Flying the G-III - the Good, Bad and Ugly

[Heavy Set]

I have a friend who is looking into a GIII FO position on the East Coast. I am not too familiar with the details in terms of aicraft specifications. Anyone fly this aircraft? What are your impressions? I am not sure if it is EFIS equipped but I have been told that it is cared for pretty well.

What's it like to fly it? Are most EFIS equipped or are many flown with standard guages (I have seen some pictures of some older flight decks)? Can you reliably fly one across the pond? How does it compare with other aircraft you have flown (does yours have an EFIS package)?

Thanks

 

[wildbill]

The G-III I am flying is an AC powered aircraft. It is equiped with EFIS. Pretty straight forward airplane that loves to burn jet fuel. Have been over the pacific in it and felt very good. Systems are redundent and the aircraft is built like a tank. Because it is a stage II aircraft you have to be very aware of noise restrictions and follow them to the letter. Stay ahead of theaircraft and he will have no problems. I enjoy flying the G-III. Ours is well maintained by GulfStream in Brunswick, Ga. and dispatch reliability is excellent. Tell your friend to go for it.

 

[TIS]

All good - with two uglies!

The GIIB/III series of aircraft are quite simply the some of the hottest machines you will ever fly. Lets' start with the fact that the British put afterburning RR Speys on the F-4 Phantoms. That's your engine.

Its climb performance is nothing short of spectacular. Climbing at 300 KIAS above 10,000 MSL you lose steam at about FL260 but get it right back after the mach changeover. She climbs at .75M very nicely - I've seen sustained values over 3,000'/minute above FL370 at intermediate weights. Time to climb to FL410 at max gross is about 22-24 minutes depending on temperature. the GIIB is generally a littel more spry in the climb than the III - it's a little shorter and lighter with the same engines.

I am happier in a steam gauge, DC-powered IIB or III than in an EFIS, AC-powered III. As far as the electricity is concerned I think the DC airplane offers more electrical redundancy and therefore, more ways to solve electrical woes. The AC plane is nice - you can have the APU alternator in the air if you like and everything's automatic - but it's a better system altogether on the IV.

As far as the instruments go, the EFIS packages I've flown in the III are generally very early versions of EFIS and they're not very friendly, or very useful for that matter. A lot of the first generation stuff is just crap. It looks fancy but it's nothing special.

As for going across the pond, which one did you have in mind? I've been to Hawaii, Saipan, Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, NewZealand, Australia, Russia, England, Ireland, France, Germany, Switzerland ... you get the idea.

Now for the downside. They DO burn a LOT of fuel. Idle is about 1000#/hour a side and takeoff flow can exceed 8000#/hour a side. It calms down once you get to altitude so it's a darn good thing it'll get you there straight out of the box. If you want range you'll need to slow to about .77M. if you want speed and don't care about the fuel bill you can go .84M if you like. I've flown our GIIB from Buenos Aires to San Juan, PR non-stop and I've flown our IIIs from Stanstead to Teterboro, also non-stop. It takes planning and a willingness to change plans on a moment's notice but it can be done.

The other problem IS indeed noise. These planes are about as loud as they come. The engines are basically the product of the Century Series fighter era. There are two new stage III hushkits available. I have experience with the QTA version. It's produced by the same guys that did the BAc-111s out there and it works pretty well.

Amazingly simple in the way it works the modification esssentially replaces the stage II exhaust cookie-cutter with a more up-to-date version and adds a ring shroud behind the cookie-cutter to shield some of the noise. Reverser movement is unchanged with VERY simple mechanical provisions made to get the shroud out of the way as a product of reverser deployment. That adds up to being a good thing because reverse is EXTREMEMLY effective on the GIII. It is not at all uncommon to be able to stay off the brakes until you're out of reverse - even on shorter runways!

I landed at Telluride the other day and exited WELL before the end of the runway. Didn't touch the brakes until I started to cancel reverse at 70 knots. When I got out and checked the temperature of the rims I could lay my hand flat on them indefinitely without flinching.

Finally, the STC adds a new bullet to the front of the engine. It's a longer, sleeker bullet with sound absorption properties. The addition of the bullet to the package not only got the noise down outside the plane but also produced a 20% reduction in interior noise as well. A GIII with this STC is just about as quiet as a G-IV inside. I know this from experience having flown an unmodified GIII, a modified GIIB, and a G-IV all in the same day.

To put all this in a nutshell, i have a friend who recently went to go work for brand X. He was given a Challenger to manage and I asked him once how he liked it. His response was, "Well, it ain't a Gulfstream." Nothing else really needs to be said.

