CL300 Sets speed record

[FLYLOW22]

Wasn't there a speed record set by one of our X's from SAN to CHS with a flight time of 2:56.... It was last year with Steve Fosset on board.

 

[LXJ31]

With that claustrophobic cabin and stumble-inducing floor, it had better get there fast

Just kidding. The C-750 is a sharp airplane.

I think that Flexjet's motivation behind the record is to show the CL-300's strength on long-haul flights among aircraft in its class.

 

[On Your Six]

With that claustrophobic cabin and stumble-inducing floor, it had better get there fast

Just kidding. The C-750 is a sharp airplane.

I think that Flexjet's motivation behind the record is to show the CL-300's strength on long-haul flights among aircraft in its class.

CL-300 is a lot more comfortable up front too from what I hear... If you are going to fly 3+ hours you probably could use the extra room.

 

[GVFlyer]

Inject some common sense into that math. They weren't at Mach 0.83 in their first segment climb, or on short final, for Pete's sake!

I guess a 26 knot loss in average speed is reasonable. I have several FAI and NAA records and although it is difficult to make much of a difference on a flight as short as CRQ to BGR, there are techniques you can use to help yourself out. Number one is coordinate with ATC for unrestricted climbs and descents. Number two is time your flight for non-peak traffic times at departure and destination airports. It helps. At any weight less than 89,000 lbs I can be out of 10,000 feet in less than 3 minutes. Climbing at 300/M 0.80 and depending on how far I'm going, I'll be at 41,000 in 13 to 22 minutes from takeoff. Thereafter, as I burn off fuel I drift up to optimum altitude at whatever my cruise airspeed is to be for the flight (M 0.87 to 5000nm, M 0.85 to 6000 nm, M 0.83 to 6300 nm, M 0.80 to 6750 nm). I stay at altitude as long as I can, then barber pole it down to a planned descent point of 10,000 feet 25 nm from destination. I look to be on the ground within 7 minutes of that point. At some foreign destinations you don't have to slow to 250 below 10,000 feet so you can beat 7 minutes. We always plan for a constant speed cruise, but if I'm fat on fuel towards the end of a flight and don't have water under me, I push it up.

Using those techniques on a flight from CRQ to BGR with the same conditions the CL300 had, I would probably only go to 37,000 feet in order to take advantage of the winds, spend a longer time at high speed cruise and possibly have a higher temp to give me a higher true. However, if I went to 41,000 feet as he did, I would spend 13 minutes in the climb, 234 minutes in cruise, 16 minutes in the descent and be on the ground in Bangor in no more than 4:23. Maximum speed for the flight would be M 0.87 (499 Kts) plus the wind for 546 knots. Average speed for the flight would be 533 knots. The longer the flight is, the closer the average speed will be to the maximum cruise speed.

GV

 

[GVFlyer]

Wasn't there a speed record set by one of our X's from SAN to CHS with a flight time of 2:56.... It was last year with Steve Fosset on board.

Here it is...average speed - 631.6 knots. Incredible!


Sub-class : C-1 (Landplanes)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a recognised course : 1 169.71 km/h

Date of flight: 05/02/2003
Pilot: Steve FOSSETT (USA)
Crew: Douglas A. TRAVIS
Course/place: San Diego, CA (USA) - Charleston, SC (USA)

Aircraft:
Cessna 750 Citation X (2 Rolls-Royce AE3007C, 6'442 lbs each)
Registered 'N377SF'


GV

 

[pilot1704]

you guys are fking funny!

Personally I think it is great that Cl300 is doing so great!

Good for them, Gongrats!

 

[GEXDriver]

Personally I think it is great that Cl300 is doing so great!

Good for them, Gongrats!

Define "great."

 

[SkyGirl]

you guys are fking funny!

You think they're obscenely funny for making factual and informative posts or for some other reason?

