Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Gulfstream G200 Range


silverlb
10-22-2010, 04:21 AM
Can a experienced G200 pilot clarify the range on this aircraft...
What is the optimal speed and flight level for long range cruise?
Fuel consumption for the first hour and the following hours?

- 8000ft sea level runway ISA
- Pilots + 4 PAX @ 200lb

Am I correct to assume you can go full fuel with 4 PAX on a 8000ft runway?

Our mission is about 3150nm wanted to make sure this plane could do it 90% of the time.

Thank you!


QuietSpike
10-22-2010, 05:47 AM
ok... long explanation, so get some popcorn--

First, you need to check your BOW, as the "advertised" max range is with full fuel and 4 pax-- BUT!! Most G200s will not carry 4 pax, luggage (say 400 pounds), and full fuel and be under MTOW... so check that first with your serial number.

Second, you will be able to go max range every day of the year from a sea level, 8000 ft strip-- as long as there are no climb restrictions off of that runway-- if there are not, then yes, you can go max range every single day of the year.

However-- keep in mind that this is about a 6 and a half to 7 hour airplane... yes it has been flown longer than that, but typically this is a max 7 hour airplane. So if your winds are strong one day, you will not make it the full 3150nm you are talking about.

Cruise speeds-- A normal cruise speed is .82. You will be able to do .80 every day of the year, and long range cruise is advertised as .75-- and there are charts that show the optimal cruise speed for a given weight, plus the optimal altitude for long range cruise at a given weight... when you combine these and fly them to the letter, you will get the absolute maximum performance from the aircraft-- however! The speeds and altitudes are not very practical, so you will RARELY be able to fly them to the letter. I believe at LRC and max weight, the initial altitude is around FL330, and speed is around
.77. As you get lighter, speed comes down and altitude goes up-- ending around FL430.

The other problem you will find is SPEED vs ALTITUDE. This plane has plenty of power, and at a relative weight will outclimb a learjet-- however... if you exceed the performance charts for performance, you will get yourself into trouble VERY quickly. I know of at least 2 people that exceeded the max altitude for their given weight, stalled the aircraft, and flamed out motors... They all landed and walked away, but very lucky!!
The plane essentially has the same wing as the Astra, but is a MUCH bigger plane.. so the wing loading is significant. You MUST keep speed on the wing and NEVER exceed what your peformance chart is telling you is the max for your given weight.

For a normal flight, we use 290 to .80 for the climb, and we *never* go below .78 in the climb. If it is turbulent, we use 275 to .78 for the climb, and above 10k we *never* go below 275 kts in the climb. We rarely do max-range flights. If we do a long range flight (say to europe from the east coast of USA), we flightplan for a mach speed which never is below .76, and follow altitude guidelines to the letter.

Lengthy reply, but hope it helps. Sorry in advance for spelling and grammar, I did not proofread this before posting.

-spike

silverlb
10-22-2010, 06:59 AM
Thanks for the reply! This is great.


PW305
10-23-2010, 08:22 PM
at a relative weight will outclimb a learjet

Must be a Lear 55 :D

HeyWatchThis
10-24-2010, 09:11 PM
The above post is very good EXCEPT for this paragraph.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
For a normal flight, we use 290 to .80 for the climb, and we *never* go below .78 in the climb. If it is turbulent, we use 275 to .78 for the climb, and above 10k we *never* go below 275 kts in the climb. We rarely do max-range flights. If we do a long range flight (say to europe from the east coast of USA), we flightplan for a mach speed which never is below .76, and follow altitude guidelines to the letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you just want to be super conservative, the above paragraph is OK, but it’s just not realistic. This sounds like someone that is not familiar or flat out nervous about the aircraft performance. There is no need to put such artificial limitations on climb and cruise. You will significantly reduce your range and burn unnecessary fuel if you follow those recommendations unless you want High Maximum Cruise and not worried about range or fuel burn. I think too many people over compensate for mistakes that incompetent pilots have made in the past.
1. Normal climb as published by Gulfstream OPM says 250 KIAS up to 35,000 feet then climb at Mach .75. So to say we “Never” go below .78 is way off as mach .75 is even published in the Manual.
It works well and gives you many benefits such as:
-Saves fuel by getting you up to altitude faster;
-Extra fuel gives you a better range;
-You can normally carry about 500 to 1000lbs less; Saves money and allows you to climb sooner.
-A higher altitude normally gets you more directs as you are above a lot of airline and other traffic.
-A higher altitude gives you more options when dealing with weather.
2. High Speed Climb is 250kts to 10k, then 290KIAS to FL290, then climb at Mach .78. So again Never below .78? It should say we never climb faster than mach.78. There are no safety concerns flying less than .78 unless you’re just being stupid.
3. Long Range Cruise. Climb same as “Normal Climb” to initial optimum long range cruise altitude. If you want to get the full 3000 NM range, you should fly a constant mach number and climb to optimal LRC altitude as your fuel burns off.
Flight planning less than .78 is OK, but .76 really works well some times. I prefer .78 but sometimes you need the .76. If you really want to see a low mach number, enter LRC and you will be surprised. That’s even too slow for me.

