Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Astra SPX Opinions

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
N

NCherches

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Posts
691
Sure its not the sexiest plane on the ramp but does anyone know much about the Astra SPX (not the G150).

Can it truely do Hawaii safely most if not all the time
Maintenance reliability?
Passenger Comfort
Operating Costs?
Fuel Burn?
Pilot Comfort
What's its normal Mach cruise speed?

Anything else you might have to add
 
Do Hawaii "safely"...?

Whats your favorite hotel chain in Hawaii?

Is there FBOHotties there?
 
Any other lame posts before we can actually get to some answers...

Grey Ghost, going through your previous posts not one of them is not sarcastic, stupid or simply on topic whats your problem? Small penis syndrome?
 
Last edited:
NCherches said:
Sure its not the sexiest plane on the ramp but does anyone know much about the Astra SPX (not the G150).

Can it truely do Hawaii safely most if not all the time
Maintenance reliability?
Passenger Comfort
Operating Costs?
Fuel Burn?
Pilot Comfort
What's its normal Mach cruise speed?

Anything else you might have to add
Click to expand...

I haven't been on for a while and I just read this post. When I get back to the house this afternoon I'll sit down and take a whack at your questions. I've got 4000+ hours of astra time including 2000 or so hours in the SPX/G100. Bottom line is it will work for you and you'll like flying it.

Later,

LS
 
The Astra grows on you. The wing is actually one of the best looking in the fleet IMO. It's a great plane to fly as well. Very low workload.
 
NCherches said:
Any other lame posts before we can actually get to some answers...

Grey Ghost, going through your previous posts not one of them is not sarcastic, stupid or simply on topic whats your problem? Small penis syndrome?
Click to expand...

Nice use of a double negative!!! "not one of them is not sarcastic" Where did you go to school??? You're the one with the childish website! Do you really think anyone is going to buy shirts and hats from your pathetic website?

P.S. With your lame posts using words such as "like, ok, for sure, and totally!" you really belong on myspace!!! Go back to the minor leagues son! :smash:
 
Awe the jealousy... Ps, that childish website payed my mortgage last month.
 
I'm back now, so I'll try give you my take on your questions.

NCherches said:
Can it truly do Hawaii safely most if not all the time?
Click to expand...
Yes, but...
Like a lot of airplanes you've got to watch your winds. If you’re thinking about flying a G100/SPX over water there are a couple of things you need to consider - make sure you've got the long-range O2 system (two bottles) installed or you'll be carrying some portable bottles in the cabin. The airplane will fly further on one engine than on two, so the only real concern is the amount of O2 that you have on board - without the twin bottles (or some portable bottles in the cabin) you could have some wet foot print issues to deal with. Also, the rafts and survival gear go into the cabin so you’re going to have to remove a seat or two to make room for them. Finally, to keep things within the loading envelope you will be pretty much limited to 5 or 6 total passenger seats with full fuel - depending on your particular airplane. The airplane comes with a removable extension tank takes up about 1/3 of the baggage compartment, but with some creative packing you can make it work out. For domestic flying I never use the extension tank, so baggage is seldom an issue.

Maintenance reliability?
Click to expand...
The company I flew for owned several of them. We averaged about 700 hours per year per airplane. They were practically bullet-proof. When the airplane first came out it had some teething problems - mostly with the hydraulic and slat-flap systems; but those issues are long since resolved. The hydraulic issues went away with the installation of improved couplers and the slat-flap issues were due to improper maintenance practices. As with a lot of things, timely and proper maintenance resolves a lot of issues. Anyone having slat-flap issues in an Astra needs to have a heart to heart talk with their maintenance people.

Passenger comfort?
Click to expand...
There's the old joke that says that the only problem with the Astra is that it has 6 hours worth of fuel and 4 hours worth of cabin. All in all, the SPX/G100 is a great compromise when it comes to real world flying. The Astras definitely don't have the biggest cabin, but it's big enough most of the time. Also, it has an honest to goodness lav with a sink and flushing potty which the passengers will approciate on those long legs. However, if your only flying is going to be to Hawaii then you'd probably he happier with something bigger, but for the occassional trip to Hawaii or Europe it's going to be tough for any other mid-size jet to touch it.

