Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[LegacyDriver]

Will this thread PLEASE DIE... LegacyDriver can't get over the fact that his airplane is essentially a polished t%rd.

Trying to compare it to the GV is like me comparing my ever expanding beer gut to Brad Pit's abs. Lets move on...

I hope you are a BAE *Hawk* driver and not a Hawker driver. Talk about a flying turd...

 

[HawkDrvr]

Somebody please, END THIS THREAD...

 

[LegacyDriver]

Somebody please, END THIS THREAD...

Nobody asked you to read or participate. You have the option to ignore it.

 

[banned username 2]

717 I respect that you are at least level-headed and refrain from slurs and slanders.

Now let's see what else WSofDdriver has to say in his VERY next post!

Meanwhile, since the Gulfstream is a giant, overpriced, flying turd, replacing parts is like having brain surgery--nobody can afford it without insurance.

And yet another!!!

I hope you are a BAE *Hawk* driver and not a Hawker driver. Talk about a flying turd.

I guess one can now determine that WSofDdriver has no respect for himself since he couldn't refrain from "slurs and slander"...

Skull-One it is!

 

[GVFlyer]

That was an accident during testing, but still proved the airplane's ability.

You are absolutely right, no test program would intentionally take a sub-sonic design to supersonic speeds. Here's the story.


Under FAR Part 25 standards for certification, factory test pilots are required to first demonstrate a required test point then that test point is certified by a FAA test pilot from the servicing Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). The FAR requires that neither "exceptional piloting, strength or skill" be required to fly these points - this is the part that the FAA pilots demonstrate best. It was with a FAA test pilot at the helm during a test point to demonstrate recovery from runaway trim that we went to Mach 1.07 during GV development.

This kind of unintentional expansion of a jet's flight envelope is common during developmental test and certification programs when the FAA comes to help us out.

It was during Global Express development when demonstrating recovery from unaccelerated aerodynamic stalls with a FAA test pilot at the controls that the jet pitched-up and could not be returned to controlled flight without deploying the stall chute. This is precisely what occurred during Challenger 600 development with the exception that Bombardier test pilots were at both cockpit stations and that they could not get rid of the stall chute after getting the nose down. Subsequently, there was insufficient thrust available for sustained flight and controlability was suspect. Two of the crew were able to bail out and sustained severe injuries. The remaining pilot and flight test engineer perished in the crash. The surviving test pilot now works in the Atlanta ACO.

P.S. Man, you write long posts - you must have a lot of spare time.

No, after 19 years of flying Gulfstreams with Honeywell FMSs my piloting skills haven't improved, but I sure do type fast.

GV

 

[LegacyDriver]

Now let's see what else WSofDdriver has to say in his VERY next post!

And yet another!!!

I guess one can now determine that WSofDdriver has no respect for himself since he couldn't refrain from "slurs and slander"...

Skull-One it is!

Just following your "steaming" example FC.

 

[LegacyDriver]

You are absolutely right, no test program would intentionally take a sub-sonic design to supersonic speeds. Here's the story.

GV

So what's the story on the Citation X then? At MMO they are well within 15 percent of Mach 1.

 

[banned username 2]

Just following your "steaming" example FC.

I'm not the one preaching and then contradicting my own preachings...

 

[LegacyDriver]

I'm not the one preaching and then contradicting my own preachings...

Yes well, my emotion got the better of me this time. I'm simply treating others as they wish to be treated at this point.

 

[GVFlyer]

So what's the story on the Citation X then? At MMO they are well within 15 percent of Mach 1.

The reason you don't intentionally go supersonic in sub-sonic designs is because the design rules for aircraft intended to be flown in compressible air flow are different from those designed for operation in non-compressible air.

In reference to the 15% you mention, the only requirement that comes to mind is Sec. 25.629 - Aeroelastic stability requirements which requires that when determing VD/MD, a 15% margin is required in an aircraft's height velocity diagram from the point at which flutter is encountered. Note that not all aircraft encounter flutter during certification; the GV's speed limit was determined when it encountered a control reversal at M .955 when rudder CL beta went positive. FAR 25.335 requires that a M .07 margin be established for determining MC when such compressibility effects are encountered. The Global Express used rational analysis to establish the lessor M .05 margin allowed when using that technique, from the aerodynamic event that determined it's limiting speed.

