Which aircraft can go CRQ to Hawaii?

[say again]

Where is CRQ??

 

[Swass]

Hawker 4000?

 

[hgi2006]

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

ARINC Direct. Their numbers were spot on, from my experience.

I am another one that wouldn't take the 50EX to Hawaii from CRQ. In the 50, I think you have some courage to do it. No matter how you work it, more than 50-60 knots on the nose, and you have a wet footprint.

There's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[WhyFlare]

I flew a this exact mission in a Falcon 50. 6:05. Mach 75. Amazing aircraft.

I used Arincdirect.com for the takeoff numbers and R/W analysis. Great sight. Any hotter then 76F and u have to start taking of weight. The 50 is the best bang for the buck. Its the can do jet. I made Hilton Head (4400) to Las Vegas. 4:30 min. I couldnt believe it.

Also if you loose an engine you dont loose range. You just fly lower and slower. The Gulfstreams are great but I love 3 engines and slats. IMHO

 

[Lead Sled]

...Also if you loose an engine you dont loose range. You just fly lower and slower...

We've played around with all of the possible scenarios...

Like many jets, if you lose an engine the specific range increases, therefore the range increases slightly as well - albeit it as you said, at a lower altitude and slower airspeed. A couple of years ago, when I was at FlightSafety, we played around with some vendor's flight planning program and ran through some of the worst case scenarios through the computer. The one scenario that is applicable here is losing an engine just past the PNR and then losing another engine shortly after that. (Try that you Gulfstream fans. ) We ended up in Honolulu a few hours later after making the remainder of the crossing at 10,000' and about 250 KTAS as I remember. The computer had us landing with a little over 4000 pounds of fuel. Even at 10,000' MSL and 250 KTAS, that will take you a long way on one engine.

The problem with some 50s is that with the standard 02 bottle, in the case of a pressurization failure at the PNR, the crew would eventially be forced to descend to a breathable altitude and hence, the potiential of a wet foot print. The larger optional bottle pretty much eliminates that by allowing the aircraft to fly at a much more efficient altitude for a significantly longer period of time. By the way, we do not accept any wet footprints.

LS

 

[TXDA2000]

So in other words, if you have the small bottle and loose pressurization, shut down two engines and go down to 10,000. Problem solved!

 

[AgreenFO]

Lear 23

 

[Bjetset2]

Gotcha

Gotcha Lead Sled. It's just that your first post said "top it off" and I guess you really aren't. I wasn't trying to tee you off just give my two cents. We get to Western Flight CRQ all the time in our 2000EXs. Maybe buy you a beer some time... take it easy.

Jim

 

[Lead Sled]

Gotcha Lead Sled. It's just that your first post said "top it off" and I guess you really aren't. I wasn't trying to tee you off just give my two cents. We get to Western Flight CRQ all the time in our 2000EXs. Maybe buy you a beer some time... take it easy.

You do that and I'll buy the dinner.