The biggest factor to the range is the BOW. Most aircraft with a SN 52 and below have very heavy BOW’s. Most of those aircraft you cannot even load the full 15,000 lbs of fuel with NO passengers. SN 53/54 and above has much lower BOW and are more realistic in that range.
I tell the company don’t plan for anything more than: 4 pax, mach .8 and 6 hours of flight time without having me specifically plan for it with real winds.

taxi1wire
10-25-2010, 03:20 AM
HeyWatchThis is correct.
The aircraft out climbs it's wing. FL 370 and below is fine at Max weight but like all aircraft you need to be aware of ISA+ temperatures. FL 390 then FL410 after a few hours is fine and well within the flight manual.
We routinely fly 6hr 30 min legs with 7+00 possible landing with 2800lbs (45 min reserve is actually only 1150 lbs but that is just stupid). We fly the 250/75 profile and LRC at .75M to get this type of range. Our BOW allows for 4 pax and max 15,000 lbs fuel with the optional increased weight Service Bulletin.
It is a great performer but-Surprise- you need to use the flight manual to get the most out of the aircraft.
As for being smooth and precise the aircraft can be extremely rewarding with a little effort. It is not a simple Citation-horse it around the pattern-jet. It has turned out to be extremely reliable with great Gulfstream product support.
You will enjoy it while the passengers will love the cabin size.

QuietSpike
10-25-2010, 04:35 AM
The above post is very good EXCEPT for this paragraph.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
For a normal flight, we use 290 to .80 for the climb, and we *never* go below .78 in the climb. If it is turbulent, we use 275 to .78 for the climb, and above 10k we *never* go below 275 kts in the climb. We rarely do max-range flights. If we do a long range flight (say to europe from the east coast of USA), we flightplan for a mach speed which never is below .76, and follow altitude guidelines to the letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you just want to be super conservative, the above paragraph is OK, but it’s just not realistic. This sounds like someone that is not familiar or flat out nervous about the aircraft performance. There is no need to put such artificial limitations on climb and cruise. You will significantly reduce your range and burn unnecessary fuel if you follow those recommendations unless you want High Maximum Cruise and not worried about range or fuel burn. I think too many people over compensate for mistakes that incompetent pilots have made in the past.
1. Normal climb as published by Gulfstream OPM says 250 KIAS up to 35,000 feet then climb at Mach .75. So to say we “Never” go below .78 is way off as mach .75 is even published in the Manual.
It works well and gives you many benefits such as:
-Saves fuel by getting you up to altitude faster;
-Extra fuel gives you a better range;
-You can normally carry about 500 to 1000lbs less; Saves money and allows you to climb sooner.
-A higher altitude normally gets you more directs as you are above a lot of airline and other traffic.
-A higher altitude gives you more options when dealing with weather.
2. High Speed Climb is 250kts to 10k, then 290KIAS to FL290, then climb at Mach .78. So again Never below .78? It should say we never climb faster than mach.78. There are no safety concerns flying less than .78 unless you’re just being stupid.
3. Long Range Cruise. Climb same as “Normal Climb” to initial optimum long range cruise altitude. If you want to get the full 3000 NM range, you should fly a constant mach number and climb to optimal LRC altitude as your fuel burns off.
Flight planning less than .78 is OK, but .76 really works well some times. I prefer .78 but sometimes you need the .76. If you really want to see a low mach number, enter LRC and you will be surprised. That’s even too slow for me.