During developmental test you are flying an experimental aircraft and you can do anything with them that you think is required. The Citation X which you mentioned, according to an associate at Cessna, Wayne S., went to M 0.99 during developmental test.

GV

 

[CatYaaak]

And just when you thought it couldn't get any more absurd, something like this appears.......

The Legacy warranty is shorter because the Legacy doesn't break and the parts are so inexpensive that there isn't a need for a warranty any way. Meanwhile, since the Gulfstream is a giant, overpriced, flying turd, replacing parts is like having brain surgery--nobody can afford it without insurance.

And to post something like "I don't believe the G-lV was meant to have winglets from the get go" is telling.....since even it's predecessor, the G-111, had winglets from the get-go.

You haven't lost the plot.....you never had it, and don't even bother to try and learn it. Too much time spent in the airline world womb I think....and it shows.

 

[CatYaaak]

For the "average" Gulfstream IV (450 or whatever) and V mission it *is*. Namely coast-to-coast USA, or USA to Europe, etc.. The airplane does 3200 NM without breaking a sweat for half the price of a Gulfstream (V acquisition, IV and V DOC--and I have yet to talk to anyone in the real world who thinks the V is anywhere close to the Legacy in DOC).QUOTE]

Falcon 2000's and Challengers are already doing those 3200nm, "average Gulfstream mission" trips with "average" Gulfstream pax load for nearly the same aquisition costs of a WSCoD. But they do it with stand-up cabins, unlike the WSCoD. They also do it for lower DOC's than the WSCoD. I'll write that again for you....They also do it for lower DOC's than the WSCoD.

For years, they have been the "alternative" to the Gulfstream you think makes the WSCoD so special. The WSCoD doesn't satisfy any mission (except as Oompa Loompa shuttle), that isn't already being flown by these alternatives. These proven alternatives are also superior to the WSCoD in terms of performance.

Now, how are you going to convince prospective Gulfstream buyers to purchase a WSCoD, when you'd have an extremely hard time convincing someone to choose it over a Falcon or Challenger?

Forget about comparing it to a Gulfstream. If the WSCoD is going to go anywhere in sales, these Bombardier/Dassault products are the ones it'll have to beat....it's not entering a marketplace vacumn.

 

[LegacyDriver]

And just when you thought it couldn't get any more absurd, something like this appears.......

And to post something like "I don't believe the G-lV was meant to have winglets from the get go" is telling.....since even it's predecessor, the G-111, had winglets from the get-go.

I am sure that GV will correct me but...

Gulfstream wasn't even interested in the current incarnation of the winglet until BWT went to them and said, "We can do them better than you can." They tested them on a G-II or a G-III and then GS decided they were worth having. My recollection is the G-IV wing started out as a non-winglet design. YMMV.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Forget about comparing it to a Gulfstream. If the WSCoD is going to go anywhere in sales, these Bombardier/Dassault products are the ones it'll have to beat....it's not entering a marketplace vacumn.

I have no doubts it will fare quite well against them. The Legacy is certainly more reliable than the Falcon and easier to maintain than a Challenger. Legacy has a bigger cabin (yeah I know, the other two are fatter).

Every airplane mentioned in this thread is a good one, the Legacy included. Some are better than others.

 

[GVFlyer]

WSCoD

I am sure that GV will correct me but...

Gulfstream wasn't even interested in the current incarnation of the winglet until BWT went to them and said, "We can do them better than you can." They tested them on a G-II or a G-III and then GS decided they were worth having. My recollection is the G-IV wing started out as a non-winglet design. YMMV.

Glad to oblige. Gulfstream and Learjet began winglet research in the 1970's. This excerpt is from NASA's Concept2Reality website as Gulfstream used a series of NASA Winglet designs on it's jets, did wing development at NASA Langley and was a developmental partner with NASA for the world's only Supercritical Airfoil Winglet jointly developed for use on the GV. I included the portion on the Learjet to demonstrate to you that properly engineered winglets increase directional stability rather than decreasing it as in the case of the Legacy.