Operating costs?
Click to expand...
You do the math... Normal cruise, it will burn 2000 lbs the first hour and around 1400 to 1500 pounds every hour after that. That will get you 460 KTAS to 470 KTAS at FL410 to FL430. It will climb straight to 410/430 on all but the warmest of days and 450 is a usable altitude. There are no real maintenance "gotch ya's" and most inspections are based on flight hours, not the calendar. MSP and Collins CASP will adequately protect you against most budgetary "surprises". In other words, you'll have a tough time finding any other light to midsize jet that will have lower cost per mile numbers.

Pilot comfort?
Click to expand...
They're not the quietest airplane out there so close the cabin door entrance curtain and get yourself a comfortable headset and you'll be OK with it.

What is the normal cruise speed?
Click to expand...
.76 mach for oceanic and long-range cruise. Normal cruise is .82 to .85 depending on weight, temp, altitude, etc. The biggest problem that guys have in getting the range or speed out of the airplane is that they don't bother to read the AFM. If you want book performance you have to fly it by the book. FWIW, I've yet to fly an Astra yet that wouldn't do at least 1% or 2% better than what the AFM said it would do.

As far as other items...
Max gross takeoff weight is 24,650 for all of the Astras/G100s. The BOW for most SPXs and G100s are in the 14,500 to 15,000 range. All of the airplanes carry roughly 8700 pounds of fuel with standard fuel. They all have a removable “extension” tank that takes up 1/3 of the baggage compartment. With this tank installed the fuel capacity is roughly 9400 pounds.

You've got to watch the C.G. - they tend to go out the forward end of the envelope (even with the APU installed) when you top off the tanks and put more than 5 (sometimes 6) passengers in them.

The APU is installed on a Duncan Aviation STC. Most of the newer G100s have them. Many SPXs also have them. Fueling in via Single point, but they have over the wing capability (actually over the fuselage.) Ground cooling is provided via bleed air either from an engine or from an APU depending upon the particular airplane. All of the airplanes have external lav servicing.

As far as flying them is concerned, they've got straight forward systems - there aren't too many "gotchas". They're easy to get good landings with - if you watch your speed on final. They handle crosswinds well, but (for boosted ailerons) they're a bit heavy in roll and "typical jet" in pitch. They do OK for a swept wing airplane - if you're careful, you can operate them out of 4,000' runways, but don't plan on going very far. 5,000' is, of course, better and 6,000'+ runways won't offer you too many restrictions even on the hottest of days.

As far as the "boots vs. heated leading edges" go, you need to remember that heated leading edges are considered anti-icing devices and pneumatic leading edge boots are considered deicing devices. There is a big difference between the two concepts.

The problem with heated leading edge anti-ice systems is that they need heat and lots of it. The heat typically comes from an engine bleed air source. Anytime you take that much heat from an engine you also take away a significant amount of power.

For anti-ice systems to be effective you must turn them on prior to entering icing conditions, otherwise they will just melt the ice and the water will flow back to places that are protected and refreeze - not a good thing. Also, chunks of ice can come off and go through the engines (B727, DC9, MD-80, Lear, Citation, etc. Anything with rear mounted engines.)

On the Lears and Falcons that I've flown, turning on the wing heat had a significant effect on the climb capability of the aircraft. The Astras and G100 have the "old fashioned" boots on the leading edges. When I first trained in the aircraft, I was very sceptical - boots on a modern jet airplane, you've got to be kidding? In the real world, they're actually pretty nice. You only use them when you need them, and they don't extract a performance penality when you do. I've got 4,000+ hours in Astras and G100s and they work extremely well, I think. I say that because I can count on one hand the actual number of times that I've ever had to use them in self defense, all of the other times were for entertainment purposes only. The wing just isn't a real ice collector.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

LS
 
Last edited:
NCherches said:
Awe the jealousy... Ps, that childish website payed my mortgage last month.
Click to expand...

sure it did.