The biggest factor to the range is the BOW. Most aircraft with a SN 52 and below have very heavy BOW’s. Most of those aircraft you cannot even load the full 15,000 lbs of fuel with NO passengers. SN 53/54 and above has much lower BOW and are more realistic in that range.
I tell the company don’t plan for anything more than: 4 pax, mach .8 and 6 hours of flight time without having me specifically plan for it with real winds.


You need to read the performance books again... or maybe get current ones.


Find me the "250/.75" climb tables... it doesn't exist. the LRC climb table is 275/.75.


I was a demo pilot for the manufacturer... I believe I know this aircraft quite well!!

QuietSpike
10-25-2010, 04:47 AM
As for being smooth and precise the aircraft can be extremely rewarding with a little effort.

Except for the tail shake... and the fact that it is not a very pleasant "hand-flying" airplane.

You all should see the video of the G200 with the G450 in chase showing the reverse flow over the tail-- which is causing that tail shake that the G200 is notorious for. The trim tab is larger on the 200 for better rudder authority, but the reverse flow exists on ALL aircraft with this tail design (G150, G100, Astra, Westwind)-- just the G200 can be felt with the "wobble" because of this trim tab. Horrid design... which is a large reason why the G250 gets a complete redesign of the tail.

How the aircraft was certified like this is beyond me. I even asked one of the IAI engineers this at EBACE one year, and was met with "what are you talking about, it is a perfectly designed plane!"

We used to fly demos no faster than 280 kts--- partly because of cabin noise, but largely due to the fact that the faster you go, the more wobble you get. Again, horrid design.

BoilerUP
10-25-2010, 05:08 AM
Spike,

I talked to a mid-cabin Gulfstream demo guy last year who said he's had the G200 in and out of KHXD, albeit at fairly light weights. Looking at APG data, it looks like it'd do it just fine dry (I've heard the G200 stops very well) though 80% wet is a bit marginal.

What length runway would you use as a minimum for the G200?

Also, any issues with operating the G200 in the middle east? I know there are some G200s based in UAE/Saudi so I suspect its not a huge deal, but I've heard aircraft manufactured before Gulfstream bought the Galaxy/Astra from IAI can be refused entry to their FIRs.

Just curious...thanks!

QuietSpike
10-25-2010, 05:47 AM
Spike,

I talked to a mid-cabin Gulfstream demo guy last year who said he's had the G200 in and out of KHXD, albeit at fairly light weights. Looking at APG data, it looks like it'd do it just fine dry (I've heard the G200 stops very well) though 80% wet is a bit marginal.

What length runway would you use as a minimum for the G200?

Also, any issues with operating the G200 in the middle east? I know there are some G200s based in UAE/Saudi so I suspect its not a huge deal, but I've heard aircraft manufactured before Gulfstream bought the Galaxy/Astra from IAI can be refused entry to their FIRs.

Just curious...thanks!

Yeah, we would always use "gulfstream" as a call sign, never "galaxy", when flying through the middle east... I have not heard of a problem that I can remember, but I am sure someone has a horror story.

Being in Dubai for an airshow, first thing anyone asked who walked on was "where is this made?"... we would always attempt "it is completed in dallas,tx USA" first... but the question always came up.

As far as a "minimum" runway, personally I would say HXD is about it. You could "do" less, but it seriously is just pushing it. Landing is not as bad as taking off-- at least in warmer temps. Wet runways will ruin your numbers for both, but we use the "grooved runway=dry runway" airline philosophy, and haven't had a problem as most US runways are grooved. Central and South America have a lot of non-grooved runways, and then you have more issues. Taking off in warmer temps when you are heavy will use more runway, but it is not as bad as the rumors have been--- unless you are at high altitude, then they are worse! :)

The other consideration is some G200's need a pumping of the brakes when the gear is down before touchdown to exercise the valve and mix cold fluid with warm fluid to get maximum braking potential. I landed once on a 8k foot strip without doing this on one that needed it, and was out of my seat pushing so hard on the brakes before they finally started working properly---and rolled all the way to the end. If you pump just a couple times before touchdown, they work normally. Again, not all do this-- each 200 is different in many ways! Some tail wobble more than others as well!! But it is a 'pefectly designed airplane', I forgot...:rolleyes:

NowCorporate
10-25-2010, 08:59 AM
Spike,

I talked to a mid-cabin Gulfstream demo guy last year who said he's had the G200 in and out of KHXD, albeit at fairly light weights. Looking at APG data, it looks like it'd do it just fine dry (I've heard the G200 stops very well) though 80% wet is a bit marginal.