In 1977, Learjet displayed an exciting new test-bed aircraft designated the Learjet Model 28 at the National Business Aircraft Association convention. The Model 28 had been involved in high priority developmental testing of a new wing for a major new Learjet project to be known as the Model 55... Learjet developed the winglet design without NASA assistance, and referred to the new wing as the Longhorn, which coupled the new NASA winglet technology with a wing that had higher aspect ratio. Although the Model 28 was intended to be a prototype experimental aircraft, the performance of the new aircraft was extremely impressive and resulted in a production commitment from Learjet. Flight tests made with and without winglets showed that the winglets increased range by about 6.5 percent and also improved directional stability.


http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/graphics/fig029.jpg

Record-setting Gulfstream V with supercritical airfoil sections for its winglet design.

Gulfstream had also been aggressively studying applications of winglets in the late 1970s (contemporary with the Lear activities) and incorporated winglets in its line of business jet transports including the Gulfstream III, Gulfstream IV, and Gulfstream V. The performance of the Gulfstream V has been spectacular. Its operational range of 6,500 nmi at a cruise Mach number of 0.80, and cruise speed capability up to Mach 0.89, permits routine nonstop business travel for routes such as New York–Tokyo. The Gulfstream V also holds over 70 world and national flight records.

GV






~

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

You are absolutely right, no test program would intentionally take a sub-sonic design to supersonic speeds. Here's the story.


Under FAR Part 25 standards for certification, factory test pilots are required to first demonstrate a required test point then that test point is certified by a FAA test pilot from the servicing Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). The FAR requires that neither "exceptional piloting, strength or skill" be required to fly these points - this is the part that the FAA pilots demonstrate best. It was with a FAA test pilot at the helm during a test point to demonstrate recovery from runaway trim that we went to Mach 1.07 during GV development.

Obviously, my Gulfstream friend, I know the whole story. I was in SAV when it happened and flew during several 'green' deliveries with the GAC test pilot who was in the other seat...but thanks for sharing the story with everyone else.


As far as the NZ comment, you should be using less and less keystrokes the better you know the box. As far as writing style, it takes much more intelligence to say the same thing in less words (unless your getting paid by the hour, like my lawyer). But I'm just a simple guy. What do I know.

K.I.S.S.

Ace

 

[NJAFracPilot]

Obviously, my Gulfstream friend, I know the whole story. I was in SAV when it happened and flew during several 'green' deliveries with the GAC test pilot who was in the other seat...but thanks for sharing the story with everyone else.


As far as the NZ comment, you should be using less and less keystrokes the better you know the box. As far as writing style, it takes much more intelligence to say the same thing in less words (unless your getting paid by the hour, like my lawyer). But I'm just a simple guy. What do I know.

K.I.S.S.

Ace

You know Ace, I've been wondering for a while if you were a congenital a$$hole, born that way, or if it's a learned skill. Either way, you're an a$$hole.

Telling a Gulfstream test pilot how to fly a Gulfstream, what an egotistical jerk!

Someone on another thread called you a poser and he's got to be right. Give it a break, you're only a Gulfstream expert in your own mind.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

You know Ace, I've been wondering for a while if you were a congenital a$$hole, born that way, or if it's a learned skill. Either way, you're an a$$hole.

Telling a Gulfstream test pilot how to fly a Gulfstream, what an egotistical jerk!

Someone on another thread called you a poser and he's got to be right. Give it a break, you're only a Gulfstream expert in your own mind.

I am truly sorry if I dared to question your idol. You’re absolutely right, manufacturers’ test pilots know everything and they are never wrong about anything. I don't know what I was thinking.


Ace

 

[Sc00ter]

Help please...

Isn't the Legacy the same airframe, engines, and flight deck as the EMB-145 XRJ?

Scoot

 

[SkyGirl]

Obviously, my Gulfstream friend, I know the whole story. I was in SAV when it happened and flew during several 'green' deliveries with the GAC test pilot who was in the other seat...but thanks for sharing the story with everyone else.


As far as the NZ comment, you should be using less and less keystrokes the better you know the box. As far as writing style, it takes much more intelligence to say the same thing in less words (unless your getting paid by the hour, like my lawyer). But I'm just a simple guy. What do I know.

K.I.S.S.

Ace

Ace,

You're wrong to call GVFlyer stupid (as in Keep it Simple Stupid) because he uses a different writing style than you do. You come off looking petty. I like his posts; I think they're informative and entertaining. He gives me an insight into aircraft certification and manufacturing that I wouldn't otherwise have. I suggest that if you don't like his posts, don't read them.

As for me, I'll keep reading his posts and those of the other pro's like FalconCapt.

-SkyGirl-