Gulfstream G150

[G100driver]

Congrats about the new airplane. The next year will be very exciting for you.

Be careful about the salesmen tell you. It is still an unproven airplane. The said the same sort of things about the Astra then G100 and the Falcon 2000(non-EX) as well.

Going to HI is a no BS flight. Be very sure before you go. Heck NetJets does not go in their 2000's if the wind exceeds 80kts (very common in the winter). Any dude who flies an airplane over and lands with 800 lbs (planned) should have his licence pulled.

Stay safe and do not let the "expirenced" guys get you in trouble..

As for the Soveriegn I saw the demo the last time I was in Maui. I good friend of mine is typed and he loves it.

 

[Lead Sled]

They say it's gonna be a 2700nm aircraft at .75 mach with 4 pax. They're also saying it will do NY-LA at mach .80 and land with 200nm alternate fuel and NBAA IFR reserves, using NBAA 85% annual winds. That is with 4 passengers as well.

FWIW, I've got just under 4,000 hours in all varients of the Astra. The flight manual performance figures are very conservative, in fact, I've never flown an Astra or G100 that didn't exceed the book numbers. Will it do 2,700nm? I'm sure it will, but I'd question the speed. The Israelies, in the past, have always published 3 sets of cruise figures - max cruise, constant mach cruise, and long-range cruise. Also, in the past, their range numbers were based on using the long-range cruise charts which had you constantly climbing and slowing down (to maintain an approximate .30 AOA index) as you burned off fuel - not something that you're going to do when you're on an oceanic route. It sounds to me like your salesman may be getting his figure mixed up. I'd verify the .75 mach thing - he may have gotten the numbers from the long-range cruise charts. Regardless, if you want book performance out of an Astra (or any airplane for that matter) you've got to fly it by the book; using book procedures and techniques.

One nice thing about the G150 which westwind and G100 operators may like, is that it does not have a wet footprint. The sales director from Gulfstream stated the G150 will do Hawaii from California without a problem with 4 pax, and if you lose an engine going either direction, drift down and fuel burn are not a problem to make it to a diversion airport.

I know a couple of Astra/G100 and Westwind operators that routinely fly their aircraft to Hawaii. One says with 4 pax he can fly there from the San Fransisco area during the summer, but that he lands with 800 pounds of fuel. In the Westwind we're only talking 35 minutes of fuel at altitude. Both the Astra and Westwind have a huge wet footprint. You wont ever catch me flying one that far out over water.

That is correct. The airplane's specific range is better on one engine. The real issue when is comes to oceanic flying in one of these is its oxygen capacity. make sure you order the high capacity tanks, otherwise you're going to have to carry a few portable bottles with you when you go.

I "double ditto" what G100 said about landing with 800 lbs. That's inexcusable. I don't know if the G150 will have the extention tanks that the other Astras have. You'll need them for Hawaii, but you can do about anything else without them - if you fly the airplane by the book.

The only thing I don't like about the G150 is it's Full Fuel Usable Payload. Load this thing up with it's 10,250 punds of fuel and you can only haul 800 pounds of pax/bags/etc before you reach MGTW.

I'm sure there will be gross weight increases along the way. However, even the G100 is only a 4 passenger airplane when you load it up with fuel. The point is that aircraft flown over water tend to weigh more that aircraft flown exclusively over land. On aircraft like the Astras, you typically don't carry the rafts and the survival gear required when you're over water. Also, make sure you spec out the airplane appropriately - it's nice to have a "tie-breaker" (third FMS). Stuff like this is taken for granted in the larger bizjets, but often overlooked in midsize and smaller airplanes. All of this extra "stuff" adds up and eats away at your useful load. Ya'll be carefull now.

'Sled

 

[Heavy Set]

We met with Gulfstream the other day. Our LOI and financing is offered at $13M

They say it's gonna be a 2700nm aircraft at .75 mach with 4 pax. They're also saying it will do NY-LA at mach .80 and land with 200nm alternate fuel and NBAA IFR reserves, using NBAA 85% annual winds. That is with 4 passengers as well.

