Which aircraft can go CRQ to Hawaii?

[FLYN2FAST4YOU]

Sovereign is your best bet!

 

[X man]

over water sovereign

With all the seats full in a sovereign, you cannot take full fuel, and even with full fuel, the wrong winds will be a major factor. AS far as takeoff, maxgross takeoff, sovereign's will just about beat anybody for short fields. With 5 folks and their bags, I think fuel fuel is no problem, problem is when you fill the aircraft up and it is a warm day, you cannot get max fuel in through the single point, so using the overwings, you can actually get about 300 extra lbs in. Cessna would be more than happy to demo one to you.

Good Luck

 

[svcta]

In order for the g100 to make it you'll have to put the fuel extension tanks in the baggage compartment, which means that you'll seriously limit your baggage space. The G100 that I used to fly has done HI, but I wouldn't have done it personally. With no problems you can land with acceptable reserves, but any problems at all and you're likely to swim the last bit.

Remember, though, that I'm also gutless.

 

[G100driver]

Going over to HI one day I heard a G100 stuck in the track at FL340. He was begging for higher and that was not going to happen. I am not sure if had to turn around or not as he was going the opposite direction and I lost track of him.

The point is, if you are going to go to HI have and airplane that can more than complete the mission.

 

[Bjetset2]

Falcon 50

As to the falcon 50 yes to a -40 convert or 50EX. The numbers will show OK in the classic 50 (in fact if I remember right they didn't even publish different charts for the EX) but your rear end in the seat will tell you it's not a great idea with enough HI fuel and 10 pax/bags at typical CRQ mid day temps. Just my opinion good luck.

Jim

 

[Lead Sled]

Take a look at the charts, the usable takeoff distance at CRQ rw 24 is only 4600'. You do have the option of using rw 6 if you need the full length.

We base our 50 at CRQ and it does a nice job - you can top it off, fill all of the seats, a stuff the baggage compartment full of bags and we're still about a 1000 lbs under our max takeoff weight. It will come off rw 24 on most days and off of 6 on all but the warmest days. Hawaii is not a problem.

LS

 

[hgi2006]

Take a look at the charts, the usable takeoff distance at CRQ rw 24 is only 4600'. You do have the option of using rw 6 if you need the full length.

We base our 50 at CRQ and it does a nice job - you can top it off, fill all of the seats, a stuff the baggage compartment full of bags and we're still about a 1000 lbs under our max takeoff weight. It will come off rw 24 on most days and off of 6 on all but the warmest days. Hawaii is not a problem.

LS

LS - Yeah, Hawaii is not a problem, as long as the winds are not too strong. There have many more than a few days I couldn't do SAN to PHOG, even at LRC w/o a wet footprint.

 

[Lead Sled]

LS - Yeah, Hawaii is not a problem, as long as the winds are not too strong. There have many more than a few days I couldn't do SAN to PHOG, even at LRC w/o a wet footprint.

When you had those wet footprints, did you happen to have Universal do your flight planning? Did your 50 have the large O2 bottle?

 

[Bjetset2]

50

I flew a 50 off 5000 feet for three years and I wouldn't take it out of CRQ to HI with full fuel and people/bags. Slats and 20 at 21 C at only 38,800 pounds gives you a TOFL of 4725 and that's using the seal level chart. The 1000 foot elevation chart shows 5100 feet at 21C. We also had an 50EX it did a much better job in real terms but I don't think they recharted it for the upgraded performance (it's been some time so don't quote me on that). If Dassault has certified new numbers for the 50EX it would probably do it. Just my opinion.

 

[Lead Sled]

I flew a 50 off 5000 feet for three years and I wouldn't take it out of CRQ to HI with full fuel and people/bags. Slats and 20 at 21 C at only 38,800 pounds gives you a TOFL of 4725 and that's using the seal level chart. The 1000 foot elevation chart shows 5100 feet at 21C. We also had an 50EX it did a much better job in real terms but I don't think they recharted it for the upgraded performance (it's been some time so don't quote me on that). If Dassault has certified new numbers for the 50EX it would probably do it. Just my opinion.

In our particular airplane with full fuel, passengers and baggage our takeoff temp limit at CRQ is 24C which is normally enough to get us out of there on just about any day of the year - although we may have to limit our departure to the early morning hours. Normally, we're nowhere near full fuel so it is seldom a consideration.

I was interested in your "wet footprint" concerns - who did your flight planning when you ran into that problem? By any chance, was it Universal? I ask that, because we had some issues with the Falcon 50 profile that they were using - it was way off the mark. We ended up making a big stink about it last summer and they finally reworked the profile using current flight manual performance data. The new performance profile appears to be spot on.

LS