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

[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.

 

[GVFlyer]

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

Please note that all records accomplished by Bombardier in 1999 were done in uncompleted, green aircraft which are up to 6500lbs lighter than completed aircraft. The records done by Franklin Davis of AIG were done in an airplane with an interior and paint.


Here are the current records from a source somewhat more objective than Bombardier Marketing - The FAI which is the certifying organization for world records.


http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/reco_course.asp?id1=133&id3=4&id4=

GV

 

[Canucit]

I have not flown the citation X but I have heard that it goes into very short fields
but on the other hand i have heard that it does not have a very long range either

 

[Silver Wings]

Lcy

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?

I've flown on Legacy and it certainly is a 'legit' corporate aircraft....at least if the measure is delivering the boss and team from A to B in a quality environment at an acceptable price and in a reasonable time.
However, if the measure is something different then maybe you're right !!!!!!! ( I don't think so)

As for short field.....I've seen video of the Legacy doing steep approach into LCY in UK. That's a real special trick. F900 can do it as well..... but I don't think any of the other 'big boys' can. It's about as close to a carrier landing as you can do with these types and without the hook.
LCY is a pretty useful place to be able to go as it is right next door to the $$$ (or should that be €€€) of Europe...the UK banking center.

 

[GVFlyer]

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.

Captain Hogdriver,

The Global Excuse operates against the laws of nature and physics. The G550 is the only aircraft that displays pure aeronautical perfection.

GV

 

[LegacyDriver]

Captain Hogdriver,

The Global Excuse operates against the laws of nature and physics. The G550 is the only aircraft that displays pure aeronautical perfection.

GV

*guffaw*

What's all the stuff on the wings then? I don't know of any biz jet (but one and even that one escapes me at the moment) that has a perfectly clean wing... Don't get me wrong, the GV is a good airplane, but I mean, come on.

 

[GVFlyer]

*guffaw*

What's all the stuff on the wings then? I don't know of any biz jet (but one and even that one escapes me at the moment) that has a perfectly clean wing... Don't get me wrong, the GV is a good airplane, but I mean, come on.

This is a not-so- private joke between Hog and myself, however:

I'm not sure what stuff your talking about, but the vortices generators by energizing the boundary layer airflow allow smaller ailerons which equate to less drag. The winglets reduce wingtip vortices(and therefore drag) allowing 7% greater range as well as increasing the effective wing span by one third the height of the winglet while also decreasing down-wash angle. This stuff is a design characteristic of the wing and not an aerodynamic patch as found on so many other airplanes.

The GV wing, as produced by Northrop Grumman in Dallas, is a beautiful thing, designed with CAD, CATEA and Computational Fluid Dynamics on the same computer that designed the Boeing 777. The NASA Langley wind tunnel was used for all prototyping and pre-production development. It's an all lifting device with no washed-out or washed-in regions, no stalled regions, even the radius going to the winglet is lifting. It has no canoes to hide flap gear and requires no leading edge devices to achieve exceptionally low Vref speeds. The winglet is set on such an angle as to provide a forward thrust vector - much like a sailboat tacking into the wind. Gulfstream has flown the GV from 72 knots to Mach 1.07 with no adverse effects. The wing is U-2 long and exceptionally wide producing 1136 square feet of wing supporting 90,500 pounds of jet for a wing loading of 79.66 pounds per square foot. By comparison the wing for the up to 100,000lb Global XRS is 1022 square feet for a wing loading of 97.85 pounds per square foot. This makes the Global another buffet limited airplane. I've done 45 degree bank turns in the GV/G550 at 51,000 feet then fully deployed the speedbrakes for descent. This would be a suicide attempt in the Global Express at the 48,700 foot maximum altitude that we were able to attain in that Bombardier product when we captured one for a closed loop handling qualities evaluation.

I don't believe you want me to focus on the Embraer Jet which was principally certified on our ramp by the FAA's Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office. I have not done so to this point because I don't consider it to be a serious corporate jet.

GV

 

[Silver Wings]

,I don't believe you want me to focus on the Embraer Jet which was principally certified on our ramp by the FAA's Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office. I have not done so to this point because I don't consider it to be a serious corporate jet.

