No, you've pointed out none that can do it. It's really pretty careless of you to overlook the details of my question and just post away a bunch of jets that cannot operate out of a 5900' runway. A Global Express??? C'mon man. That's ridiculous. I know of no jets that can take full fuel and that much weight and operate out of a 5900' runway. They can't. They'd have to go into SFO and drive.
I don't have a theory-- that's the thing. I wish I knew... although I am reasonably sure, based on the NTSB's report, that it wasn't "engine failure."
Jason, I just called a buddy of mine that flies a Falcon 50 and a 900. He said he goes to Napa once a year or so. I didn't ask him to pull out the POH and prove it, but he said his recollection was that he could depart the 5,930' runway at Napa at gross in the 50, but he would be temperature limited...something certainly below 80.
But what is "gross" in the Falcon 50? Will it do 6+ bags and 12 cases of wine with enough fuel to go 1500NM with reserves? I haven't found a jet yet that will do it out of a 5900' runway. Not only that, most jets can't get out of Aspen or Vail with a full load. They all stop at Centennial and refuel for the long flight home. I'm not having to do any of that in the PC12. It's direct, non stop everywhere with a full boat.
I'm not disagreeing with you...I definitely have PC envy. You know what lowly transportation I fly by comparison. But you asked about the 50, I know the guy, so I asked. I just phoned him and asked the question again and it just gets worse. He said he wouldn't need full tanks to go 1,500 nm with reserves, but he could still depart Napa by the book with full tanks, 9 passengers + 2 pilots, bags, and as much wine as he could fit in the hold, at least the 12. He said the 900 would be easier as it is more fuel efficient and better performance. And he added that he would happily trade the 50 for your PC12, and he'd write you a check for $2M on top of that...so he likes your plane also I'm outta here...you know where I'm headed....and yes, I have to make multiple frickin' fuel stops. I sent you a PM today on Walterboro.
Jason since you are going to put down VLJs let me wade out there and say what a lot of people are thinking , the PC 12 is the ugliest airplane ever built. I couldn't fly it because of the paper bag over my head. Doesn't feel too good does it? Your airplane is a wonderful machine in terms of performance IF you don't mind single engine issues. Putting every other airplane down that is in the sky besides yours is a little pointless. I've been flying MANY many more years than you Jason and one thing I can tell you is this: all airplanes are a compromise of one sort or the other. What works for one might not do **** for someone else. Quit trying to prove otherwise. BTW that old "dog" Lear 35 is many many times the airplane he PC12 is. You really have no clue making a dumb statement like that because you have never flown one.
I think perhaps you're not reading what I write?? If I say people buy VLJ's for "sex appeal" clearly I'm stating how great they "look". I know the PC12 is the ugliest airplane ever. That's the point I'm trying to make. Not sure why you think I'd be offended when I'm the one who suggested it first. See, I have no problem being real about things. I "compromised" sex appeal when I bought the PC12. I agree with you. Every plane is a "compromise". If the Lear 35 is so great, how come they don't build them anymore? I love talking airplanes. I'm also not thin skinned. It's an internet forum. Lot's doesn't come across when discussing things in internet forums. If we were face to face you'd be laughing . not wanting to beat me up.
At least you're flying yourself. I flew my Bonanza out there many times. Those were long flights with several fuel stops but I loved every one. Hell, anytime I land at a destination all I really want to do is get back into the airplane and go somewhere else. ;-)
I'm training for my license now, and hopefully may be able to afford fractional ownership of one of these with a couple of friends in the future. Jason, I do agree with what you're saying. I'm particularly drawn to the Eclipse 500, but the practicality of the PC12 and the TBM900 certainly make them a tempting option. I suppose the lack of a lav could benefit from it's rather limited range. Let's the plane take on fluids whilst you lose yours.
I have flown in a Global Express (as a PAX) into/out of Modesto, CA (5,904' runway) from WI. It probably couldn't do your task with a full load, but it wouldn't need to either. Something like 8 people + luggage on board and we cruised at 51,000ft. I think it could handle your scenario without issue.
Are you a pilot? Here are some performance numbers I pulled for the Global Takeoff at Sea Level, feet 5,820 Takeoff at 5000′ 25°C, feet 7,880 Landing Distance, feet 2,190 Certified Ceilings, feet 51,000 Fuel Consumption, gallons per hour 486 Total Variable Cost $3,265 High Speed Cruise, knots 499 Ranges, Four Pax, Nautical Miles (NM) 5,960 600 NM Mission, Fight Time 1+17 1000 NM Mission, Flight Time 2+32
So, based on those numbers, I see that you agree that the Global can easily take nine people and wine to Atlanta from Napa. Nice to see that you finally realize you were wrong before...
Um, no. Did you read the numbers? Are you a pilot? This is the second time you're jumping to conclusions by not looking at the details. Thanks for coming back out though. From Bomabardiers website "The Global 6000 needs a runway length of 6,476 feet (1,974m) to take-off and 2,670 feet (814m) to land." This number also assumes "perfect conditions" and "light weight".
Of course Jason the Merlin 3 will do that mission with two engines, more room, and more payload for 1/6 of the capital cost (burning only 20 GPH more). The extra 3 million at 3% interest will give you enough money to hangar and maintain it in perpetuity. The aircraft can be bought for 750,000 in excellent condition and an extra 300k will buy you a g1000 and a brand new interior. So to summarize ... A single engine PC12 Or A cherry twin engine Merlin 3 with new engines, new paint, new interior, G1000 and 3 million in the bank.
I am a pilot-- ATP, in fact. However, that isn't the point. The first number you cited for the Global says "Takeoff at sea level, feet 5,820" Last time I checked, 5,820 was less than 5,900. What am I missing? Also, FYI, the Global could most likely take those people and wine nonstop to Paris from Napa...
Back it up then! Prove it. So far you're wrong on all counts. And...... if you're a pilot how come you keep saying incorrect stuff? 5820' is "takeoff distance". Not "runway length". An ATP would know the difference..... right?
I am a pilot. Haven't flown in a few years. The Global owner let me ride jump seat for a week to see if it was something i'd be interested in someday. Now I fly a desk for an aviation data company. Check the numbers for a Global BD-700. They are around 5000ft at Sea Level.
Actually Jason you are making the wrong assumption . If the takeoff distance is less than the runway length then you are good to go. Takeoff distance in a turbine aircraft is defined as the distance to accelerate to v1, rotate at vr and climb at V2 to a distance of 35' OR stop in the remaining runway IF the stop is begun at v1 (balanced field length). If you have a takeoff distance less than the runway length as is the case here, the aircraft will fly the profile.