Oh, whats everyones favorite color?

Mines blue, dude.

On topic - I could never rec'd any IAI product to anyone. They are mx nightmares. Look at the prices, they cant give them away....there's a reason....been through em all...Westwinds, Astras, Galaxy...all crap and never had an owner satisfied with any of them...although I do hear G200's have improved dramatically, I was in an early one.

I do agree with LS on the boots - they are great, I
wish underpowered Falcons (50s/900s) had boots.

Good Luck.
 
Last edited:
Gulfstream 200 said:
...On topic - I could never rec'd any IAI product to anyone. They are mx nightmares. Look at the prices, they cant give them away....there's a reason....been through em all...Westwinds, Astras, Galaxy...all crap and never had an owner satisfied with any of them...although I do hear G200's have improved dramatically, I was in an early one.

I do agree with LS on the boots - they are great, I
wish underpowered Falcons (50s/900s) had boots.

Good Luck.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree, at least as far as the SPX/G100 is concerned. (The Galaxy/G200 is another thread. I was the tenth person on the planet to get typed in the Galaxy and the early ones were indeed maintenance nightmares.) The Astras/G100 are good airplanes and a lot of bang for the buck. Gulfstream is doing a good job supporting them - now.

LS
 
I never regarded the SPX that I used to fly as being a Mx hog at all. It flew very little and we always had a reliable a/c. One or two nuisance issues, but nothing that ever caused a cancellation. As little as it flew we always got in it and just went with no problems. I fly the G-200 now (later serial #s) and they have been giving us some trouble over the last few months, but I wouldn't yet call it junk. The year ain't over yet, though......

I think for the price and operating costs the SPX is a decent airplane to own. It is a 4 hour cabin, though. Tops.
 
Good post, Lead Sled. I only have 15 hrs in the SPX. It's true though, everyone is a jet deice boot skeptic....until they fly one.
 
Instead of wasting my time and other's, why don't you send me a private message or better yet grow up? Anyone can be a big man in a public online forum.

Thanks for those who are helping to answer the question. Will the Astra do Hawaii without a wet footprint?
 
NCherches said:
Awe the jealousy... Ps, that childish website payed my mortgage last month.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]NCherches – So I am not entirely confused about you being able to pay your mortgage, are we talking Paperboard or Corrugated fiberboard?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Let’s say that your mortgage is $1,307 which is data from 2001 – giving you a hedge here. “But there was one up that was more upsetting than uplifting: the median mortgage cost. It rose from $737 a month to $1,307.”[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/16/RE227481.DTL[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Alexa arguably not the most reliable has your site ranked 3,086,311. Compete known to be generous in its assessments gives you 820 people a month. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/fbohotties.com/ [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Considering your statement that you were able to pay your mortgage from said website, the fact that 3 votes get’s you “Hottie of the Month” is not a glowing indicator of your websites success.[/FONT]

Congratulations!
Beth from Corporate Air in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is our FBO hottie of the month for August, 2008.

Beth received a total of 3 votes last month from you, our members! Thank you for your continued support in making FBO Hotties a fun place on the web for pilots and FBO hotties across the nation.

A BIG thank you goes out to Greg M for posting her profile.


[FONT=&quot]This is not a knock on your site of which I wish you much luck but getting those girls to go wild might increase your chances of paying several mortgages.[/FONT]
 
I think LS gave you a pretty good answer ... but you might need to shut down on engine to keep a wet footprint. That should be answer enough

I flew a Astra for a couple of years and it was an MX nightmare. 5 slap flap disasters. There are much better airframes out there if your mission is HI.
 
