Bombardier/Dassault/Gulfstream
09-06-2019, 08:06 AM
#31
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,505
Good to see the furtherance of the Part 91 RAC stereotype...
I've been 121 for two companies as long as I was a Part 91 Chief Pilot.
As a 121 pilot, I have seen exactly ZERO cost accounting for maintenance expenses - parts or labor. Jet broke, entry went into the logbook, and the company took care of it.
As a 91 pilot, I had no Maintenance Control, no warehouse of parts, no maintainers. I solicited RFPs for and scheduled every scheduled or on-demand maintenance event and saw every invoice every time a technician touched the aircraft.
Yeah, turbine aircraft are REALLY expensive to fly...for airlines, too. Its just as a line crewmember those costs are completely transparent to the act of moving the jet Point A to B.
I've been 121 for two companies as long as I was a Part 91 Chief Pilot.
As a 121 pilot, I have seen exactly ZERO cost accounting for maintenance expenses - parts or labor. Jet broke, entry went into the logbook, and the company took care of it.
As a 91 pilot, I had no Maintenance Control, no warehouse of parts, no maintainers. I solicited RFPs for and scheduled every scheduled or on-demand maintenance event and saw every invoice every time a technician touched the aircraft.
Yeah, turbine aircraft are REALLY expensive to fly...for airlines, too. Its just as a line crewmember those costs are completely transparent to the act of moving the jet Point A to B.
09-06-2019, 08:20 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,903
Originally Posted by dera
Phugoid instability? You need to tell the FAA they have certified a plane that cannot be certified!
Could it be that you've flown planes 10x the weight for the past few decades, and are used to that sort of stability?
Could it be that you've flown planes 10x the weight for the past few decades, and are used to that sort of stability?
09-06-2019, 08:35 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,172
Phugoids can be easily fixed by reaching up and turning on the four switches marked 1A, 3A, 3B and 2B on the hydraulic panel and ensuring all surfaces are powered after engine start. Nobody’s gonna rave about Challenger handling or use it as a fighter but for flying people around, it’s fine on autopilot. Anyone who thinks the compass is viewed with a mirror ought not be trusted with pilot reports.
GF
GF
09-07-2019, 04:55 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 139
I’ve flown 15 years worth of Boeing Aircraft - and had a stint in the middle of my career with about 2200 hours in a 604. I still think the 604 was one of my favorite Aircraft to fly. Nothing special performance-wise, but a good all around airplane with no bad habits and the Collins Pro-line IV FMS/autopilot (particularly the V-NAV) was light years ahead of and far more user friendly and capable than the Boeings. Never noticed any instability. Autopilot did well and no reason not to be able to hand fly it smoothly. The guy in the back was a jerk though.
Last edited by Tony Clifton; 09-07-2019 at 05:23 PM.
10-15-2019, 12:15 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Position: Phenom Left Seat
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Knobcrk1
Anybody else feel the Gulfstream has bad pilot seating? It’s a nice plane but I have no idea what they were thinking when they designed the tiny pilot seating area. It’s really terrible, obviously they designed the seats around the airframe rather than the space around the pilot. The leg closest to pedestal has no space to rest other than just stay in same position because the pedestal is too wide and cuts into your width of leg area. I literally get cramps after 1 or 2 hours. Worst part is you can’t recline on the 4 and rudder pedals barely move inwards to give you some space. A Lear 60 probably has more width for your legs! Anyone have any tips? I tried like every position.
10-24-2019, 09:52 PM
#39
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Position: AA TBD
Posts: 64
Flown the 550 and the GLEX XRS (can’t speak to the vision cockpit). I prefer the 550 avionics and synoptics but the Global for everything else. Cabin’s taller and pretty much everything is AUTO or OFF. Having slats and the ability to keep your speed brakes out when getting slammed dunked regardless of configuration is a big plus. ASE or SBA in a 5 or 550 is a pain but easy in a global. The Global I think is tougher to land in a crosswind.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-26-2019, 09:09 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,172
You needed to fly the Global Fusion cockpit to appreciate what it should have been. Much clearer, easier so that even a Honeywell avionics engineer loved it when he first saw it. Did you fly it before the MAX spoilers restriction was put out? Slats OUT, MAX boards and it was an elevator.
FBW in the G7500 made crosswind landings a cinch, squeeze in some rudder to align the fuselage, FBW holds the wings level as you touch. I always decrabbed and had no problems in crosswinds, but it takes some work. At M.88 it burns fuel like the Global XRS for about 12 hours.
FBW in the G7500 made crosswind landings a cinch, squeeze in some rudder to align the fuselage, FBW holds the wings level as you touch. I always decrabbed and had no problems in crosswinds, but it takes some work. At M.88 it burns fuel like the Global XRS for about 12 hours.
