Short Field Performance - Best Swept-Wing Corp. Jet?

[LegacyDriver]

Which swept-wing Corporate Jet has the best Short Field performance in their size class?


As an example, the Legacy/Gulfstream/Hawker/Citation X/Lear/etc. are swept-wing and the Citation Excel/Ultra/Bravo/Westwind/etc. straight-wing (so the latter don't count).

As you may guess, I am a Legacy fan but wonder how it would compare to others in its class. I'm also curious to see how hot performers like the Lear series stack up to others of their size.

I suppose I could look it up somewhere, but any input is appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[banned username 2]

For short field performance I think you'd be hard pressed to beat the Falcon 50EX & Falcon 900EX... 3 engines and full-span leading edge slats... Mmo's of M0.86 & M0.87 respectively...

 

[hogdriver00]

Glex

The Global Express does some pretty eye watering things for a big airplane. I fact it has great short field numbers for any airplane. I some ways, better than many straight wing airplanes.

 

[LR60BOY]

Learjet, Short Field........HAH!


I have taken the 60 in and out of as short as 4300' (dry, of course) but anything less than 5000' we start to really think about what we are doing.

Straight out of the QRH:

Takeoff Conditions:

Sea Level
60 degrees F
Flaps 20
MGTOW (23500)
BFL=5460'

80 Degrees F
BFL=5800'

Landing Conditions:

Sea Level
80 Degrees F
Full Landing Configuration
Actual=3800'
Factored=6334'

Keep in mind that these are all "dry" numbers.

 

[xrated]

A Legacy short field? I guess as long as you don't have to fly more that a couple hundred miles. It will work well out of SMO, just have to run down to LAX to put fuel on.

The X does well. Have to be carefull 135 but 91 I've heard of guys going into strips less that 4000 ft.

 

[MovingTarget]

Challenger 300

2290 feet ALD @ 28,000lbs.

Yeah Baby

 

[Flyinjunk]

For short field performance I think you'd be hard pressed to beat the Falcon 50EX & Falcon 900EX... 3 engines and full-span leading edge slats... Mmo's of M0.86 & M0.87 respectively...

Hey Falc Capt!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAAAAHAAA
Move to France
Hard pressed to beat a Falcon sheeseeesh???, yeah cause if ya do ya might break em.

 

[sleepy]

The DA-50EX is the best short-field aircraft I have ever flown. Better than the Lear, Hawker, or Challenger. The 900 actually has a little better performance than the 50EX (they both have about the same BOW, but the 900 has more powerful engines).

 

[banned username 2]

Falcon 50EX

Temp: 15°C
Altitude: SL
Passengers: 8

Flight Duration: 4hr 00min (Mach 0.80)
Reserve: 1hr 30min
Balanced Field Length: 3,687 ft

Flight Duration: 6hr 00min (Mach 0.80)
Reserve: 1hr 30min
Balanced Field Length: 4,500 ft

Landing Distance: 2,275 ft.
Vref: 110 KIAS


Falcon 900EX

Temp: 15°C
Altitude: SL
Passengers: 8

Flight Duration: 4hr 00min (Mach 0.80)
Reserve: 1hr 30min
Balanced Field Length: 3,400 ft

Flight Duration: 8hr 00min (Mach 0.80)
Reserve: 1hr 30min
Balanced Field Length: 4,775 ft

Landing Distance: 2,430 ft.
Vref: 111 KIAS

 

[miles otoole]

I have to give the nod to the CL 300. I have also read the Global Express can do Hilton Head (4500'?) to Maui N/S. 9 hours!

 

[CatYaaak]

Which swept-wing Corporate Jet has the best Short Field performance in their size class?


As an example, the Legacy/Gulfstream/Hawker/Citation X/Lear/etc. are swept-wing and the Citation Excel/Ultra/Bravo/Westwind/etc. straight-wing (so the latter don't count).

As you may guess, I am a Legacy fan but wonder how it would compare to others in its class. I'm also curious to see how hot performers like the Lear series stack up to others of their size.

I suppose I could look it up somewhere, but any input is appreciated.

Thanks.

I'm still not convinced that the Legacy is a legit corporate aircraft, and haven't heard that it outperfoms anything. Not to knock it, but isn't it's only selling point in it's price range it's cabin volume?

 

[GVFlyer]

I have to give the nod to the CL 300. I have also read the Global Express can do Hilton Head (4500'?) to Maui N/S. 9 hours!

Right, this is a joke. I was there to watch the Global take off. It was an uncompleted green aircraft - no interior, not even paint.

I'm sorry to say that I can't add to this statistical confrontation, but I'm in a Renaissance and my QRH is in the G550. I do recall, however, that the G550 at 91,000 lbs, standard day requires 5910 feet for take-off and the G500 at max gross requires 5150 feet. Remember that these numbers include 41,300 lbs of fuel for the G550, I can fly coast to coast on less than 14,000 so my normal domestic operating weight allows me to take-off in 3000 feet and change. We routinely go into destinations such as Carlsbad, CA. and Sea Island, Ga. which isn't bad for a 96 foot airplane with a 93.5 foot wing span.

Operators for years have been taking G-II's into Hilton Head which is a bit more thrilling.

GV

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I would take the GLEX over the DA short field...

