Talk:Cessna Citation Longitude
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
Straight from the source
[edit]http://www.cessna.com/~/media/Files/citation/longitude/Longitude%20SD%202012.ashx http://www.cessna.com/citation/longitude?trk=NavCitation 68.103.185.180 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Takeoff Distance
[edit]The takeoff distance isn't showing up, I tried to edit it to do so, but it wasn't showing in the preview. So, I don't know what I am doing wrong. The correct distance is: 5,400 ft (1,646 m) from the original source of the other specs, the product page on Cessna's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Fuel mismatch
[edit]1600lbs full fuel load, and fuel burn rates add up to a run time of ~45 minutes on full fuel load, which will not get you the range cited. Am I just a complete noob, or is something wrong here? 1600lbs is per Citation's web site and represents about 4% of maximum takeoff weight, so that seems ok. Burn rates match pretty close with the HTF7000 page. But at cruise rates cited, you'd need about 7 times the full fuel load listed to get 3500 miles. What magic makes this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.39.48 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- 1600lbs is the payload at full fuel, not the fuel quantity. Fuel capacity is not released yet, but is around 35% MTOW for competitors, ~14,000lb, consistent with a 3,500nmi range at 440kn over 8h.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Specifications table
[edit]I tried to change a wording - wing sweep != airfoil. Turns out it's not so simple in the case of this table (see recent change). Anybody knows how to correct this?