Discussion
Mate of mine fly's this beauty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/darryl_morrell/677282...
LOTS of fun and very very high tech!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/darryl_morrell/677282...
LOTS of fun and very very high tech!
Generally biz jets have better performance than airliners (better climb rates, higher cruise altitudes, and faster cruise speeds) and in many cases they have the latest and greatest technology while many airliners do not. For instance the 757 (and I think it's a great aircraft, don't get me wrong) is only partially glass cockpit, does not have a HUD, and is a 30+ year old design. Airliner design is just inherently more conservative than biz jet design, so airliners usually see technology much later than biz jets.
As to whether biz jets are more fun to fly? Just like anything else there are many different kinds of biz jets and they all fly differently. Learjets are known for having exceptional performance, while some Citations are barely faster in cruise than a quick t-prop. Personally I fly a biz jet that was hastily stretched into an airliner and I had more fun when I flew a large t-prop that had a much lower cruise speed and climb rate.
As to whether biz jets are more fun to fly? Just like anything else there are many different kinds of biz jets and they all fly differently. Learjets are known for having exceptional performance, while some Citations are barely faster in cruise than a quick t-prop. Personally I fly a biz jet that was hastily stretched into an airliner and I had more fun when I flew a large t-prop that had a much lower cruise speed and climb rate.
CelicaGT said:
....... while some Citations are barely faster in cruise than a quick t-prop.
Not the Citation-X - max speed Mach 0.92 
http://www.cessna.com/citation/citation-x.html
telecat said:
The Lear Jet was once a Small fighter designed for the Swiss to fly so I'd say you could have fun in that. The Rest not sure about. Just checked and discovered that most of the Hawker 800 series is still made in the UK!!!
You're thinking of the P-16. Bill Lear was resident in Switzerland at the time and he liked the look of the P-16, nobody else did as they had a habit of crashing. He took the wings and tailplane from the P-16 and bolted them to a new fuselage to create the Lear Jet.Bill Lear once upset the USAF once when he noticed a couple of fighters closing to investigate his aircraft, he activated the auto pilot, sat his 3yo son in the pilots seat and hid in the back out of sight.
CelicaGT said:
Generally biz jets have better performance than airliners (better climb rates, higher cruise altitudes, and faster cruise speeds) and in many cases they have the latest and greatest technology while many airliners do not. For instance the 757 (and I think it's a great aircraft, don't get me wrong) is only partially glass cockpit, does not have a HUD, and is a 30+ year old design. Airliner design is just inherently more conservative than biz jet design, so airliners usually see technology much later than biz jets.
As to whether biz jets are more fun to fly? Just like anything else there are many different kinds of biz jets and they all fly differently. Learjets are known for having exceptional performance, while some Citations are barely faster in cruise than a quick t-prop. Personally I fly a biz jet that was hastily stretched into an airliner and I had more fun when I flew a large t-prop that had a much lower cruise speed and climb rate.
I fly the 757, and yes it's mainly based on late 70's technology. Most private jets are much more modern and use much later technology. I did fly the EMB 145 for a while (which was a slightly stretched Legacy business jet) and although the equipment and technology was far superior, it's performance was not. As to whether biz jets are more fun to fly? Just like anything else there are many different kinds of biz jets and they all fly differently. Learjets are known for having exceptional performance, while some Citations are barely faster in cruise than a quick t-prop. Personally I fly a biz jet that was hastily stretched into an airliner and I had more fun when I flew a large t-prop that had a much lower cruise speed and climb rate.
A full power take off in an empty 75 still impresses me after nearly 7 years, and its big brother the 767 is even better. We once got and empty 767-200 to 40,000 feet in just under 12 mins from the start of the take off roll! Ok, not F16 performance, but not bad for a 300 seat airliner
Despite its ageing technology, the 757 is still an awsome aircraft to fly due to the masses of thrust available. The down side is it's efficiency! For this reason it is now a dying type, which (ironically) is being replaced in some airlines with the even older 737, albeit 800 types with more modern avionics and fuel efficient engines.
Some days I sit in the cruise at 36,000 feet and see the biz jets cruising above us at 42,000 feet (or higher). God knows what amount of radiation those guys are subjecting themselves too!!
I would say a biz jet feels like an elise compared to an M5 for an airliner!
Edited by Sifly on Sunday 19th February 18:44
Geneve said:
Well yeah, I meant something more along the lines of a Citation-I which cruises at about .70 Mach. 
Sifly said:
I fly the 757, and yes it's mainly based on late 70's technology. Most private jets are much more modern and use much later technology. I did fly the EMB 145 for a while (which was a slightly stretched Legacy business jet) and although the equipment and technology was far superior, it's performance was not.
A full power take off in an empty 75 still impresses me after nearly 7 years, and its big brother the 767 is even better. We once got and empty 767-200 to 40,000 feet in just under 12 mins from the start of the take off roll! Ok, not F16 performance, but not bad for a 300 seat airliner
Despite its ageing technology, the 757 is still an awsome aircraft to fly due to the masses of thrust available. The down side is it's efficiency! For this reason it is now a dying type, which (ironically) is being replaced in some airlines with the even older 737, albeit 800 types with more modern avionics and fuel efficient engines.
Some days I sit in the cruise at 36,000 feet and see the biz jets cruising above us at 42,000 feet (or higher). God knows what amount of radiation those guys are subjecting themselves too!!
I would say a biz jet feels like an elise compared to an M5 for an airliner!
