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