Hawker to Hawaii

[KSUPILOT]

what would it be if you did .68 going out there. I know the stick shaker is going off the g4 that should have been doing the trip!

 

[satpak77]

clearly

with this much "discussion" over this topic, one should shy away from taking a Hawker to Hawaii

kinda like in cruise flight, "if you are asking if you will have enough fuel when you land, you prob need to just land and get some now, and be done with it"

 

[Lead Sled]

Back when I was flying Lears, I attended recurrent in Tucson with a crew that flew a 36 to the mainland once a year. They would schedule maintenance while they were at FlightSafety. The captain talked about how they would usually get the low-fuel lights on approach; but, of course, east bound was no problem.

I never read anything about them in any of the magazines or saw anything on TV so evidently they continued to pull it off.

Unless the boss has the $$$ to get an airplane that can honestly handle the flight, his best option is a nice comfy first-class seat on some cattle car.

'Sled

 

[KSUPILOT]

If it was this much of a pinch ( depending on your skills and balls) why would Raytheon publish this. That is like saying you an take a king air across the nat tracks bgr-eggw! Can't wait to do it in our XP.

 

[gern_blanston]

If it was this much of a pinch ... why would Raytheon publish this.

Uhh, to sell airplanes?
The pilot's worst enemy: The salesman.

 

[Dumbledore]

We have a Hawker 800xp that we have crosed the NAT with.

Not a big deal really. Options out the wazoo there. The leg between SFO/OAK and HI is the longest overwater leg you can fly anywhere in the WORLD that has no landing alternate other than destination or origin. There's no place on the ENTIRE PLANET where a "wet footprint" matters more!

Now that I know that it can be done I guess I have to go try it and be an idiot and a rebel!

Nah. How's about trying it in an airplane that was built for the job. A Hawker isn't one of them - XP or not, winglets or not.

You have to ask yourself just one question:
Do you really want to be sweating the fuel for SIX hours?

 

[Dumbledore]

Come to think of it though, you can do it handily in a 1000. Go get yourself one of those.

 

[G100driver]

My only last comment, don't go with a wet footprint.

Ace

Excellent advice!!!!!

 

[Stryker]

your right I am lying about the whole thing, why dont you call universal and have them run it fro you since you cant seem to flight plan and calculate your own fuel burns

 

[Stryker]

Below is a performance plan run by Jeppesen for an 800XP. It shows an average of 49kts of headwind, climbing straight to 380, then stepping to 400 when able, and cruising at M.70. 4 pax. Departing SFO, 120lb fuel burn startup to takeoff. Landing with 1400lbs. Not what I call a good reserve for flying 2100 miles overwater.

PLAN XXXX KSFO TO PHNL 80XP M70/F IFR 08/23/05
NONSTOP COMPUTED 0256Z FOR ETD 1300Z PROGS 2218NWS NXXXXX LBS

FUEL TIME DIST ARRIVE TAKEOFF LAND AV PLD OPNLWT
DEST PHNL 008481 06/06 2100 1906Z 027180 018699 000800 016500
RESV 000000 00/00
ALTN 000000 00/00 0000 Z
HOLD 000000 00/00
REQD 008481 06/06
TAXI 000120
XTRA 001399 01/12
TOTL 010000 07/18
CLEARANCE



KSFO..NORMM..BEBOP..36N30..32N40..26N50..CLUTS MAGGI3 PHNL

WIND M049 MXSH 2/36N30
TAS 407 FL 380/32N40 400


Now....just for kicks....lets see the return for the same time and situation.

PLAN XXXX PHNL TO KSFO 80XP M70/F IFR 08/23/05
NONSTOP COMPUTED 0305Z FOR ETD 1300Z PROGS 2218NWS NXXXXX LBS

FUEL TIME DIST ARRIVE TAKEOFF LAND AV PLD OPNLWT
DEST KSFO 007146 05/00 2101 1800Z 027180 020034 000800 016500
RESV 000000 00/00
ALTN 000000 00/00 0000 Z
HOLD 000000 00/00
REQD 007146 05/00
TAXI 000120
XTRA 002734 02/13
TOTL 010000 07/12
CLEARANCE



PHNL MKK4 CLUTS..26N50..31N40..35N30..KSFO

WIND P047 MXSH 3/35N30
TAS 403 FL 390

Hmmm....landing with 2700lbs going eastbound with an average 47kt tailwind...and you say that you can do it going westbound with up to a 65kt headwind? Ok.....whatever you say...