GV

Go on, bust a gut and gives us the full story ! Just exactly why isn't a Legacy a serious corporate jet ? I have a sneaking suspision you haven't yet quite come to terms with the fact that a corporate jet isn't a toy for the flight crew...but lets see.

 

[LegacyDriver]

I, too, am curious to see why you think the Legacy is not a serious corporate jet.

This thing is a serious *AIRLINER* I think it would at *least* be an over-engineered business jet.

Airliners have to work and work all the time. Let's just run a G-String and a Legacy around the clock and see which one breaks first. The Legacy will cycle the G-V into the ground I bet.

*Imagines a caricature of a Gulfstream huffing and puffing (sucking wind) as the Legacy smiles and taxies by.*

I guess the BBJ isn't a "serious corporate jet" either since it was an airliner first... Hmph.

As for being a toy, I think it would be fun to dogfight a G-V with a Legacy.

 

[xrated]

I don't believe you want me to focus on the Embraer Jet which was principally certified on our ramp by the FAA's Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office. I have not done so to this point because I don't consider it to be a serious corporate jet.

GV

I tend to agree with GV. The Legacy is a commuter/regional aircraft built for the regionals by the regionals.....not to mention designed in a third world country. On a great day its performance is mediocre a best. It performs smilar to the Hawker though the Hawker has much better short field performance. I think a corporate jet, especially a newly designed corp jet, should perform leaps and bounds better than the airliners it shares the sky with. In the Legacy, you still look UP at 757's as they pass you......embarassing!

Primus 1000, come on, isn't that the same avionics in the Citation Ultra....fitting cause their performance is similar except the Ultra can make FL410. A serious corp jet of that size should have serious avionics. Geez, even a Dornier 328 turbo-prop has Primus 2000.

And to question how clean a Gulfstream wing is? Coming from a Legacy pilot. Come on!

 

[CatYaaak]

I've flown on Legacy and it certainly is a 'legit' corporate aircraft....at least if the measure is delivering the boss and team from A to B in a quality environment at an acceptable price and in a reasonable time.
However, if the measure is something different then maybe you're right !!!!!!! ( I don't think so)

As for short field.....I've seen video of the Legacy doing steep approach into LCY in UK. That's a real special trick. F900 can do it as well..... but I don't think any of the other 'big boys' can. It's about as close to a carrier landing as you can do with these types and without the hook.
LCY is a pretty useful place to be able to go as it is right next door to the $$$ (or should that be €€€) of Europe...the UK banking center.

Well, I was waiting for some actual performance numbers, because that's part of the "measure"...how it stacks up relative to others (what's it's range with NBAA IFR reserves?..at .80 mach?....at max cruise?... at max ZFW?..max payload with full fuel? Max altitude?...how soon can it get above the wx and airline traffic or are you stuck down at lower altitudes?.etc. etc.) The comfort factor being equal, better performance translates into greater flexiblity, which translates into time and money being saved...that's the measure, and why they buy the things in the first place.

Your vague qualifiers regarding the Legacy...."quality" (enviro), "acceptable" (price), "reasonable" (time) could be interpreted as "good enough mediocrity", and sounds more like a marketing plan for SWA, not the way to convince a corporate board how to spend 20 million + $$s. They are going to want the best aircraft for the mission and money. So I'll re-ask my original question...does the Legacy outperform anything....or is it all about cabin size for the money, and we're supposed to ignore performance and therefore flexiblity?

Anyone can gussy-up an airliner and call it a "corporate" aircraft. Why, 15 years ago I remember Bae trying to market their Jetstream 31 (or 41..whatever) as a corporate aircraft to compete with the King Air, and it went over like a lead balloon. Wasn't Fairchild or Dornier trying to do the same iwth the Envoy?...flop. You might get a niche buyer for these here and there (I know a guy flying a corporate 777 out of Beirut and plenty of others flying private, refurbished Boeings and Airbuses), but being "OK" really doesn't cut it.lk

London City Airport is a steep approach (I've got the t-shirt), and you should check your facts as to whether any of the other "big boys" can do it (they have). But if you want a steeper one, try the "RPG Arrival" into Baghdad.

I'm not knocking the airplane, but I've not seen any numbers yet either.