35
$\begingroup$

I heard in a TV show that private jets such as Gulfstream can fly at about 50,000 ft, higher than other civil jets.

Is it an aerodynamic reason (lighter aircraft to be sustained in a less dense air) or does it depend on the fact that a smaller fuselage is more resistant to lower outside pressure at a higher altitude?

I think that – if possible – flying higher, in order to fly faster and with lower fuel flow, is always better. Am I correct?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Jet engine efficiency does not increase above the tropopause, at around 11km, due to the way temperature behaves beyond it, see here: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12541/… $\endgroup$ – AEhere supports Monica Aug 6 at 8:48
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Re, "higher is always better:" If that were a simple truth, then long-range flights all would be in space planes. $\endgroup$ – Solomon Slow Aug 6 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ @SolomonSlow Technically, the longest long range flights are: Any flight around the earth one or more times are in some kind of space plane. $\endgroup$ – Volker Siegel Aug 8 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ @VolkerSiegel It seems odd to call a plane with an service ceiling of 51,000 feet and rather limited maneuverability in a vacuum a space plane. $\endgroup$ – 8bittree Aug 8 at 21:11
66
$\begingroup$

There are several reasons and none of them really have to do with a private jet being more aerodynamic than a commercial jet.

Private jets have better power to weight ratio than commercial jets so it is easier to ascend to greater heights. Commercial jets also carry more fuel which needs to be burned off to lighten the plane to go higher.

It’s easier to pressurize smaller cabins than larger ones (this is a significant factor for commercial jets).

Flying higher is usually better for avoiding weather that can even affect commercial airliners in the 30ks.

There is much less traffic up above 40k and it allows the private jets to fly more direct routes at a faster speed and more safely as well.

$\endgroup$
  • 36
    $\begingroup$ You forgot the bragging rights :-) $\endgroup$ – Antzi Aug 6 at 9:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ They are designed for higher cruise speed, which explains the higher power/weight ratio. Add to that a lower wing loading for operating out of regional airports. The higher cruise altitude is just a consequence of the desire to fly faster and from more airports. $\endgroup$ – Peter Kämpf Aug 7 at 7:47
18
$\begingroup$

There are three main factors that let corporate jets with 50000+ ceilings get up that high.

First and most importantly, they have very large wings. Partly this is because of the need for fuel volume for range requirements, but it's mainly that you need the extra wing area to be able to fly that high with a reasonably efficient indicated airspeed at 50000 ft (500 kt TAS is only 250 kt indicated at FL500) at reasonable weights.

Next they use turbofan engines like the BR700 with lower bypass ratios than airliners because a lower bypass ratio is somewhat more efficient in very thin air.

Lastly, they operate with higher cabin pressure differentials, 9-10 psi rather than around 8 psi to get an 8000 ft cabin at 50+ thousand feet.

The structure has be a bit heavier to handle the pressure differential, but not that much because they are designed for way less cycles than an airliner, 3-500 cycles per year vs 2-3000 cycles for a regional airliner. If you took a corporate jet as-is and put in a regular interior and started running it 4 or 5 flights per day flogging it like a mule, it'd start breaking down in short order. Conversely, corporate aircraft created as conversions of regional airliners designed for 3000 cycles per year will run pretty much forever in the light duty corporate role.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The structure does not necessarily need to be heavier. Since the diameter of the cabin is smaller, the square-cube-law helps you out, i.e. you can have higher pressure differential using the same materials and wall thickness. $\endgroup$ – Bianfable Aug 6 at 13:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Not necessarily; Global's tube is the same diameter as the RJ's. $\endgroup$ – John K Aug 6 at 14:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Agreed, but that's a large long-range business jet compared to a small regional airliner. $\endgroup$ – Bianfable Aug 6 at 14:07
8
$\begingroup$

I think the other important factor that the others haven't addressed is Mach number.

The speed of sound is doesn't change much with altitude (it actually drops slightly due to reducing temperature) and if a plane gets too close to it, shockwaves start to form in areas where the airflow is accelerated (such as on the top of the wing) causing a lot of excess drag.

By flying higher, a plane gets a higher ground speed and true air speed for the same indicated air speed (IAS). However the limit is when the true air speed (TAS) results in a Mach number that starts to cause shock waves. To go higher, a plane has to reduce its indicated air speed to maintain the same Mach number. Therefore the limiting height is when IAS approaches stall speed at the same time as the Mach number limit is reached. (see Coffin Corner)

Now private jets are usually designed to use smaller runways than big airliners, so they have a slower stall speed (due to relatively large wings for their weight). Their maximum Mach number is similar (an easy way to tell is that the angle of wing sweep is similar) so the height at which minimum IAS = maximum TAS is higher.

EDIT: True air speed (TAS) is the actual speed of the air, similar to the aircraft's ground speed (after allowing for wind). Indicated air speed (IAS) is the effective aerodynamic air speed, or "how much force you'd feel if you stuck your hand out the window". IAS falls relative to TAS as the air gets thinner.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How much faster would a Gulfstream at 50,000ft be able to fly a route compared to a commercial flight at 35,000? (say SFO-JFK?) $\endgroup$ – Aaron Ash Aug 8 at 12:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Aaron, no faster. It's flying at the same Mach number and thus approximately the same true air speed and ground speed. The thinner air means that the indicated air speed is lower, so there's less drag and the engines don't need as much thrust. $\endgroup$ – Robin Bennett Aug 8 at 13:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.