I have seen it, why would I make that up, to try and talk someone in to making a bad decision. That is stupid and not what this web sight is for. shouldnt you be on some frac websight complaning about your wages

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

How's about trying it in an airplane that was built for the job. A Hawker isn't one of them - XP or not, winglets or not.

You have to ask yourself just one question:
Do you really want to be sweating the fuel for SIX hours?

You're right, the Hawker wasn't designed for this sort of flight, neither was the 737. They both can do it safely under the right conditions. The reason there is so much discussion is that there are a lot of amature jet pilots on this board. Do I really want to be sweating fuel for six hours? Don't know if I want to, but I'm going to (and have several times in each jet I've flown). I don't call it 'sweating' though. I call it cutting into my planned reserve. Legal and safe. I've done it in a Lear and I've done it in a GV. If you don't want to take a jet to its range limits, you should really be letting the pros fly the things.

As for those flight plans that someone ran, 2 comments. 1. That plan is not optomized for the tail number to be flown (could make it better or worse). and 2. Landing with 1:12 (1400#) seems like plenty of fuel in a Hawker. Its over 10% of the total fuel capacity. Look up 121 regs (worse than part 91) and you'll understand. Of course, I haven't seen the drift down so I can't comment on that.

Ace

 

[Stryker]

you are so right, plus the winglets add an additional 7%

 

[corp_da20_guy]

you are so right, plus the winglets add an additional 7%

The thing about the winglets is that even though they were certified, they did not recertify cruise data or even takeoff data I believe. So if you want to split hairs...based on book performance they are technically no better off than a straight from the factory 800XP without winglets. Logic will tell you that your performance will be better than book, but again if you wanted to split hairs I wouldn't want to argue the fact with the inspector as to how I was able to plan for the trip legally. As for crew that have taken the XP with winglets to HI...I was in recurrent about 6 months ago with a crew that had the first one. THe numbers they were seeing were pretty incredible, but I don't see myself taking the airplane to HI...I'll take something a little better suited for the trip.

just my $.02

 

[Capt.LongThrust]

You're right, the Hawker wasn't designed for this sort of flight, neither was the 737. They both can do it safely under the right conditions. The reason there is so much discussion is that there are a lot of amature jet pilots on this board. Do I really want to be sweating fuel for six hours? Don't know if I want to, but I'm going to (and have several times in each jet I've flown). I don't call it 'sweating' though. I call it cutting into my planned reserve. Legal and safe. I've done it in a Lear and I've done it in a GV. If you don't want to take a jet to its range limits, you should really be letting the pros fly the things.

As for those flight plans that someone ran, 2 comments. 1. That plan is not optomized for the tail number to be flown (could make it better or worse). and 2. Landing with 1:12 (1400#) seems like plenty of fuel in a Hawker. Its over 10% of the total fuel capacity. Look up 121 regs (worse than part 91) and you'll understand. Of course, I haven't seen the drift down so I can't comment on that.

Ace

WOW. Pro? Far from it. I get it, you are one of those "hold my beer and watch this pro" guy. A little luck and you just might make 10k hours.

 

[capt601]

I keep hearing this in posts on this topic, having a minimum reserve on a Hawaii trip means nothing. You need to have enough fuel to make it at your ETP. The numbers of your normal reserve fuel on landing on a Domestic trip will normally not be the same as when you land in Hawaii. You are going to have a bit more fuel as you have to carry the fuel to make it at your ETP if you have problems, which if you do not have any problems, will cause you to land with more fuel than your normal reserve. i know from past flights to Hawaii on a CL601, we usually end up landing with 4000-4500 lbs (accounting for the ETP situations). where a normal US trip we land with 3000 # reserve.

So all of this talk with landing with 10% of total fuel capacity, means nothing until you plan the trip and see that you have enough at your ETP's to make it, and not leave yourself with a wet footprint (and dirty shorts).
1400#'s on landing sure seems like not much even on a normal US domestic flight, let alone having enough extra to account for the depress ETP.
It's amazing how we plan flights from the start to account for engine failure on takeoff, and then get airborne and not plan for another emergency.?

see ya.

As for those flight plans that someone ran, 2 comments. 1. That plan is not optomized for the tail number to be flown (could make it better or worse). and 2. Landing with 1:12 (1400#) seems like plenty of fuel in a Hawker. Its over 10% of the total fuel capacity. Look up 121 regs (worse than part 91) and you'll understand. Of course, I haven't seen the drift down so I can't comment on that.

Ace