Citationshares

[gump88]

You darn right, its your turn!!

Citation Capt - sorry if I misunderstood your question - I'm not the shrapest ball of Play Dough in the can.

Gump - how many days would it take you to catch a X?? Ya'll ought to hook up a tow rope and let them pull you around the country! You need to come thru LUK soon - I think it's my turn to buy!

CL

The next time I am in LUK, I will be calling. You better be saving up that beer money!!!!

Cheers,
gump

 

[GVFlyer]

Hey GV!!!

Why don't you just admit that the CE 750 is FASTER than the freakin GV? We aint talkin about range or max altitude.

The GV is a gorgeous bird but when it comes to just plain speed, the X is the fastest jet, period.

Cheers,
gump/QUOTE]



OK, let's race! We could try:

Beijing to Memphis

Sydney to Los Angeles

Buenos Aires to Venice

Washington, DC to Cape Town

New York to Tokyo

or even New York to San Francisco.

Come on, Gumpo, I said I'd buy Xrated750's contention that the Citation X was the fastest biz jet up to a point. It's up to 17 knots faster than the GV for a short distance down low. The GV is faster at altitude which can make a difference going west because most of the time the headwinds are many times that 17 knots in the 30's and low 40's and are significantly less up high.

The GV is a blast to fly. It has the control harmony of a fighter, a quick roll rate and is a powerful beast. The 48 inch fans move a lot of air so it accelerates quickly. It's very satisfying to hand fly to 51,000 feet. With it's 93'6" wide chord, low wing-loading wing the GV's high altitude performance is stellar. If you don't have any passengers to make sick, it's a real joy to fly 45 degree bank turns at FL510. During last winter's horendous winds, it was very nice to be doing .84 at 49,000 feet at the cruise power setting where there were virtually no winds. The GVSP, due out first quarter '04, is going to be better: same weight, less drag, 6% more power.

The 750's speed comes at a high price. The direct operating cost is $1336.17 an hour for the 35,700 pound Citation. You can move the 45 ton GV around for $1470.77 an hour.

The GV has flown much faster than the Citation X. In test, the GV went out to 1.07 mach as verified by on board engineering workstations manned by really scared flight test engineers and real time telemetry to the Gulfstream
Test Operations Center.

I know, I sound like I should be selling these things, but I just like flying the jet so much that I just volunteered for an additional flight this week.

Cheers -











.

 

[NJA Capt]

GV,
It is VERY obvious you enjoy the GV. You do, however, sound like you are trying to sell us one. We know it has the range, we know it is fast. By your example though, the GV is faster than an F15 at mach 2, just because it can't fly to Beijing non-stop. Well, the space shuttle can lap the planet in around 1 hour with the engines OFF. Now, I know you can't claim the GV can top that.

Please stop touting the strong attributes of the GV over the CX. We know. They aren't even in the same class. The posts above were stating that the Mmo on the CX IS THE FASTEST. Period. The GV is a marathon runner, the CX is a sprinter. That's what is was made for. The CX is CERTIFIED for .92, the GV IS NOT! Don't compare apples to oranges, by saying "the X can't do this, the X can't do that," because it can't fly 6000+ miles. The GV cannot operate at .92, a CX can.

PS...Cessna claims the CX went supersonic in flight tests too.

Best wishes,
NJA Capt

 

[Dep676]

This is a pretty good cat fight going on here.

Sounds like my is bigger than yours argument.

 

[GVFlyer]

GV,
It is VERY obvious you enjoy the GV. You do, however, sound like you are trying to sell us one. We know it has the range, we know it is fast. By your example though, the GV is faster than an F15 at mach 2, just because it can't fly to Beijing non-stop.

You are, of course, right, but let me tell you about a little game we played out in W157A with the F-18's from MCAS Beaufort during GV development. The 340 knot Vmo is there to give you a 20 year airframe life and bird strike protection, the jet will go much faster. In the test articles we would pull a turn in front of the F-18's going 430-440 indicated in the low 20's or high teens and head East. They would squawk about us to Sealord, but they wouldn't come after us because to catch us they would have to light the burner and if they lit the burner a hundred miles out to sea heading East, they weren't going to make it back to Beaufort.

Well, the space shuttle can lap the planet in around 1 hour with the engines OFF. Now, I know you can't claim the GV can top that.

No, but we have better engines and a more modern cockpit.....Relax, I'm just kidding you.