What length runway would you use as a minimum for the G200?

Also, any issues with operating the G200 in the middle east? I know there are some G200s based in UAE/Saudi so I suspect its not a huge deal, but I've heard aircraft manufactured before Gulfstream bought the Galaxy/Astra from IAI can be refused entry to their FIRs.

Just curious...thanks!


I flew one of the first Galaxys....no issues operating through the Mideast. We always went the typical Turkey/Cyprus/Syria/Jordan/Saudi/Bahrain/UAE FIR routing without any questions.

I have mentally blocked most of the nightmare that is the Galaxy/G200 out, but its bright spot is the cabin size for the dollar, some of its many downsides are its performance, its interior noise, and its value.

AlpinePilot
10-25-2010, 10:10 AM
I thought this might be helpful, as well. Using the normal climb profile, another useful general rule of thumb that has works well, for estimating fuel burn. The G-200 burns 2500lbs the first hour of flight, 2000 the second hour and 100 lbs less every hour of flight after. Range depending on several factors yet this formula stays fairly consistent. As for a easy way to estimate if you can go higher, along with checking the charts, Is the rule of 68. Alt + gross weight= 68 or less, If your gross weight is 27,000 or less FLT level 41 is about it to maintain .82M. The more weight the less Alt to maintain .82 for cruise. The guys in Dallas mostly fixed the rudder shake problem. Like it was posted, every G-200 is a little different. Hope this helps.

QuietSpike
10-25-2010, 10:36 AM
The interior noise is fixed... completely fixed since Gulfstream took over completing the interiors.

On later serial numbers, there is a pocket door between the galley and the cabin, and when this is shut, in conjuction with the curtain over the pax door, it is *whisper* quiet in the cabin.


The rules of thumb that alpine gave are good, and we use them as well-- but the fuel numbers are conservative (but that is what a rule of thumb should be!). We (my current job) cruise at .80 as it gives us best time vs fuel burn. So at .80 and isa 0 or close to it, 28k lbs we can go to FL410, 29k FL400..etc.

If you go by what the FMS says for altitude (ie- unable cruise alt), you will *always* be ok... but we always open the book to double check what we can/can't do for a particular mission (by open the book I mean turn the planebook to the OPM! :) )

Also, the guys in Dallas have *NOT* fixed the tail wobble issue on the G200... but they did FIX the issue.......



by introducing the G250! ;)

miguelm
11-18-2010, 11:05 AM
We are planning to purchase a new jet and G200 is one of the contenders. The problem is that the aircraft will be based in Toluca (8K high) and was wondering if the G200 can leave Toluca with 5 pax at 25 degrees and get to NY, distance 1800nm.
I know it can do Aspen - NY under the same condition but it is only 1500nm.
Anybody can help ?
Thanks
Miguel M

BoilerUP
11-18-2010, 11:50 AM
A Gulfstream salesman would be HAPPY to provide you with route performance for their aircraft, especially if you are considering the purchase of one.

QuietSpike
11-18-2010, 04:12 PM
We are planning to purchase a new jet and G200 is one of the contenders. The problem is that the aircraft will be based in Toluca (8K high) and was wondering if the G200 can leave Toluca with 5 pax at 25 degrees and get to NY, distance 1800nm.
I know it can do Aspen - NY under the same condition but it is only 1500nm.
Anybody can help ?
Thanks
Miguel M


Miguel,

in short... No.


I have flown into Toluca many times, and I think for the money you would be better off with a G250 for that mission... if your company can wait/buy new. If you cannot wait, or cannot buy new, then I would strongly suggest a CL300.

The climb gradients out of there are really tough. With a VFR day, you will need 10k in fuel to be comfortable (roughly). All of this is working against you in a big way! Trust me, it is not comforting.

-spike