plans, and when it doesn't recognize a current AIRAC one it calls it just waypoint 1 and uses it. The 300, the Hawker and now the CJ2 can't do the same which is beyond me. I am hopeful for the next Eaglesoft release to combine the good of both providers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thoughts here, why change the Hawker for the CJ2. For more adventurous flying I have the Lear 35. Still pondering. Can't get why the folks at Carenado are unwilling to implement a few missing features that sure not few people would like to have. Their Phenom 100 reads all stored flight plans, and when it doesn't recognize a current AIRAC one it calls it just waypoint 1 and uses it. The 300, the Hawker and now the CJ2 can't do the same which is beyond me. I am hopeful for the next Eaglesoft release to combine the good of both providers. 

 

Yes following new Eaglesoft offering closely - just cant get myself to buy the outdated citation x version - I will wait for the new offerings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the S555 a la Bert and enjoy it immensely. Still a bit squirrelly here and there on the AP but certainly manageable when accompanied by the GTN. I'm sure the new CJ2 is a beautiful model but I cried so much blood and tears with the Navigraph stuff I just can't see going back. If the GTN were available in the CJ2 I'd probably buy it but otherwise, no deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes following new Eaglesoft offering closely - just cant get myself to buy the outdated citation x version - I will wait for the new offerings

 

Good aircraft despite being old. Cockpit looks cartoonish by today's standards. Textures are 1024x1024 as opposed to HD standards but do come with spec and bump mapping. Systems are mostly correct and FDE seems very good. (Well at least it was back when I still had Windows XP and could run it.) For a 2008 airplane it is one of the best in class. 

 

Not so sure about their latest offerings, using Real NavData means database updates will be more expensive and for those with Navigraph aircraft means paying 2 providers for AIRINC data. If you want all 13 cycles Real Navdata will cost you $1,000 per year, a little rich for the home hobbyist.  https://www.realnavdata.com/buy.asp (link provided only to show cost of Real NavData - not intended to support a commercial site.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESDG' s new XLS+ has promise. Just not available yet.

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still twice as expensive for 1/4 of the updates. You can't use Real Navdata on Navigraph based products or vice versa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but you also can't do RNAV (GPS) approaches with LPV minimums using navigraph data either, which is why ES chose RealNavdata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but you also can't do RNAV (GPS) approaches with LPV minimums using navigraph data either, which is why ES chose RealNavdata.

Interesting Ryan, can you explain a bit more in detail what data Navigraph has missing and how this affects the approaches depending on the equipment used? Thanks in advance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I can't - I only heard this from Ed at ES. It's the reason the old WIP MV King air couldn't do approaches with WAAS minimums, i.e. GPS approaches with vertical guidance.... They used navigraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but you also can't do RNAV (GPS) approaches with LPV minimums using navigraph data either, which is why ES chose RealNavdata.

 

Some one must of forgot to tell that to PMDG. I just flew the 737NGX to LPV minima at KAPA RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 35R fully coupled.

 

As long as the MAP altitude is correctly programmed in it works just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To fly an LPV approach you need an aircraft /  FMS that has a WAAS receiver and approved for WAAS approaches.

PMDG737 will fly an IAN approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I can't - I only heard this from Ed at ES. It's the reason the old WIP MV King air couldn't do approaches with WAAS minimums, i.e. GPS approaches with vertical guidance.... They used navigraph.

 

 

Some one must of forgot to tell that to PMDG. I just flew the 737NGX to LPV minima at KAPA RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 35R fully coupled.

 

As long as the MAP altitude is correctly programmed in it works just fine. 

 

 

To fly an LPV approach you need an aircraft /  FMS that has a WAAS receiver and approved for WAAS approaches.

 

PMDG737 will fly an IAN approach.

You are losing me slowly guys but it's still interesting trying to follow :-). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WAAS approach isn't based on the MAP altitude, and an RNAV approach is not always a WAAS approach. Not all WAAS approaches are 3 degrees. There are lots of data missing regarding approaches in the Navigraph database. It's one of the reasons we don't support it. The other is even simpler... we needed a database that was legal for use in commercial training environments. No one provides that, until now (RealNav). So, yes we made our own. Regarding an approach there are several data values necessary for WAAS that isn't in the Navigraph database... like... exactly what type of GPS approach is authorized, what it's RNP level is, what channel to use if it's WAAS.

 

There's more, but honestly... the choice was driven by the need for commercial grade accuracy. What subscriptions we offer is controlled by the licensing from our data source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most FMS based avionics can compute a descent path down to a point above the threshold of the runway... that has nothing to do with WAAS at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I can't - I only heard this from Ed at ES. It's the reason the old WIP MV King air couldn't do approaches with WAAS minimums, i.e. GPS approaches with vertical guidance.... They used navigraph.

I asked that question in the Milviz subforum here and they told that the MV KIng Air 350i is going to support Navigraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WAAS approach isn't based on the MAP altitude, and an RNAV approach is not always a WAAS approach.

 

WAAS is nothing more then a correction. An LPV approach requires this correction and it makes the RNAV approach digitally more of a cone like an ILS, however it is still a non-precision approach. GLS is the RNAV precision approach.

 

MSFS does not need WAAS because the variables provide perfect location, unlike the real-world where a GPS location can be off. 

 

Interesting that other vendors can fake RAIM for an LNAV/VNAV approach, but only your choice of database database vendor allows you to fake WAAS, which is not needed at all inside of MSFS. 

 

Bottom line is there is no such thing as RAIM or WAAS in the MSFS environment that vendors don't fake into the environment. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short I think the CJ is well worth it. I have the S550 aswell with a GTN750 in place of the FMC. I really do like the CJ and the proline system is pretty good. If your still on the fence I'll be posting a review soon. I've actually flown a Citiation CJ (right seat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If your still on the fence I'll be posting a review soon.

 

Sounds great.

 

Maybe add your takeoff vspds and approx landing speeds .. I understand some data not in supplied docs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAAS is nothing more then a correction. An LPV approach requires this correction and it makes the RNAV approach digitally more of a cone like an ILS, however it is still a non-precision approach. GLS is the RNAV precision approach.

This entire statement is completely inaccurate. Also, it's off topic... a lot. I will not be responding to your argument further.

 

Actually... it's not about the non-precision... though that's not quite correct either. Guess I should be more careful about 'entire'. At any rate WAAS is a lot more complex than knowing a lat/lon/alt and RAIM isn't simulated anywhere in the sim, or third-party. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this