We then flew clean, flaps 20 approach and landing configuration stall approaches to stick pusher at weights of 30,150 lb. to 30,250 lb. For the three configurations, stall warning stick shaker then stall prevention stick pusher respectively were triggered at 139 KIAS and 131 KIAS, 113 KIAS and 106 KIAS, and 107 KIAS and 101 KIAS. Aircraft behavior during each of the maneuvers was very benign.
Next, it was off to Abilene's Runway 35R for pattern work, starting with the ILS approach. Wilson pegged Vref at 128 KIAS for the aircraft's estimated 29,600-lb. landing weight, providing a 23% margin over stall. Dickerson set the auto-braking system to medium deceleration for demonstration purposes.
We flew the approach at Vref+5 until crossing the fence. The relatively large wing and absence of leading edge slats/Kreuger flaps provides considerably more ground effect cushioning than in the G200. We floated down the runway for a few hundred extra feet before the aircraft touched down. Auto braking action was very smooth and progressive. The aircraft slowed to moderate taxi speed in about 2,500 ft.
It was then time to sample the G280's engine-out takeoff performance. Wilson computed speeds of 101 KIAS for V1, 109 KIAS for rotation and 121 KIAS for V2. Just above 101 KIAS, Dickerson retarded the right throttle to idle, simulating an engine failure. Only light left rudder pressure was needed to control yaw because of the powerful FBW rudder system. But the servo system moved the rudder pedals enough to make it apparent to our feet that the left engine was producing substantially more thrust than the right engine.
The aircraft was easy to control throughout the simulated OEI approach and landing. We noted that thrust response to throttle movement is very linear and predictable with the Honeywell HTF7250 turbofans, thus speed was easily controlled. That's a vivid contrast to the throttle response of the PW306C engines that power the G200.
After landing, we taxied back to sample the aircraft's auto braking rejected takeoff feature. During our simulated takeoff roll, Dickerson called “Abort! Abort!” just past 80 KIAS. We snapped the throttles to idle. The ground spoilers fully deployed and the auto braking responded with maximum braking effort. There was the slightest tendency toward triggering the anti-skid system, but the aircraft decelerated smartly to a stop with no loss of directional stability.
Returning to Dallas-Love Field, we noticed that, compared to the G200, the aircraft's considerably larger wing and relatively stiff wing structure results in a firmer ride in turbulence. It feels similar to a G450.
We landed 1 hr., 49 min. after departing Love Field and easily stopped the aircraft in the first 3,800 ft. of runway.
Conclusions? The G280 delivers sporty performance, excellent handling qualities and unsurpassed avionics capabilities in this class of business aircraft. Its range, speed and systems capabilities are on a par with far more expensive large-cabin aircraft, placing it at the top of its class.
Glance, please, at the accompanying Comparison Profile. Because of the G280's exceptional capabilities, we didn't just compare it to other super-midsize aircraft such as the Hawker 4000 and Challenger 300. We also added in the Dassault Falcon 2000S, Bombardier Challenger 605 and Embraer Legacy 650.