One nice thing about the G150 which westwind and G100 operators may like, is that it does not have a wet footprint. The sales director from Gulfstream stated the G150 will do Hawaii from California without a problem with 4 pax, and if you lose an engine going either direction, drift down and fuel burn are not a problem to make it to a diversion airport.

I know a couple of Astra/G100 and Westwind operators that routinely fly their aircraft to Hawaii. One says with 4 pax he can fly there from the San Fransisco area during the summer, but that he lands with 800 pounds of fuel. In the Westwind we're only talking 35 minutes of fuel at altitude. Both the Astra and Westwind have a huge wet footprint. You wont ever catch me flying one that far out over water.

The only thing I don't like about the G150 is it's Full Fuel Usable Payload. Load this thing up with it's 10,250 punds of fuel and you can only haul 800 pounds of pax/bags/etc before you reach MGTW.

Runway performance looks much like it does with the Astra SPX (G100). It uses the similar/uprated TFE731-40R-200G engines, but with improved/updated FADEC control that squeezes an extra 5% of thrust out of the engines during takeoff and climb (4420 Lbs of thrust on the G150 vs 4250 on the G100). This also applies to hot and high situations. Cruise flight Fuel flow was also reduced compared to the G100.

For most day-to-day operations and pax loads, the G150 looks like it will have performance just slightly better than the G100. At MGTW (26,000 Lbs), at SL and ISA, the BFL is close to 5900 feet.

Again, on most days, with t/o weights close to what one would see with the G100, the G150 will be comparable with the former. Not too bad for a fattened up Astra.

I can say however, that while I believe the G150 will be successful, IMHO Gulfstream and IAI should really evaluate it's engine choice and the future of the Astra wing. It would be nice to have more thrust. Maybe TFE731-5 series or Pratt & Whitney's PW306 series should be looked at. The Citation Sovereign has PW306C's installed, each rated at 5,688 Lbs during takeoff. I like the higer thrust personally.

One other thing to think about. Maybe it's time for the Astra wing to grow some, or a new wing designed all together. I say this because of the Citation Sovereign. At it's MGTW of 30,000 Lbs, the Sovereign's BFL at sea level on a ISA day is only 3,580 feet!. Basically you can add on another 2000 feet if you're flying the G150, and you're weighing 26,000 Lbs in it. (G150 MGTW is 26,000 Lbs)

Granted the Sovereign has more thrust and is more of a straight wing with a ton of flap surface as compared to the G150, but you would think having slats and flaps would help the latter.

Last not so great point, which I did mention above, the G150 is not a Full Fuel Full Passengers airplane. The Sovereign on the other hand is,.. and while on a east coast-west coast trip it may take the C680 an hour longer to get there, at least you can load it up with full fuel and 8 passengers and still fly 2,679 nm. The G150 will only do 2,700 NMs with 4 passengers.

Those are just my thoughts, maybe Gulfstream/IAI will see the light.
I have spoken to my boss about these points, and he is still interested in the G150. Nothing is signed yet, so we have time.

If we end up flying a G150 I will be just as happy with it as I am right now with the Westwind, but with other, better options out there, should we be looking at them?

I am starting to wonder if maybe we should go in the direction of the C680, but I know some people feel Cessna is the "plane in a box" manufacturer, meaning their products are not built like tanks, and they are the "Ford of Aviation."

Any thoughts on this? Should I and the other pilots attempt to go in the direction of C680?

At the very least you should check out the Sovereign and compare. I recently sat in a NJA copy parked next to my ageing Lear a few weeks back in LAS and I was very impressed. Excellent cabin and very nice Primus Epic flight deck. Like most Citations, the cockpit is a bit narrow but I still think it would be fine for 4-5 hours max before you needed a break (I can't last for more than 2-3 hours myself). Check out and sample the Sovereign before you make any decisions. I wouldn't base my future purchase entirely on your already good Westwind experience - new airplanes are never as great as you think - especially early copies. Check out the Sovereign first - I'd love to fly one myself.