Falcon has a great wing...but is simply underpowered.

Short field landing??

Hands down the Global. DA900 has no TR's (that noisemaker does not count)....."thin patchy packed snow".....I dont want to be in that Falcon -- thanks!!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

E=GVFlyer]Right, this is a joke. I was there to watch the Global take off. It was an uncompleted green aircraft - no interior, not even paint.


I'm sorry to say that I can't add to this statistical confrontation, but I'm in a Renaissance and my QRH is in the G550. I do recall, however, that the G550 at 91,000 lbs, standard day requires 5910 feet for take-off and the G500 at max gross requires 5150 feet. Remember that these numbers include 41,300 lbs of fuel for the G550, I can fly coast to coast on less than 14,000 so my normal domestic operating weight allows me to take-off in 3000 feet and change. We routinely go into destinations such as Carlsbad, CA. and Sea Island, Ga. which isn't bad for a 96 foot airplane with a 93.5 foot wing span.

Operators for years have been taking G-II's into Hilton Head which is a bit more thrilling.




HILLARY!!!!

Its the Vast Global Wing Conspiracy AGAIN!!!

Call CBS! Call CNN! Tell Dan Rather!!

GV[/QUOTE]

 

[Computer Geek]

Hilton Head

With the current conditions at KHXD (temp 22 winds 050@5 and a QNH of 30.30)
a "completed" Global could TO at a GW of 79197 lbs in my airplane that is a fuel load of 28200 pounds. I ran a fltplan using Flitestar and it showed a burn of 26272 at .82 its below NBAA IFR reserves but it still makes the trip. And as I remember from a previous GV post on one of his record flights he boasted about landing with a "ton of fuel"

my 2 cents

CG

 

[GVFlyer]

With the current conditions at KHXD (temp 22 winds 050@5 and a QNH of 30.30)
a "completed" Global could TO at a GW of 79197 lbs in my airplane that is a fuel load of 28200 pounds. I ran a fltplan using Flitestar and it showed a burn of 26272 at .82 its below NBAA IFR reserves but it still makes the trip.
my 2 cents...

CG

If Pete Reynolds and his boys could do it, why didn'y they?

And as I remember from a previous GV post on one of his record flights he boasted about landing with a "ton of fuel"

Please try to keep your posts in context, this is exactly what I said in response another pilots comment on the stress of ultra long range flights:



"I know exactly what you mean. After some record flights in the old GV demonstrator - sn 502, which was over 1,500 Production Change Orders away from being a real GV (it had been the stress test airplane and had short non- flying pylons, a non-sculpted high drag cockpit roof, bad fuel specifics, - A engines, draggy wings, low capacity fuel cells and so forth), I have had the press approach me and ask, "How much fuel did you have after landing?" and I have truthfully replied, "Oh, I had a ton of fuel!" NBAA fuel reserves for the GV is 2860lbs."

This was not a boast, but an attempt at levity while showing understanding to concerns of another pilot operating in this unique environment. These flights were conducted prior to GV certification in an experimental aircraft normally packed to the gills with people, sales brochures and give-aways for the airshows. Max fuel capacity for serial number 502 was 38,600 lbs as opposed to 41,300 lbs for the much more capable certified GV, yet we still managed to fly it non-stop from Beijing, PRC to Nashville, TN.


The current product, the G550 is guaranteed to fly 6,750 nm at Mach.80 with 8 passengers, a crew of 4 and NBAA reserves against 85% Boeing Winds while burning 9% less fuel than the Global XRS will in flying it's maximum range of 6150nm. At normal cruise, Mach .85, the G550 will fly 6000nm under the same conditions.

It is interesting to note that while Bombardier is still having Entry-Into-Service problems with avionics, auto throttles, performance computers and mystery battery drain, they are now beginning to have aging fleet concerns with new failures occuring to plague their already under-funded Customer Support Network.

GV

 

[fokkerjet]

Long-Range

GV.......


What are your thoughts on aircraft range verses galley location on the GV? I've heard that you can expect to lose several hundred miles of range if you have the forward galley. An aft C.G. should give better performance........finding this true inorder to get the max range you talk about? If true, how far aft are you going?

 

[Computer Geek]

I think this article indicate Petes boy's did do it.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_June_15/ai_54880812



And just so you know my comment was also an attempt at levity.

CG

 

[hogdriver00]

How easy we get of the subject!

This was a question about short field options. I mentioned that the GLEX had some interesting capabilities. Now it's a GLEX and GV pi$$ing contest again. Lighten up G. They are both good airplanes, neither is perfect.

 

[GVFlyer]

GV.......


What are your thoughts on aircraft range verses galley location on the GV? I've heard that you can expect to lose several hundred miles of range if you have the forward galley. An aft C.G. should give better performance........finding this true inorder to get the max range you talk about? If true, how far aft are you going?

There is no range penalty for a forward galley. All GV/G550's normally fall out between 42.5 and 45% MAC, they tend to cluster around 43.5%. The original CG problem centered around stall protection at aft CG's greater than 43%, that's why in 1997 some of the GV's were ballasted. One of the test pilots in Flight OPs rewrote the stall warning computer algorythms allowing for a aft GG of 45% and the forward ballast came off of all GV's.