banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 17:20 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2021, 17:29 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 6628
Post Likes: +7925
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
Username Protected wrote:
A maximum range is achieved at a specific speed/AOA and requires a certain amount of thrust/fuel flow. To maintain a speed on one engine that would be maintained on two engines requires a doubling of the fuel flow on the one engine. So I don't see how better range can be achieved on one engine vs two.

Fuel flow and thrust are not really linear in relationship. Turbine engines get more efficient at higher throttle.

Most of the time, the trip is done far faster than max range speed and thrust, the passengers want to go fast, so when the engine quits, you go slower and more efficiently. This gives the impression range is improved with one engine when it really isn't.

Quote:
The old trick for flying and ILS in a jet if an engine quits is just look over and double the fuel flow on the remaining engine to maintain speed. Same with a 4 engine jet; three remaining engines have to have the fuel flow 4 had.

Doesn't work on Citation sized planes from what I can tell.

This is also maintain the same speed, not slowing to a more efficient cruise speed.

Mike C.


1) If the flight can be maintained at cruise altitude and speed, the passengers get to go fast. If the plane has to descend to low level, they won't be going fast, and it is critical to fly the speeds on the flight plan to achieve the performance of the ETP calculations. The low level should be calculated as an emergency descent with a pressurization loss, but if the cabin can be maintained but the descent is required for loss of an engine, a "drift down" speed will consume less fuel, being at the low level less time..

Another consideration with an engine out is reducing the side slip creating drag with one engine out. A wings level ball, centered will produce the most side slip drag, but a bank of about 1.1 degrees will give the least amount of engine out drag, and a 9% increase in range on a 767 in tests. .

2) With an engine out, matching the all-engine fuel flow has worked for me from Lear jets to 747's. It's a very good initial ball park setting, only requiring minor adjustments, and is better than upsetting the stability of the approach and the distraction of hunting for a power setting that will maintain speed. I learned that at Flight Safety Lear recurrent.

Edit: My uncle was a test pilot for McDonnell Douglas in the DC-10 program, and they determined two things by taping a yaw string to the windshield. They determined that the plane was in a side slip with engines 1 or 3 out, wings level, and determined the optimum bank angle for minimum side slip , one engine out.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2021, 16:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/28/21
Posts: 98
Post Likes: +62
Company: Charwood Partners
Username Protected wrote:
I thought he said Houston to Hawaii…


I did. Boss's mission requirement, not mine.

I also said that the whole argument is somewhat moot, since my job is to sit in the back.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2021, 20:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/14
Posts: 4893
Post Likes: +1862
Location: KJYO
Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
What is https://www.gulfstream.com/en/pre-owned , Alex?

In theory a Citation X, with tailwinds could make the trip back. The trip out would require a stop.

Another aircraft that may fit the bill is a Falcon 900 but there may be some days where it would need a sip of dino juice in CA. Some of the 10 year old models are going for prices near a 15-20 year old Gulfstream but 5-10 years newer.

I always sat in the back with the boss and it was only a pop up from Savannah to Atlanta but the would also do San Fran or Portland to Savannah and Atlanta. I believe operating costs now would now be 4AMU an hour. It's a nice plane but not G-IVSP or G-V nice.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2021, 20:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
Username Protected wrote:
What is https://www.gulfstream.com/en/pre-owned , Alex?

In theory a Citation X, with tailwinds could make the trip back. The trip out would require a stop.

Another aircraft that may fit the bill is a Falcon 900 but there may be some days where it would need a sip of dino juice in CA. Some of the 10 year old models are going for prices near a 15-20 year old Gulfstream but 5-10 years newer.

I always sat in the back with the boss and it was only a pop up from Savannah to Atlanta but the would also do San Fran or Portland to Savannah and Atlanta. I believe operating costs now would now be 4AMU an hour. It's a nice plane but not G-IVSP or G-V nice.

Bob, the Citation X has only slightly more range than a Sovereign. There are some cases (high headwinds) where a Sovereign or X are not going to be totally safe to fly to Hawaii, even from SFO. Moreover, his boss wants Houston-Hawaii nonstop.

Richard, what is your boss's budget?

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2021, 20:57 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 6628
Post Likes: +7925
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
Username Protected wrote:
What is https://www.gulfstream.com/en/pre-owned , Alex?