Please stop touting the strong attributes of the GV over the CX. We know. They aren't even in the same class. The posts above were stating that the Mmo on the CX IS THE FASTEST. Period. The GV is a marathon runner, the CX is a sprinter. That's what is was made for. The CX is CERTIFIED for .92, the GV IS NOT! Don't compare apples to oranges, by saying "the X can't do this, the X can't do that," because it can't fly 6000+ miles. The GV cannot operate at .92, a CX can.

Getting pretty testy there with all the shouting and demands, take a Pamprin and try to calm down. Gulfstream advertises the GV as the fastest business jet beyond 2200nm. Again, I acknowledged in both my previous posts that the C-750 was quicker.

PS...Cessna claims the CX went supersonic in flight tests too.

I hadn't heard this. I know a guy in Cessna Flight Test pretty well, he's a past officer in SETP, I'll ask him the details. Although he's on the Sovereign project right now he did work on the X. He knows the details of the GV's Supersonic escapade, we talked about it as a case in point as to why supersonic airplanes have all moving tails.

Regards,

GV










.

 

[Safetycheck]

Take a Pamprin...I love it! HAHA

Take a Pamprin and get over it...that is good advice to many posters on this board. BUnch of mamby pambies over here.

Anyway...

Does all of this GV talk on the Citationshares board suggest that perhaps Citationshares will be getting into a Gulfstream shares concept?

Hmm....

 

[Xrated750]

Get out your check book

Great back and forth here people. Yes the C-X is faster but the GV gives it a run for the money, because at $43.2 million (the SP will another 2.3 mil) compared to $19 million. I could buy 2 C-X's and have enough left over to get a third small jet like a Bravo. Or maybe I would just buy a little over 50 Eclipse 500's and start my own business instead.

The C-X's was so fast they limited the engine thrust, but the newer models coming out now will have increased power and performance. Also I believe that GV sucks a lot more fuel than the C-X at altitude, as for climb well I believe they both average around 18 min to fl370. Any way as far as ground speed goes no problem getting the X other mach 1. And if you want that real long range you are going to have to slow that thing down anyway, same as everybody. Keepem comin.

.92 out

 

[Snakum]

Supersonic in the X ...

I caught a Discovery Channel special on business jets in which they rode along on a test flight in a new CX. The test pilot, when talking about how they explore the envelope for each one off the line, said "these jets will go supersonic" ... they've obviously done so in testing. But I'll bet others have as well. I would imagine you'd wanna bump the speed envelope pretty good when certifying a new design to ensure it isn't gonna instantly fall apart or become uncontrolable and unrecoverable when someone inadvertantly hits mach 1.

Hey ... didn't someone take a 72 supersonic in a dive following an uncommanded slat deployment? Clean underwear time fer sure ...

Minh

 

[GVFlyer]

Re: Get out your check book

Yes the C-X is faster but the GV gives it a run for the money, because at $43.2 million (the SP will another 2.3 mil) compared to $19 million. I could buy 2 C-X's and have enough left over to get a third small jet like a Bravo.

You're right, but the GV is less expensive than the C-X by the pound.

The C-X's was so fast they limited the engine thrust, but the newer models coming out now will have increased power and performance.

Everybody does this, it's where those 8,000 hour TBO's come from on the Rolls. The BR710/715 Rolls family will produce over 22,000 lbs of thrust; Gulfstream rates the engine at 14,750 lbs on the GV and 15,385 lbs on the GVSP.

Any modern swept-wing jet has enough thrust to accelerate right into mach effects in the 30's.

Also I believe that GV sucks a lot more fuel than the C-X at altitude...

Right again, the GV costs 10% more an hour to operate, but keep in mind that it weighs over 140% more.

...as for climb well I believe they both average around 18 min to fl370.

This looks like the numbers estimated by "Business and Commercial Aviation." They appear to be about right for a GV taking off at maximum gross weight (90,500 ) on a standard day. Consider this, however, the GV can carry 41,300 lbs of fuel, but only needs 16,000 to make it from LAX to IAD with reserves. My standard ramp load is 14,000 lbs of fuel, so most days, with 8 pax, my all-up weight is less than 64,000 lbs and climb performance is pretty spectacular. ATC has to call us to ask the altitude passing because the computer can't keep up.

And if you want that real long range you are going to have to slow that thing down anyway, same as everybody. Keepem comin.

You're on a roll, right again. Ranges for the GVSP are as follows:

High Speed Cruise: .87 mach - 5000 nm

Normal Cruise: .85 mach - 6000 nm

Long Range Cruise: .80 mach - 6750 nm


Always a pleasure,

GV









.

 

[Safetycheck]

Go Get 'em GV

I love it. You 750 drivers might as well "give it up!"

Go get 'em GV.