The GIII is arguably the 727 of the corporate world. Aged? Perhaps but venerable anyway. Noisy? You bet! But that noise will get you a long ways from the ground VERY quickly! If you can get a chance to fly one of these planes I'd say DO IT!

TIS

 

[satpak77]

Rvsm

how many of these planes are being made RVSM compliant versus selling them and moving up?

I always liked watching G-II/III's take off and almost shatter windows at the FBO

 

[wildbill]

Satpak77,

I believe most all of the G-III's are being RVSM certified. I know ours is certified. Not sure about the G-II. Some of those are pretty old and are being scrapped out. Engine overhauls cost almost as much as their value. These aircraft are work horses and downright good looking.
Regards,

 

[On Your Six]

TIS,

Wow, great post! Where do I sign up? Does your outfit hire into the GIII?

 

[Otter]

I am on board with TIS and Wildbill. The G-III is a great ride.

As they have both alluded to, all your time will be spent at FL410, FL430 or FL450 if you plan on going anywhere, or not consuming more fuel than some island nations in one hour.

Fly the aiplane by the numbers and it will treat you the same every day, and take good care of you. Goes back andforth over the pond, over and over with no problem. I would be surprised if most G-III's are not already RVSM, all of ours are already completed and have been for sometime.
The AC elec. system is the launching platform for the G-IV. Works real good, lasts a long time.

 

[sidesaddle]

Converting jet fuel into noise !!!

Heavy set,

TIS summed it up very well but I'll throw in my $.02. The G1159 type (II's, IIB, and III's) are well-built, solid machines and I would trust the Rolls-Royce Spey engine (and the rest of the systems) over any water any day.

Unless your friend has stumbled across a scumbag operation, I think he would do well to get in the Gulfstream family. "The more it weighs, the more it pays" is generally true but also IMHO one can be "Typecast" in the corporate side of aviation. I know Lear pilots who would love to move onto some of the heavier iron but when they visit with the Chief Pilot of an outfit they are viewed as "Lear guys" or "Hawker guys" or whatever. (Nothing against the Lear or Hawker BTW.) And their abilities may as good or better as a pilot in the "heavier" jets but that can be hard to get a chance to prove sometimes.

Anyway, I hope it works out for the best, Oh and tell him to get the Dalton in TEB !!! (Noise Nazis!)

 

[Gatorman]

from the peanut gallery

From the mechanic's point of view, the guys like 'em. (I perfer Challengers myself)
The only things I like to whip on the Gulfstreams guys on are:
1. What kind of engineer decided to put a door on a plane that needs a hydraulic pump to close?
--and--
2. Why did they make the baggage door so high that you need step ladder to throw your luggage onboard?


Other than that....hope you have a hangar for it to fit in. ( oh, and watch out for the Hawker guys)

 

[GVFlyer]

From the mechanic's point of view, the guys like 'em. (I perfer Challengers myself)
The only things I like to whip on the Gulfstreams guys on are:
1. What kind of engineer decided to put a door on a plane that needs a hydraulic pump to close?
--and--
2. Why did they make the baggage door so high that you need step ladder to throw your luggage onboard?

Gatorman

I can understand why you prefer to work on the Challenger. Avionics in a tunnel beneath the floor boards where you have to be a spelunker to get at them is so much more convenient than the Gulfstream's standup radio racks in the vestibule and the Challenger's lower availaility rate keeps you more proficient in your trade. Additionally, Bombardier's customer service improves your social skills as you try to think of new ways to encourage them to respond to your requests.

As far as the auxiliary hydraulic pump which powers the door and serves as tertiary backup to the brakes and flaps, check out the mean time between failures. Reliability is a design goal for engineers right?

The baggage door is higher partially because the G-III is 50% larger than a Challenger 604 and because the G-III was designed with a tall landing gear in order to provide a greater crosswind capability.

Heavyset

The G-III is a great jet. Great performance, good range and superb reliability. I like the early DC aircraft with steam gauges and the later AC aircraft with EFIS over the intermediate aircraft with LED tape indicators. The last two G-III's made, SN 497 and 498 were better than early G-IV's. They had the G-IV electrical system and landing gear as well as Bendix EFIS 10's, ring laser gyros, Collins avionics all brought together with nav concentrators. Any nav aid on the aircraft(ADF,TACAN,VOR, LRN) could be coupled to the flight director for approach. The only way we could sell G-IV's was based on situational awareness and safety improvements as opposed to performance increases.

GV