In theory a Citation X, with tailwinds could make the trip back. The trip out would require a stop.

Another aircraft that may fit the bill is a Falcon 900 but there may be some days where it would need a sip of dino juice in CA. Some of the 10 year old models are going for prices near a 15-20 year old Gulfstream but 5-10 years newer.

I always sat in the back with the boss and it was only a pop up from Savannah to Atlanta but the would also do San Fran or Portland to Savannah and Atlanta. I believe operating costs now would now be 4AMU an hour. It's a nice plane but not G-IVSP or G-V nice.

The Citation X has only slightly more range than a Sovereign. There are some cases (high headwinds) where a Sovereign or X are not going to be totally safe to fly to Hawaii, even from SFO. Moreover, his boss wants Houston-Hawaii nonstop.

Richard, what is your boss's budget?


"High headwinds"

I haven't trained on either of those jets, but I would think they would have the capability to at least step-climb up to 450 and get out of most of the wind. But normal range capability isn't controlling; their ETP Low-Level fuel requirement is.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2021, 21:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
Username Protected wrote:
The Citation X has only slightly more range than a Sovereign. There are some cases (high headwinds) where a Sovereign or X are not going to be totally safe to fly to Hawaii, even from SFO. Moreover, his boss wants Houston-Hawaii nonstop.

Richard, what is your boss's budget?


"High headwinds"

I haven't trained on either of those jets, but I would think they would have the capability to at least step-climb up to 450 and get out of most of the wind. But normal range capability isn't controlling; their ETP Low-Level fuel requirement is.

Yes, exactly. A loss of pressurization is the limiting case. High headwinds complicate that. A very unlikely scenario, but as ditching a jet in the Pacific is a completely unacceptable risk, a scenario to be avoided at all costs.
_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2021, 21:20 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/16
Posts: 504
Post Likes: +556
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Aircraft: 1981 Baron B55
I don't know about those other planes, but I spent one whole winter (long story) going back and forth to Hawaii from BUR and other SoCal airports in G-IV's and G-IV SP's. Never had any fuel worries even when the winds were 150 kts on the nose, which they occasionally were. G-IV SP seems like the perfect Hawaii plane. Mostly went into PHNL and PHOG but occasionally others.

_________________
ATP ASMEL G-IV CE-500
CFI/CFII/MEI Gold Seal
AGI/IGI


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2021, 19:45 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/16
Posts: 504
Post Likes: +556
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Aircraft: 1981 Baron B55
It seems that none of the PC-24 proponents wishes to pursue or investigate the question of how a brand new Stage 3 airplane can be this loud or what effect that will have on its future.

Apparently, if one simply ignores a major problem in aviation, it will go away.

Read Crash Talk to see how well that works.

_________________
ATP ASMEL G-IV CE-500
CFI/CFII/MEI Gold Seal
AGI/IGI


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2021, 20:02 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 6628
Post Likes: +7925
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
Username Protected wrote:
It seems that none of the PC-24 proponents wishes to pursue or investigate the question of how a brand new Stage 3 airplane can be this loud or what effect that will have on its future.

Apparently, if one simply ignores a major problem in aviation, it will go away.

Read Crash Talk to see how well that works.


Is there an intermediate landing flap on the PC-24? Landing full flaps is always going to make the most noise on approach. and if they are going into noise monitored airports, there are likely longer runways where a max performance short field landing with full flaps isn't required, and a quieter flap setting could be used. If the problem is takeoff noise, a review of the noise abatement procedure should be done, and when operating on longer noise monitored runways, a reduced thrust takeoff procedure should be examined.

I agree that a new jet should be able to comply with Stage 3, but maybe it's the way it's being operated. Some guys don't like reduced thrust takeoffs out of consideration for an engine loss, but the charted data for minimum climb is factored into the reduced thrust takeoff with a failed engine, and if it won't meet the climb gradient, reduced thrust is not available. A reduced thrust takeoff doesn't require adding power to the remaining engines if one fails, just fly. Seeing this in the sim will give the pilots confidence.


Last edited on 08 Sep 2021, 20:21, edited 3 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2021, 20:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/16
Posts: 504
Post Likes: +556
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Aircraft: 1981 Baron B55
It is almost certainly the way it is being operated on takeoff. But since they seem to be busting on most takeoffs and one of the busts was extraordinarily loud for a modern plane, an alteration to the operating procedures is probably required.

_________________
ATP ASMEL G-IV CE-500
CFI/CFII/MEI Gold Seal
AGI/IGI


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2021, 20:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/16
Posts: 504
Post Likes: +556
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Aircraft: 1981 Baron B55
I would add, that while it is most probably an operating problem, it might be a design problem in the plane. If, for example, the gear retraction cycle is very slow or of long duration, the plane is probably toast

_________________
ATP ASMEL G-IV CE-500
CFI/CFII/MEI Gold Seal
AGI/IGI


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2021, 16:35 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/11/09
Posts: 318
Post Likes: +115
Aircraft: PC24,PC12,BE30,LR60
Username Protected wrote:
It’s safe to say I have a new favorite airplane. We had the opportunity to demo a new PC-24 for a client today. I was very impressed, the airplane is “as it should be” there wasn’t anything about it I didn’t like. The lav is an engineering masterpiece. The cargo door is as well.

I guess if I have anything negative to say at all, it’s the fat nose gear tire... but it serves its purpose.

I’ll post photos and video of the lav when I get a chance.



Been flying the 24 for about 1.5 years now. The biggest annoyance I have is the darn hydraulic pump (only for the brakes) sits right under the front of the cabin, almost below the first row of seats. It’s loud and cycles quite often. Not a very well thought out design.

Otherwise it has become my “lottery winning” aircraft. Always thought the King Air 300 all decked out was my choice but the 24 has won me over.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2021, 18:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/14
Posts: 4893
Post Likes: +1862
Location: KJYO
Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
I certainly agree and should have been a bit clearer - If you want to safely make that hop from Houston to Hawaii, you are going to need a large jet like the Gulfstream G-IV/G-V or something in that category.

In fact, there are a few G-IVSPs and G-Vs that have done Savannah to Hawaii non-stop and they had plenty of time and fuel. Granted, I believe it took 2 trucks to fuel them and they had room for more. They are truly amazing aircraft and the the interior is just a work of art.

I know of at least one G-V that went from KSAV to RJTT (Tokyo) as well. That was many years ago but the pilots were more concerned with the catering and ice than they were the fuel.


Username Protected wrote:
What is https://www.gulfstream.com/en/pre-owned , Alex?

In theory a Citation X, with tailwinds could make the trip back. The trip out would require a stop.

Another aircraft that may fit the bill is a Falcon 900 but there may be some days where it would need a sip of dino juice in CA. Some of the 10 year old models are going for prices near a 15-20 year old Gulfstream but 5-10 years newer.

I always sat in the back with the boss and it was only a pop up from Savannah to Atlanta but the would also do San Fran or Portland to Savannah and Atlanta. I believe operating costs now would now be 4AMU an hour. It's a nice plane but not G-IVSP or G-V nice.

Bob, the Citation X has only slightly more range than a Sovereign. There are some cases (high headwinds) where a Sovereign or X are not going to be totally safe to fly to Hawaii, even from SFO. Moreover, his boss wants Houston-Hawaii nonstop.

Richard, what is your boss's budget?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2021, 19:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/16
Posts: 504
Post Likes: +556
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Aircraft: 1981 Baron B55
Savannah to Hawaii would be quite a stretch for a G-IV SP but a G-V can do it easily.

_________________
ATP ASMEL G-IV CE-500
CFI/CFII/MEI Gold Seal
AGI/IGI


Top

 Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2021, 19:17 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/14
Posts: 4893
Post Likes: +1862
Location: KJYO
Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
Username Protected wrote:
Savannah to Hawaii would be quite a stretch for a G-IV SP but a G-V can do it easily.


In zero wind it would certainly have been a stretch for them and likely not possible with the required IFR reserves, even pulled back. They would have needed a fairly nice tailwind along most of the route in order to make the trip. That was over 20 years ago but I do recall that they went direct at least twice.

An a few occasions 502 (G-V) made those flights without batting an eye. Granted that was in 97 and 98, I believe. After that the customer took ownership of the aircraft. It was immaculate inside and outside.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.