Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
And just when you thought it couldn't get any more absurd, something like this appears.......

LegacyDriver said:
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.
 
Last edited:
LegacyDriver said:
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.
 
CatYaaak said:
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.
 
CatYaaak said:
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.
 
WSCoD

LegacyDriver said:
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






~
 
Last edited:
GVFlyer said:
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
 
Ace-of-the-Base said:
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.
 
Last edited:
NJAFracPilot said:
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
 
Help please...

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

Scoot
 
Ace-of-the-Base said:
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-
 
WSCoD The real story

If this post is going to keep the WSCoD allive then at least pin it on a 'real' candidate.

See below.

Personally I think it should be deep sixed as not a worthy in a professional environment (and a public one at that). Brussel Sprout OK ........but not WSCoD.





Challenger jet has history of tragedy; Company officials defend model, claim data is deceiving.
JOHN DOBBERSTEIN

Tribune Staff Writer

7 December 2004

South Bend Tribune



The type of small jet that crashed in Colorado last month and killed the son of NBC Sports Chairman Dick Ebersol is no stranger to drama or tragedy.

Since 1980, 13 people have died in England, Italy and the United States while traveling in Canadair Challenger 600-series jets, according to various safety databases. Ten of those deaths have come in the last four years.

In fact, the same Challenger 601-1A jet that carried Ebersol's family rumbled to a stop on a Florida runway five years ago after braking problems.

During a Nov. 26, 1999, landing at Palm Springs Regional Airport, the pilot employed the thrust reversers and brakes on the jet, but "there was no indication of braking action," a report from the Federal Aviation Administration said.

When the brakes were released, all four tires blew out, but the plane stayed on the runway and came to rest.

Teddy Ebersol, 14, was killed in the Nov. 28 crash at Montrose Regional Airport in Colorado, as were the pilot and flight attendant.

The jet was headed for South Bend Regional Airport. Ebersol's family said the plane -- carrying Dick Ebersol and his two sons -- lifted briefly during takeoff, then tipped back and forth before crashing and burning.

Federal investigators have said the plane was not de-iced before takeoff, although nothing has been ruled out as a potential cause for the crash. Aviation observers have said the Challenger's design makes its wings prone to ice buildup, because the wings have no movable "slats" found on larger jets that help the aircraft lift from the runway.

Officials at Jet Alliance, the company that chartered the flight, said Monday they have no concern about the safety of Challenger jets.

"We've been operating them for tens of thousands of hours since 1991," said company President Clifford Russell in a statement.

Maintenance not an issue

FAA records show the Challenger 601-1A jet was owned by Hop A Jet of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Ebersols originally contacted Los Angeles-based Key Air for a flight out of California on Nov. 28, but there was no plane available, said Jet Alliance spokesman Chuck Wyble.

Key Air contacted Air Castle Corp., a charter flight company and subsidiary of Millville-N.J.-based Jet Alliance. Jet Alliance manages charter flights and provides the flight crew for Air Castle.

Records show Air Castle Corp. has been cited several times by the FAA between 1985 and 2004 for violations of rules pertaining to flight manuals, the monitoring of inspection and maintenance programs, and the establishment of a required alcohol misuse prevention program.

Air Castle is still resolving a maintenance-oriented complaint lodged by the FAA from Oct. 15. Wyble said the complaint is a "procedural question" and wasn't safety-related, and it didn't involve the plane the Ebersols were on, either.

"The maintenance was done. It's not like the maintenance was not done and the aircraft was flying," Wyble said.

"A lot of these (violations) are tiny, minor things that are being put on the list of 'You didn't do that right.' A lot of it is paperwork, and the FAA is very critical on making sure things are done in a particular way.'

Fatal crashes have marred the recent tenure of Challenger jets.

On Oct. 10, 2000, two people were killed when a Challenger 604 crashed on takeoff during a test flight in Wichata, Kan.

Five people were killed on Jan. 4, 2002, when a Challenger 600 crashed at Birmingham International Airport in the United Kingdom. Officials said icing might have been the main cause, as well as the use of nonprescription drugs, jet lag and fatigue on behalf of the pilots.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators handling the Colorado crash are looking closely at that incident, because the plane carrying the Ebersol family was not de-iced.

After the crash at Birmingham International, which involved a Challenger 600, the U.K.'s Department of Transport issued a number of safety recommendations.

One suggested the jet's manufacturer, Bombardier Aerospace, and other aviation regulators warn pilots flying aircraft susceptible to ice contamination that "Wings and tail surfaces must be completely clear of snow, ice and frost prior to takeoff."

European officials also recommended the FAA and Joint Airworthiness Authority in Europe to review procedures pilots use to detect and eliminate ice from aircraft, "and consider a system that would directly monitor aircraft aerodynamic surfaces for ice contamination, and warn the crew of potentially hazardous condition."

FAA spokesman Mike Fergus said the U.K.'s recommendations are still being reviewed and haven't been formally adopted by the agency. The FAA routinely gets recommendations about safety, he said.