 

[GVFlyer]

Re: Supersonic in the X ...

I caught a Discovery Channel special on business jets in which they rode along on a test flight in a new CX. The test pilot, when talking about how they explore the envelope for each one off the line, said "these jets will go supersonic" ... they've obviously done so in testing. But I'll bet others have as well. I would imagine you'd wanna bump the speed envelope pretty good when certifying a new design to ensure it isn't gonna instantly fall apart or become uncontrolable and unrecoverable when someone inadvertantly hits mach 1.

No one has a supersonic test point for an airplane designed for sub-sonic flight; the wing and tail and even the fuselage designs differ dramatically for flight in compressible versus non-compressible conditions.

Determing VD and MMO is determined during developmental test and is governed by FAR 25.253, FAR 25.335 and FAR 25.1505.

For most designs, flutter, a destructive-non reversible mode, determines VD and susequently MMO. In the GV, limiting speed was when rudder CLBeta went positive at about .96 mach. This is a very benign aerodynamic effect. If you are conservative you back off M.07 from this speed to determine MMO, if you're not you back off M.05. Gulfstream is very conservative hence the .885 MMO.

Every airplane is born without a Certificate of Airworthiness. Factory Production Test Pilots are authorized by the FAA to fly what is normally around a 40 page FAA approved test card to prove that each airplane meets the requirement of FAR 25 before a C of A is issued. The FAA initially flys each fifth flight with a factory pilot. As the design becomes more mature the FAA backs off to every 10th flight and the test card requirements become less stringent. For the first GV's the test card required that each jet be flown at M .955 to insure that no adverse control characteristics were present should the airplane ever get away from the pilot. The current requirement is to take each GV to M.92. Each G-IV goes to .90 to get a Cof A.

Cheers

GV













.

 

[banned username 2]

HEHEE... What a heated thread....

Thats ok, I'll race either of you guys (C-X or G-V) for a years salary!

But first we each shut down 2 engines.... DOH!

 

[bigD]

You guys are arguing all the wrong things. Only one thing really matters here.

The Citation X is a sexier looking airplane. Hands down, the thing is just gorgeous. It's like if I have a Cadillac and a Ferrari in the garage, and want to impress the ladies while out on the town - I'll roll in the Ferrari. Yeah, the Caddy is bigger and maybe better appointed, but the Ferrari is going to be the one to turn the heads.

Bottom line: if I'm cruising the country for chicks - I'll be flying the Cessna.

 

[DC8Driver]

I think I started this whole thing. All I wanted to know was how the X flies They are both beautiful Aircraft. Both do a wonderful job....and speaking of jobs......I am in need of one....any one.

As my resume sez......I will cheerfully relocate......I would gladly fly the X or the V or IV or III or II hell anyone know of a I job? Thats either brand

 

[banned username 2]

I am in the slowtation V Ultra but it seems to me I often hear on ATC -- the Falcon 2000 slowing down for Gulfstreams.

Now that does not compute according to advertised performance of these aircraft.

We often times have to slow for Gulfstreams and other jets... I believe the Gulfstream IV and Gulfstream V have a Vmo or 340 kias, our Falcon 900EX's and 50EX's have Vmo's of 370 kts...

And before GVFlyer gets his undies in a bunch, I've had to slow for a Citation X also, their Vmo is 350 kias I believe....

I'm disappointed neither of you guys have accepted my generous offer!

 

[bigD]

I'm curious - how well does the Falcon fly on just one engine?

 

[GVFlyer]

HEHEE... What a heated thread....

Thats ok, I'll race either of you guys (C-X or G-V) for a years salary!

But first we each shut down 2 engines.... DOH!

Very funeee, Falcon...

Hmmmm, Wait....Maybe if we start 250 miles from destination and I'm at 51,000 feet.......

 

[capt_zman]

BigD,

Obviously you're the one going home with the fat acne-laced chicks at the end of the night, because the X is downright ugly, both inside and out, compared with any of the Gulfstreams.

There isn't a better looking plane on earth.

 

[banned username 2]

I'm curious - how well does the Falcon fly on just one engine?

Well in the sim with the Falcon 900EX, we would do 2 engine out go arounds in Denver on a 30°C day at moderate weights.... It will climb to about 12,000 ft or so... on drift down it will come down to around 15,000 after something around 90 minutes or so (would need to look at the charts... The 900EX has a lot better performance than the 900/900B or 900C

 

[bigD]

because the X is downright ugly, both inside and out, compared with any of the Gulfstreams.

Them's fightin' words zman!

You need to put your glasses on and look again. I wonder - do you drive a Pontiac Aztek too?