To the Gulfstream crew at TEB...

[SCT]

"Don't knock it until you've tried one."
Ace


That's my problem, I tried one.
An old chief pilot of mine, told me as a young FO to never mess around with the FAs........I wish I would have took his advice.......

SCT

 

[HawkerF/O]

You've got to be joking. I think the 60 is pretty cool looking, but its wing is too small and the brakes are pathetic (lets see your climb performance above FL410 or your takeoff performance hot and high).

Let's see your climb performance upto FL410! The LR60 can be at FL430 and on speed in less than 13 minutes. The GV can do that? Above FL430, the 60 is a dog, but it really has no practical purpose for going above 430. It just slows down, but if fuel is tight, you have to go up there.

If you've never flown a GV, you shouldn't speak about its handling characteristics. Best I've ever seen.

I understand that Gulfstreams are a very stable platform, but that 60 is like a fighter. It's size alone won't allow it to manuver as tight as the 60. I am not saying it's a poor flying airplane, I am just saying it is not as nimble as the 60, or any well thrusted smaller jet aircraft for that matter. And what is "Best you have ever flown" is a matter of opinion. There is a GV pilot out there that does not share your same thoughts. It's all opinion.

No, it doesn't cost me a penny. Purchasing more fuel is again ignorant. I can fly to the West Coast, not fuel a drop, and fly on further than your total range.

It takes fuel to carry fuel. Tankering is a viable options at times, but most of the time, it is not as efficient as not doing so. You are only looking at your direct costs, not the indirect costs. I have an excel program that is excellent at determining what it costs to carry that extra fuel. If you'd like a copy, let me know. So, it does in fact cost you $ to tanker fuel.

Yes, you can land at MOST airports a GV can, you just can't get there.

What airport can that G get to that a LR60, Hawker 800, or Citation X cannot? Answer that carefully.

Don't knock it until you've tried one.

Well, depending on how you mean, I have had my fair share of F/As. The 2 from SWA were my favorite. In terms of professionally, in your previous posts you mentioned 2 reasons for having a F/A: to bring you food and to listen to your jokes.

I LOVE having a flight attendant. Good food and someone new to listen to my stupid jokes.

I don't think those are good reasons for having a Flight Attendent on board.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Let's see your climb performance upto FL410! The LR60 can be at FL430 and on speed in less than 13 minutes. The GV can do that? Above FL430, the 60 is a dog, but it really has no practical purpose for going above 430. It just slows down, but if fuel is tight, you have to go up there.

I understand that Gulfstreams are a very stable platform, but that 60 is like a fighter. It's size alone won't allow it to maneuver as tight as the 60. I am not saying it's a poor flying airplane, I am just saying it is not as nimble as the 60, or any well thrusted smaller jet aircraft for that matter. And what is "Best you have ever flown" is a matter of opinion. There is a GV pilot out there that does not share your same thoughts. It's all opinion.

It takes fuel to carry fuel. Tankering is a viable options at times, but most of the time, it is not as efficient as not doing so. You are only looking at your direct costs, not the indirect costs. I have an excel program that is excellent at determining what it costs to carry that extra fuel. If you'd like a copy, let me know. So, it does in fact cost you $ to tanker fuel.
What airport can that G get to that a LR60, Hawker 800, or Citation X cannot? Answer that carefully.
Well, depending on how you mean, I have had my fair share of F/As. The 2 from SWA were my favorite. In terms of professionally, in your previous posts you mentioned 2 reasons for having a F/A: to bring you food and to listen to your jokes. I don't think those are good reasons for having a Flight Attendent on board.

Time to climb to FL410? Got you beat. Especially if we fuel to the same range.

Nimble? I've flown the 60, got you beat there too. Pretty impressive if you think about how much larger the GV is than the 60. This is mostly created by the angle of deflection of the ailerons prior to the spoilers joining in.

Airports? Plane can go coast to coast from a 3,000 foot runway. Can yours? Look up the BFLs and you'll change your tune. While your at it, look up power to weight ratios of the two planes, then figure it our with 5 hours of fuel. You won't be so impressed by your 60s 'power'.

If you had ever flown a Gulfstream, you would know that they publish a very sophisticated tankering formula. The GV is very efficient and its wing can carry alot of fuel with very little degradation in performance.

As you said in another post, you've learned alot from watching other pros. Keep it up!

Ace

 

[semperfido]

no matter what time - day or night- there is always some joker here to argue a pt with--the beauty of FI.com

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

no matter what time - day or night- there is always some joker here to argue a pt with--the beauty of FI.com

And I'm just that joker

C'mon fido, break out the QRH and give me some help here!

 

[semperfido]

i just don't care that much--learjet? what's that?

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

i just don't care that much--learjet? what's that?

Shhhh. They're listening. And whatever you do, don't give out the secret handshake.

Ace

 

[SCT]

I don't know much about the 60 but they don't seem to be rolling off the assembly line real fast.

 

[MEMfis]

I love this site. :laugh: Waaay to much heat from some of you fellas.

 

[bigD]

Snobs!

 

[FA10Driver]

All this talk about Gulfstreams, Hawkers and Citations is very entertaining but I still prefer the 30 year old beauty that I fly. Mmo on the Falcon 10 is .87 and we can do .83-.86 day in and day out. Not to mention the hydraulic controls that make it handle like a fighter. (Oh yeah, it's based on one.) They are a joy to fly and I dont know what else can match the 10's performance and short field capability. I dont get to watch the PFD's and MFD's but I feel pretty good about the Falcon's LRT's. (little round things)

 

[volunteer]

All this talk about Gulfstreams, Hawkers and Citations is very entertaining but I still prefer the 30 year old beauty that I fly. Mmo on the Falcon 10 is .87 and we can do .83-.86 day in and day out. Not to mention the hydraulic controls that make it handle like a fighter. (Oh yeah, it's based on one.) They are a joy to fly and I dont know what else can match the 10's performance and short field capability. I dont get to watch the PFD's and MFD's but I feel pretty good about the Falcon's LRT's. (little round things)

What range do you have on those?

 

[banned username 2]

All this talk about Gulfstreams, Hawkers and Citations is very entertaining but I still prefer the 30 year old beauty that I fly. Mmo on the Falcon 10 is .87 and we can do .83-.86 day in and day out. Not to mention the hydraulic controls that make it handle like a fighter. (Oh yeah, it's based on one.) They are a joy to fly and I dont know what else can match the 10's performance and short field capability. I dont get to watch the PFD's and MFD's but I feel pretty good about the Falcon's LRT's. (little round things)

Try on a Falcon 50EX, even better performance, same great handling qualities, and it'll do .85 at FL410...

 

[FA10Driver]

I hope I get the opportunity to fly the 50EX some day. I've heard great things about them as with all of the Falcons.

As to the range of the Falcon 10, we plan for 1700nm with reserves.

 

[some_dude]

Not doing .85! Or even ".83 to .86" as you stated earlier.

I flew a Falcon 10 for a couple of years, 1700nm might be possible with a good tailwind or to dry tanks, but not in normal operations. How much fuel do you land with?

As to the range of the Falcon 10, we plan for 1700nm with reserves.