Believe me I'd love to be flying a 757 and I think it's a fantastic aircraft. Also, I hate to correct someone who actually flew the EMB-145, but it's actually a stretched Brasilia. Only later did they offer it as a biz jet. I would certainly agree that performance is lacking on most RJs. The CRJ200 can barely climb above the high 20s on most short flights, and is lucky to cruise at .78 Mach. I don't dispute anything you're saying about the 757...just that most biz jets use the newest tech. A full power take off in an empty 75 still impresses me after nearly 7 years, and its big brother the 767 is even better. We once got and empty 767-200 to 40,000 feet in just under 12 mins from the start of the take off roll! Ok, not F16 performance, but not bad for a 300 seat airliner
Despite its ageing technology, the 757 is still an awsome aircraft to fly due to the masses of thrust available. The down side is it's efficiency! For this reason it is now a dying type, which (ironically) is being replaced in some airlines with the even older 737, albeit 800 types with more modern avionics and fuel efficient engines.
Some days I sit in the cruise at 36,000 feet and see the biz jets cruising above us at 42,000 feet (or higher). God knows what amount of radiation those guys are subjecting themselves too!!
I would say a biz jet feels like an elise compared to an M5 for an airliner!
Edited by Sifly on Sunday 19th February 18:44
"I would say a biz jet feels like an elise compared to an M5 for an airliner!"
Good analogy!
CelicaGT said:
Believe me I'd love to be flying a 757 and I think it's a fantastic aircraft. Also, I hate to correct someone who actually flew the EMB-145, but it's actually a stretched Brasilia. Only later did they offer it as a biz jet. I would certainly agree that performance is lacking on most RJs. The CRJ200 can barely climb above the high 20s on most short flights, and is lucky to cruise at .78 Mach. I don't dispute anything you're saying about the 757...just that most biz jets use the newest tech.
"I would say a biz jet feels like an elise compared to an M5 for an airliner!"
Good analogy!
The Brasilia is a small twin turbo prop, not a jet."I would say a biz jet feels like an elise compared to an M5 for an airliner!"
Good analogy!
Heres the EMB Legacy Private Jet
Heres the civil (streched) version the EMB 145 which I had the pleasure of flying
For the record, I thought the 145 handled like a pig. Good fun empty in the circuit but not a comfortable cruiser. It wasn't the easiest thing to handle in gusty cross winds either
Edited by Sifly on Sunday 19th February 23:22
Tango13 said:
telecat said:
The Lear Jet was once a Small fighter designed for the Swiss to fly so I'd say you could have fun in that. The Rest not sure about. Just checked and discovered that most of the Hawker 800 series is still made in the UK!!!
You're thinking of the P-16. Bill Lear was resident in Switzerland at the time and he liked the look of the P-16, nobody else did as they had a habit of crashing. He took the wings and tailplane from the P-16 and bolted them to a new fuselage to create the Lear Jet.Bill Lear once upset the USAF once when he noticed a couple of fighters closing to investigate his aircraft, he activated the auto pilot, sat his 3yo son in the pilots seat and hid in the back out of sight.
BrabusMog said:
I fly around central America a fair bit (as a pax) and I like the comfort of the Embraer's but I don't like landing in them. They feel flimsy and the last time we approached Managua I was convinced we were about to crash but credit to the pilot - I'm still alive
They ARE flimsy!Next time your a passenger in one, sit on the back row.
During the take off role, set your eye level in line with the top of all the seats ahead of you.
As the aircraft rotates, watch as the seats at the front raise up out of line due to fuselage flex, it's most amusing (so long as your not a bad flyer)!!
Dr Jekyll said:
Are these fun to fly compared with an airliner? They look as though they ought to be but I suspect they are a bit primitive compared with 757s etc.
I'm thinking yes to the first and no to the second.Airline flying is as boring as it gets. One thing not mentioned as yet is good old big brother... FLIDRAS (Flight Data Replay and Analysis System). It means pretty much all flight parameters are monitored and automatically sent to HQ after each landing, anyone seen to be behaving like a cowboy will be pulled up for it and quite possibly P45'd. It lowers the insurance premiums and keeps the cowboys at bay.
It also means you can't really have some fun (there was a time I used to be able to take pax on a more 'scenic' tour towards landing, they loved it, we loved it but cost the company a few more quid in fuel (my employer at the time actually didn't mind the odd excursion as the feed back we got was always good)). These days I wouldn't dare for fear of...yep P45'd from my present employer.
I'm not sure what FLIDRAS is like in the bizjet world. Large operators like Netjets? I'll have to ask my mate on that. Smaller more private operators, do they have it?
The tech....oooo yeh, some clever stuff there in that bizjet world.
It's been around for a few years now but I always thought this was great idea.
http://www.gulfstream.com/product_enhancements/evs...
Add moving map taxiway - GPS - allied position in an electronic display to show you exactly where you are (have you tried navigating round Paris CDG or the likes in thick fog!) to the frame and I'm liking the bizjet world more and more.
Anyone want to swap, say a G550 for 320?
sifly said:
For the record, I thought the 145 handled like a pig. Good fun empty in the circuit but not a comfortable cruiser. It wasn't the easiest thing to handle in gusty cross winds either
No BMI fly the 145? I think I got one from Birmingham to Edinburgh. Landing felt like the nose was going Sky, Norway, ground, Iceland, sky, I was surprised they had enough control to hit the correct county.Edited by Sifly on Sunday 19th February 23:22
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff