GLEX/GV-G550 fuel saving anyone?

Valkyrie

Registered and alive
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Posts
190
Total Time
2820
After I have been told that one GLEX operator implemented a .82 "mandatory" cruise mach for any empty leg, and another G550 operator decided on a .83 empty leg speed, I was wondering if any of you ever practiced or heard about similar fuel saving technique on the GLEX or G5/550.

Then comes the question about extra maintenance costs due to longer flight times.

Any experience?
 

Lynxman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Posts
747
Total Time
....
Just shut one down and you'll have half as much fuel burn. Alternate between the 2 on dead legs. This will save you fuel and maintenance.
 

LJ45

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Posts
1,081
Total Time
13,000
fuel is pretty cheap these days.
 

nwf800

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Posts
57
Total Time
1300
There is this website site out there called www.schedulingsidecar.com It is very easy to use all you do is punch in your route and it finds the cheapest fuel at each airport. It is also coming out with with a function where you can enter in landing cost and handling fees and it will determine if it is right to take enough gas to waive the fee or wait to cheaper fuel.
 

K.V.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
240
Total Time
a lot
In most cases, the extra time on the airplane will cost more than the fuel savings.
 

hawkerjet

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
606
Total Time
8200
If it's a managed aircraft the the company managing the aircraft would benefit from the slower speeds because they are the ones paying for fuel. Let's say it's a managed aircraft and it's on a charter. The managing company comes out ahead by the slower speeds;
1) More fuel savings
2)longer flights more money, even on empty legs they are reducing their costs.
3) The maintenance will still be paid for by the owner.
 

Rick1128

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Posts
919
Total Time
22000+
Used LRC in a G4 with good success. As is using the winds when possible. Using a lower altitude with very good tailwinds will make up for the additional fuel burn. And taking a higher than optimum altitude to get out of higher headwinds.
 

Valkyrie

Registered and alive
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Posts
190
Total Time
2820
The managing company comes out ahead by the slower speeds;
1) More fuel savings
2)longer flights more money, even on empty legs they are reducing their costs.
3) The maintenance will still be paid for by the owner.
That is exactly what I thought. Thank you for your time guys (even Lynxman, let's have a CRM* attitude! ).

* Constructive Response Management.
 

K.V.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
240
Total Time
a lot
I thought Lynxman's idea was pretty ingenious
 

Brett Hull

Pastafarian
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
971
Total Time
7900
I thought Lynxman's idea was pretty ingenious
You think that's something that could only be made up. My old boss at a low-rent 135, when they bought their first jet; a Lear 24 freighter, was trying to find ways to save on the fuel burn. We're descending into MEM and he pulls #1 back to idle. "Look", he says, "the FF's way down". Meanwhile, #2's pushed up so far the EGT's bumping against the red line.

But at least he was saving some gas!
 

G100driver

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Posts
2,096
Total Time
<2mil
We operate a Falcon 2000. We had slowed to .80 on all legs but have picked back up .82 with the significant decrease in fuel costs.
 

siucavflight

Back from the forsaken
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Posts
3,512
Total Time
5000
Thanks guys maybe I should be flying a GLEX.
You never know, if the girl in your avatar has any friends for me I may be able to hook you up!
 
Top