-SkyGirl-

 

[NJAFracPilot]

I guess a 26 knot loss in average speed is reasonable. I have several FAI and NAA records and although it is difficult to make much of a difference on a flight as short as CRQ to BGR, there are techniques you can use to help yourself out. Number one is coordinate with ATC for unrestricted climbs and descents. Number two is time your flight for non-peak traffic times at departure and destination airports. It helps. At any weight less than 89,000 lbs I can be out of 10,000 feet in less than 3 minutes. Climbing at 300/M 0.80 and depending on how far I'm going, I'll be at 41,000 in 13 to 22 minutes from takeoff. Thereafter, as I burn off fuel I drift up to optimum altitude at whatever my cruise airspeed is to be for the flight (M 0.87 to 5000nm, M 0.85 to 6000 nm, M 0.83 to 6300 nm, M 0.80 to 6750 nm). I stay at altitude as long as I can, then barber pole it down to a planned descent point of 10,000 feet 25 nm from destination. I look to be on the ground within 7 minutes of that point. At some foreign destinations you don't have to slow to 250 below 10,000 feet so you can beat 7 minutes. We always plan for a constant speed cruise, but if I'm fat on fuel towards the end of a flight and don't have water under me, I push it up.

Using those techniques on a flight from CRQ to BGR with the same conditions the CL300 had, I would probably only go to 37,000 feet in order to take advantage of the winds, spend a longer time at high speed cruise and possibly have a higher temp to give me a higher true. However, if I went to 41,000 feet as he did, I would spend 13 minutes in the climb, 234 minutes in cruise, 16 minutes in the descent and be on the ground in Bangor in no more than 4:23. Maximum speed for the flight would be M 0.87 (499 Kts) plus the wind for 546 knots. Average speed for the flight would be 533 knots. The longer the flight is, the closer the average speed will be to the maximum cruise speed.

GV

Interesting post, GV. Do you work for Gulfstream?

 

[GEXDriver]

Interesting post, GV. Do you work for Gulfstream?

You have to ask?

 

[AcroChik]

Definitly Maybe

With his inferior knowledge of the product, lack of passion for its performance, whining about forward galleys, and immediate replies when the brand name is taken in vain, I'd say, nooooo, GV's never been near the place.

Another thread I've completely enjoyed. Thanks to all.

 

[flexlrpilot357]

You're kinda missing the point, GV. The "speed record" aspect of the flight was secondary. It was done to show the real-world operational capabilities of the airplane. It took off fully loaded, in the wrong direction, they flew at sub-optimal altitudes, and flew the route at MMo, landing with *plenty* of gas. No sweat!

It did with ease and comfort what the marketing targets can't do at all.

 

[GVFlyer]

You're kinda missing the point, GV. The "speed record" aspect of the flight was secondary. It was done to show the real-world operational capabilities of the airplane. It took off fully loaded, in the wrong direction, they flew at sub-optimal altitudes, and flew the route at MMo, landing with *plenty* of gas. No sweat!

It did with ease and comfort what the marketing targets can't do at all.

No, I kinda got it. This is from my post #33 in this thread:

With all things considered, there was no comparison between the CL300 and the X or G200, especially at 17mil a pop.

Yes, it's an amazing airplane at it's price. The G200 has the edge on speed and range and a slightly larger cabin, but it costs $4 million more. The Citation X is more price competitive at $19.26 million and quick (2978 nm @ M.0.85; 3098 nm @ M 0.82), but the cabin is small: 23'6" L X 5'8" H X 5'6" W.

I think Flex Jet is going to sell a lot of CL300's. If entry into service goes smoothly it will be a great "Continental" aircraft.

GV

By the way, they flew in the right direction if they were looking for a tailwind, and they found one. Average tailwind for the CL300's record flight was 47 knots. I suspect that FL410 was a compromise altitude; FL370 would have probably offered better winds, but may have presented fuel concerns.

GV

 

[flexlrpilot357]

By "wrong direction", I meant they took off in the direction with the 297 ft. displaced threshold - runway 6. 4600' was plenty for the mission.

 

[91100 100 set]

(are we talking 8 highschool cheerleaders or 8 NFL linebackers?)

I'd want to take the 8 high school cheerleaders personally...

 

[GVFlyer]

By "wrong direction", I meant they took off in the direction with the 297 ft. displaced threshold - runway 6. 4600' was plenty for the mission.

If I were doing the flight, that's the direction I would take-off as well - runway 06 is pointed at Bangor. It can take time to get turned around and headed toward your destination if you depart Rwy 24 and those minutes count against you on a record run.

GV

 

[flexlrpilot357]

Yes, but it was still the shorter runway. I'm sure you see my point, GV.

 

[GVFlyer]

Yes, but it was still the shorter runway. I'm sure you see my point, GV.

Yep, sure do. However, I still think that the most impressive thing about the CL300 is it's price point; at $17.85 million it is millions less than other similar mid-size cabin aircraft such as the G200, the Falcon50EX, the Citation X, the Falcon 2000 and the Horizon.

GV