Some nonfatal incidents

Other crashes and incidents involving Challenger jets have brought scary experiences or injuries for pilots and passengers.

On Feb. 7, 1985, the pilot of a Challenger jet missed a runway in Italy and the plane slammed into the ground. There were no injuries to the crew of three and nine passengers. Eleven months later, the right engine of a Challenger jet "flamed out" while it climbed after takeoff from Syracuse Hancock International in New York. The plane landed without incident.

In August 1986, a similar jet was forced to make an emergency descent after pilots smelled fumes in the cabin. Hydraulic fluid was leaking onto a hot duct.

In 1989, after leaving Louisville International Aiport- Standiford Field in Kentucky, pilots discovered part of the outboard door assembly on a Challenger came apart while in flight. Three screws were sheared off at the head.

An engine fire in 1990 forced a Challenger jet to land at New Orleans International Airport, and in 1998, a pilot landed a Challenger jet at Dallas Love Field after the windshield cracked.

Later that year, a Challenger jet landed at Denver International Airport. Both tires on the right-main landing gear blew out, and the debris damaged other steering equipment. The crew managed to keep the plane on the runway using only the left brake. But as the jet slowed, it left the runway before coming to a rest.

The FAA does look for patterns in crashes or incidents with certain aircraft or operators, but drawing a connection can be difficult, Fergus said.

"You might have an accident with two identical aircraft," he said, "but different causes."

Ted Lopatkiewicz, a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, said the agency has no record of issuing any safety recommendations to the aviation industry about Challenger jets or about Air Castle's operations in particular.

"If we see something wrong in any investigation, even if a company only had one accident ... and if we see something wrong in the way the company is operating its service, we do issue recommendations," Lopatkiewicz said.

"It doesn't require a pattern of accidents. We'll do it after one accident if we see something that could have been done better."

Bombardier has already defended its record. Of the 635 Challenger aircraft in service, 67 are Challenger 601-1As, which were first delivered to customers from 1983 to 1987.

Company officials have reserved further comment until the investigation of the Colorado crash is completed.

 
Silver Wings said:
If this post is going to keep the WSCoD allive then at least pin it on a 'real' candidate.






Challenger jet has history of tragedy
One small flaw in your logic...

The Challengers don't whistle... They are one of the quietest Corporate Jets built...
 
Ace-of-the-Base said:
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.


Ace

So Ace, does that mean you work for a company with three nearly sequentially serial numbered GIVs?
 
WSCoD

LegacyDriver,

I just found this on the Flight Options Board. Comments?

Legacy range is only 1 hour more than the 800XP ?
I was surprised with some literature I received today concerning leasing options from FO. I guess now you can lease as little as 50 hours a year with other options such as a plus 25 program, access 25 program and the 75/25 program. I had heard about such programs before but I had never seen anything in print until today.

The one fact that surprised me was the range of the Legacy. FO advertises the range as 3565 S.M. The 800XP has an advertised range of 3013 S.M. I guess I thought the Legacy had more than an hour longer in range than the XP. I was told that the first 4-6, not sure of the number, aircraft received would not be the same as the ones build as an Executive aircraft. I was told that they were built for a feeder airline and do not have the changes made for the Executive model. I was told FO received a great deal to take the aircraft. I am not saying that is bad, I am saying that I am surprised the Challenger 601 has an hour more advertised cruise (in range) than the Legacy. Looks to me like the Legacy will have a tough time in the winter going non-stop west bound from most of Europe to the NE part of the USA. Paris to NY in Dec. – Mar. looks difficult with IFR weather. It will be a good aircraft for trans-continental.

Not sure where they get these range numbers, I guess they are talking about still air, fuel exhaustion, at long-range cruise, and not range with IFR reserves with requirements for an alternate at normal cruise.

I do find it a little amusing that I am on FO prospective client mailing list. Could it be that they want me to invest in FO after our case is settled? .:rolleyes:

Regards,

GV
 
Another fine piece of aviation journalism...

Silver wings--Did you actually read the article before you posted it?

The Ebersol plane had brake problems in Florida... The article said it landed in Palm Springs. Is there a Palm Springs, FL?:rolleyes:

The airplane didn't have any mx problems but it's operator had some paperwork issues with the FAA. Who hasn't had an anal FAA inspector point out that some of the "periods in the mx log actually look more like commas"? :rolleyes:

The Birmingham accident also involved icing and "nonprescription drugs, jet lag and fatigue". Better ground the fleet. :rolleyes:

In ICT, they crashed on a test flight. What aspect of the Challenger's design caused that accident?

None of the incidents can be attributed directly to the design or manufacture of the aircraft.

Is icing a problem with the Challenger? Maybe. We all know to err on the side of caution when it comes to icing. If someone is in too big a hurry or the operator pushes crews to not deice, is it BBD's fault?

I'd even rush to the defense of the Legacy if it was the focus of a similar article.TC
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom