Which aircraft can go CRQ to Hawaii?

[pilotviolin]

Looking at what can leave CRQ (Carlsbad) and make Hawaii with seats full. Just remember CRQ is 4800'. Thanks in advance.

 

[TransMach]

Crq-phnl

GIV will do it up to 25 deg C any day of the year, thats with one butt and one bag in/for every seat. GV, ofcourse ... no problem. GV will take sixteen pax, 3 crew, bags for everyone up to 50 deg C.

TransMach

 

[Bjetset2]

Crq

We go to CRQ all the time. Runway 24 official takeoff useable is only 4600 feet and that is the runway in use 90% of the time. We have 2000EX airplanes and Hawaii would be difficult off 4600 feet. Maybe the Gulfstreams mentioned or a Falcon 900EX. I hear the Challenger 300 has great numbers, don't know much about the C680 but it has a big fat wing so I assume the runway numbers are good. Good luck. Fly safe.

 

[TCA]

Use the downhill runway..slope helps, unless you gotta stop!!!

 

[G100driver]

Falcon 50.

 

[johnsonrod]

Falcon 50. Not sure about the G150 - it has the range but probably depends upon the weight and temp like most airplanes.

 

[BoilerUP]

Pretty sure the Sovereign wouldn't have any issues...watched one depart HXD one day and fly to Cabo San Lucas. Then again, that ain't over a whole lotta ocean, either.

 

[G100driver]

Here is the question that I think you should be asking:

Can the airplane make it, without a wetfoot print in unforcast winds? All of the mentioned airplanes require you to offload fuel to make it. How much reserve does that give you in the event of unforcast winds, altitude or mach changes ect. Once you get out there these changes can a do occur (particularly out of the LA basin) and you will need to have ample fuel to do so.

We regularly make this flight and always land with LOTS of fuel. Particularly westbound when the odds are not in you favor.

If HI is your primary mission then you already know this. If this is going to be a once or twice a year thing you would be best served departing out of SAN or SNA.

Just a thought.

Good luck!

 

[NewmanF16]

"With seats full" is pretty vague, unless this is just an academic exercise. What's more relevant is "what airplane will carry X number of pax..." otherwise the answers can be pretty useless (Voyager has 2 full seats, but I don't think that's what you're looking for).

 

[pilotviolin]

"With seats full" is pretty vague, unless this is just an academic exercise. What's more relevant is "what airplane will carry X number of pax..." otherwise the answers can be pretty useless (Voyager has 2 full seats, but I don't think that's what you're looking for).

If we have seats, we fill them up. Our Bosses don't like see seats that could have had people in them, or if they are empty our policy is we can take our family. So we almost always have someone sitting on a seat.

We are looking more in the mid size range right now, but we are looking for something that can get there everyday of the year. We also could look at launching out of SNA if we have too. Anyone have good numbers on the G100, CL300, or C680, 800XP?

 

[FLYN2FAST4YOU]

Sovereign is your best bet!

 

[X man]

over water sovereign

With all the seats full in a sovereign, you cannot take full fuel, and even with full fuel, the wrong winds will be a major factor. AS far as takeoff, maxgross takeoff, sovereign's will just about beat anybody for short fields. With 5 folks and their bags, I think fuel fuel is no problem, problem is when you fill the aircraft up and it is a warm day, you cannot get max fuel in through the single point, so using the overwings, you can actually get about 300 extra lbs in. Cessna would be more than happy to demo one to you.

Good Luck

 

[svcta]

In order for the g100 to make it you'll have to put the fuel extension tanks in the baggage compartment, which means that you'll seriously limit your baggage space. The G100 that I used to fly has done HI, but I wouldn't have done it personally. With no problems you can land with acceptable reserves, but any problems at all and you're likely to swim the last bit.

Remember, though, that I'm also gutless.

 

[G100driver]

Going over to HI one day I heard a G100 stuck in the track at FL340. He was begging for higher and that was not going to happen. I am not sure if had to turn around or not as he was going the opposite direction and I lost track of him.

The point is, if you are going to go to HI have and airplane that can more than complete the mission.

 

[Bjetset2]

Falcon 50

As to the falcon 50 yes to a -40 convert or 50EX. The numbers will show OK in the classic 50 (in fact if I remember right they didn't even publish different charts for the EX) but your rear end in the seat will tell you it's not a great idea with enough HI fuel and 10 pax/bags at typical CRQ mid day temps. Just my opinion good luck.

Jim

 

[Lead Sled]

Take a look at the charts, the usable takeoff distance at CRQ rw 24 is only 4600'. You do have the option of using rw 6 if you need the full length.

We base our 50 at CRQ and it does a nice job - you can top it off, fill all of the seats, a stuff the baggage compartment full of bags and we're still about a 1000 lbs under our max takeoff weight. It will come off rw 24 on most days and off of 6 on all but the warmest days. Hawaii is not a problem.

LS

 

[hgi2006]

Take a look at the charts, the usable takeoff distance at CRQ rw 24 is only 4600'. You do have the option of using rw 6 if you need the full length.

We base our 50 at CRQ and it does a nice job - you can top it off, fill all of the seats, a stuff the baggage compartment full of bags and we're still about a 1000 lbs under our max takeoff weight. It will come off rw 24 on most days and off of 6 on all but the warmest days. Hawaii is not a problem.

LS

LS - Yeah, Hawaii is not a problem, as long as the winds are not too strong. There have many more than a few days I couldn't do SAN to PHOG, even at LRC w/o a wet footprint.

 

[Lead Sled]

LS - Yeah, Hawaii is not a problem, as long as the winds are not too strong. There have many more than a few days I couldn't do SAN to PHOG, even at LRC w/o a wet footprint.

When you had those wet footprints, did you happen to have Universal do your flight planning? Did your 50 have the large O2 bottle?

 

[Bjetset2]

50

I flew a 50 off 5000 feet for three years and I wouldn't take it out of CRQ to HI with full fuel and people/bags. Slats and 20 at 21 C at only 38,800 pounds gives you a TOFL of 4725 and that's using the seal level chart. The 1000 foot elevation chart shows 5100 feet at 21C. We also had an 50EX it did a much better job in real terms but I don't think they recharted it for the upgraded performance (it's been some time so don't quote me on that). If Dassault has certified new numbers for the 50EX it would probably do it. Just my opinion.

 

[Lead Sled]

I flew a 50 off 5000 feet for three years and I wouldn't take it out of CRQ to HI with full fuel and people/bags. Slats and 20 at 21 C at only 38,800 pounds gives you a TOFL of 4725 and that's using the seal level chart. The 1000 foot elevation chart shows 5100 feet at 21C. We also had an 50EX it did a much better job in real terms but I don't think they recharted it for the upgraded performance (it's been some time so don't quote me on that). If Dassault has certified new numbers for the 50EX it would probably do it. Just my opinion.

In our particular airplane with full fuel, passengers and baggage our takeoff temp limit at CRQ is 24C which is normally enough to get us out of there on just about any day of the year - although we may have to limit our departure to the early morning hours. Normally, we're nowhere near full fuel so it is seldom a consideration.

I was interested in your "wet footprint" concerns - who did your flight planning when you ran into that problem? By any chance, was it Universal? I ask that, because we had some issues with the Falcon 50 profile that they were using - it was way off the mark. We ended up making a big stink about it last summer and they finally reworked the profile using current flight manual performance data. The new performance profile appears to be spot on.

LS