Talk:Cessna Citation Mustang

Special conditions

Editors who are pilots or familiar with aviation may want to read Special Conditions: Cessna Model 510 Series Airplane and see if anything mentioned there belongs in this article. 69.3.70.124 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC).

Turboprop version?

"Turbine-powered version?" Jets *are* turbines, so it is already turbine-powered. Does the author of that sentence mean it will be turboprop-powered, as is the Piper Meridian/Matrix/Malibu/I can never keep track of which is which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.125.142 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It probably means turborop, but since it's uncited, I've removed it. If someone finds a reliable source on it, feel free to add it something written better than before. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this AvWeek article, Cessan had made no such announcement as of Nov 3, 2010. We'll need a reliable source from after that date to add it in again.- BilCat (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite Cessna' attempts last fall to keep it a secret the aircraft exists and has been reported on in the aviation media, including photos:

• Cessna's High Performance Turboprop Single Has A Niche
• PT6 Powers Cessna Test Turboprop
• Cessna Turboprop Not Ready For AOPA
• First Turboprop Mustang Photos

Avweb is considered a reliable news source. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point, a year later, the AvWeek article seems to be the most accurate, that the aircraft is just a technology demonstrator. It certainly looks like a Mustang, but is there any reliable source out there that actully says it's a converted Mustang airframe? Either way, it would be interesting to know. It's registration is N350CE, and it seems to have an experimental TC. If we can find that TC, perhaps we can add some more info on the aircraft, and perhaps even make an article for it. - BilCat (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been no more news on this project in the past year that I have found, but that is not much of a surprise when the CEO resigned unexpectedly in May 2011 and the company has been reportedly losing money. New R+D projects require stable management and an atmosphere without belt tightening to proceed, normally. Checking the registration shows that the aircraft is still registered as a model E350, in the Experimental - Research and Development category, meaning that there will be no type certificate or other public documentation available. I think we are going to have to rely on Cessna press releases or else more "spy reports". Lacking that I can only guess that it has been put on the "back burner" and is sitting in the back of a hangar in Wichita. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm glad to be corrected on the experimental vs TC, as I know nothing about that stuff. Maybe someday an aviation mag will do a story on it, or on some Cessna R&D projects that include it. - BilCat (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that they will, but I suspect it has come out from the back of the hangar and see the light of day first. Cessna has done a number of these sorts of projects in the past, where it seems like a good idea at the time, they build one, fly it a bit and then decide it doesn't offer any performance advantages over what they already have or that it will compete with their existing line and then they just take it apart again. See the Cessna XMC, Cessna 160, Cessna 187 and even the Cessna NGP for a few cases like this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Skytaxi Luftfahrt crash

I am not sure that this accident is notable. The Mustang is a light aircraft and none of the people killed have bios on Wikipedia, plus no indication that the accident will result in an Airworthiness Directive, design or ATC changes, etc. The normal inclusion criteria is at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is borderline, close to FAR23 MTOW limit but a complex jet and professionally operated. What struck me was that it was the first accident after 12 years, for a 470 fleet GA type, it seemed pretty low and denotes a pretty good safety record for a small aircraft. But perhaps a link to aviation-safety.net would be better suited.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that was what made me hesitate and come here to discuss was that, while not notable in itself, the accident does establish what the accident record is and it is quite remarkably low for a jet in this class that is often owner-flown. Perhaps a more general statement on the accident rate would be a better approach, though, using that ref. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cessna Citation Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160527164647/http://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/mustang to http://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/mustang
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160527164647/http://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/mustang to http://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/mustang

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)