G100driver said:
I think LS gave you a pretty good answer ... but you might need to shut down on engine to keep a wet footprint. That should be answer enough

I flew a Astra for a couple of years and it was an MX nightmare. 5 slap flap disasters. There are much better airframes out there if your mission is HI.
Click to expand...
The hi capacity o2 is the answer for the wet foot print. Given enough o2 you won't have to drop down to a breathable altitude and you won't have a wet foot print problem. A couple of our Astras had the hi-capacity system and we were able to do Hawaii just fine without the wet foot print. The rest of the airplanes just had the single bottle system and we had to carry 4 of the portable Scott bottles which we simple stowed with the rafts and survival gear.

The slat/flap "disasters" (and yes, I've had my share of them) are completely avoidable with proper maintenance procedures - after our mechanics finally figured out how to read the maintenance manual, our company went 20,000+ Astra airframe hours without one single episode.

I agree that if your mission is HI then there are certainly better choices, but right now I can't think of any other mid-size jet that could even consider the trip.

As for the rest of the crap on this thread - you guys take it outside - PLEASE.

LS
 
Please forgive my rather astronomical ig'nunce born of being nothing more than a once-in-a-while right-side King Air seat warmer ... but why exactly is a small/mid jet carrying O2?

(I'm about to learn something, I'm sure. :) )
 
Snakum said:
Please forgive my rather astronomical ig'nunce born of being nothing more than a once-in-a-while right-side King Air seat warmer ... but why exactly is a small/mid jet carrying O2?

(I'm about to learn something, I'm sure. :) )
Click to expand...


Well, for the same reason that any jet carries O2. When you're operating at high altitude (as high and even higher than in your occasional King Air) it's really, really important that you can get some good ole fashioned Oxygen available when you lose your cabin (depressurize). Far more important for jets to carry O2 than your King Air, actually. Especially when you're Oceanic. In this case, if you develop a pressurization problem you can maintain altitude in order to keep your fuel burn down and keep the crew safe because they're breathing Oxygen through the appropriate masks. Crew on 02 means higher altitude, means lower fuel burn, means you may actually make landfall before you run out of gas.

By the way.......really?
 
Last edited:
One more point about depressurization that is not being mentioned. If you have to stay at a high altitude in order not to have wet foot print you need oxygen right? Right.

Now, how are you going to stay warm? You have a hole in you cabin and minimum decent altitude in FL240. You and you pax are still going to freeze to death.

Unless your airplane can make the flight at 15,000 or below at you ETP (and land with at least 30 mins of reserve), you should NOT be flying that airplane to Hawaii.
 
G100driver said:
Now, how are you going to stay warm? You have a hole in you cabin and minimum decent altitude in FL240. You and you pax are still going to freeze to death.
Click to expand...
Good point, but if you're using "EMER" as your cabin air source you're going to need a big hole in the cabin to keep from roasting everyone. (We're talking SPX/G100 right?)

LS
 
Good point, LS. It has been about 4 years since I trained on that airplane ...

But ya gotta admit, my friend, now that you do not sweat fuel going to HI it makes it much more civilized! :)
 
svcta said:
Well, for the same reason that any jet carries O2. When you're operating at high altitude (as high and even higher than in your occasional King Air) it's really, really important that you can get some good ole fashioned Oxygen available when you lose your cabin (depressurize). Far more important for jets to carry O2 than your King Air, actually. Especially when you're Oceanic. In this case, if you develop a pressurization problem you can maintain altitude in order to keep your fuel burn down and keep the crew safe because they're breathing Oxygen through the appropriate masks. Crew on 02 means higher altitude, means lower fuel burn, means you may actually make landfall before you run out of gas.

By the way.......really?
Click to expand...


I should have added the word "extra" in the question. I know why O2 is carried (we carry it in the B200 and I've learned - and now forgotten - the mask and qty checks). It was the "extra bottles" thing that I didn't get.

So ... even if you start losing cabin pressure, in order to 'stay dry' you have to 'stay high' (less pph fuel burn) and that means more O2 is needed than is normally available in the aircraft. Got it. Thanks.

So yes ... Really. When I no longer learn at least one new thing every day it's time to eat a bullet and see what's next. :D
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom