Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.
Some time next year my boss is planning on getting either a 601 (later series) or a 604. It's got the cabin he wants and probably the range. In fact it seems like a great plane. I fly an Excel so it's definitely a nice step up!
Now I know a little about the take off accidents, one at BHX and the other somewhere in central Asia. Does the plane have any greater issues with ice compared to other swept wing machines without slats, eg. Legacy, Sovereign etc? Do you have to be more careful than on other types during rotation in icing not to over cook it? If so why?
How does range compare between a 601-3A and a 604? I know the ratings are different.
1.Yes, there were accidents, you could find lenghty discussions in this forum about the Cl604 wing/ice problem. I think, every high-performance wing requires extra attention in this respect. It would be impossible to make a technically or statistically correct comparison in relation to the sensitivity to wing ice with other aircraft in this class. 2. The 604's fuel sytem has two additional "saddle" tanks in the aft equipment bay, containing about 1800 lbs of fuel. Taking an average cruise fuel flow of about 2000-2200LBS/HR it is good roughly for 45 minutes or 400nm flight. Therefore the 601R has a theoretical range of about 3600nm, the 604 has 4000nm. The 604 is a great airplane, go for it !
Surely the icing question is irrelavant , why on earth would you even be contemplating attempting a take off with ice on the wings , whatever the aircraft model ???!
No where in my post do I say I'll take off with ice on the plane and would certainly never contemplate doing so!
It just seems that this plane has had more press regarding this issue. I know full well that providing I follow the training procedures and manual for flight in icing I should not have an issue.
Balaton,
Thanks for the figures!
Let's hope my boss goes for a 604 but I wouldn't complain either way!
Gents, I've been flying 604's for a while now, its very important to understand that it does NOT have a 4000nm range.............. Dubai to London (3200nms) against the wind is about as good as it gets, or London to KTEB. If you want sensible reserves then beware of this basic fact, also the additional issue is the tank capacity. Theoretically you should be able to load 20,000lbs of fuel, so far, in well over two years I've never been able to do this, despite following all the advice of pumping the aux tanks slowly and getting the plane 1 degree nose down etc. The high level shut-offs cut out well before 20,000lbs, at VERY best you'll get 19,500 in a cold place. Most times you'll be lucky to get 18,800. Before anyone says I'm flying a dog, this is my experience on three different 604's and is a known problem. Otherwise its a great aircraft, the pax always love the wide cabin. The last thing to mention is of course the icing, NEVER accept ice on the wing AT ALL, it will kill you on a take-off............. If you want anythinmg else just PM me. Best regards, SF
Now I know a little about the take off accidents, one at BHX and the other somewhere in central Asia. Does the plane have any greater issues with ice compared to other swept wing machines without slats, eg. Legacy, Sovereign etc? Do you have to be more careful than on other types during rotation in icing not to over cook it? If so why?
Hi Kyle
No , you do not directly say that but your whole second paragraph and especially your last sentence certainly imply that , otherwise why ask about overcooking the rotation in icing ??? Anyway , the a/c is certified for flight into known ice but not to t/o with a contaminated wing !
Theoretically you should be able to load 20,000lbs of fuel, so far, in well over two years I've never been able to do this, despite following all the advice of pumping the aux tanks slowly and getting the plane 1 degree nose down etc. The high level shut-offs cut out well before 20,000lbs, at VERY best you'll get 19,500 in a cold place
I've managed 20K in Keflavik in February - mind you we also dumped about thirty gallons onto the ramp from the wing NACA vent. You have to take it really slow and let it settle if you want the full amount. For practical purposes I agree - 19.5K is about max.
4000NM - just like all aircraft performance figures it's calculated from performance data and proven once during Flight Test - it does have 4000NM, but only under "standard" conditions.
That's why I highlighted "theoretical" and I only intended to give data for comparison (no winds, no distant alternates, no sloping ramps, no sun-lit fueling trucks, no cheating fueling boys, etc.)
While I agree with the comment on the tendency to dump fuel via the NACA duct unless you're careful I never had trouble getting 20,000 into the 604 and got the same into the 605 when collecting it from Bombardier.
Flintstone, it happened to me once, recently - and I admit having no idea as to why... So what do you specifically mean by "if you're not careful" in order to prevent the fuel spilling, please? Thanks, PFF
As others have insinuated the fuel system is not the best. In fact it seems to have a mind of it's own sometimes.
The main problem I've had is with the high level shut-off valves on the main tanks. They either didn't operate quickly enough or didn't operate at all (I wasn't about to keep p1ssing fuel all over the apron to find out). They seemed to be worse when cold. That was on the 604 by the way and I've only completely filled the 605 once so far so no way of knowing yet what it's quirks are.
Rather than rely upon them to function automatically I begin filling the mains, when almost full open up the aux/tail and once fuel registers in those close the mains off. If the mains weren't quite full I briefly open them while the aux/tail is filling and manage to squeeze a little more in that way.
I've never had it happen to me but am told that if the fuel supply is interrupted at this stage you'll never be able to recommence fuelling of the aux/tail except possibly by powering down the system and trying again. Not seen this first hand though.
That was on the 604 by the way and I've only completely filled the 605 once so far so no way of knowing yet what it's quirks are.
Same fuel system - it was one of the bits we didn't touch from 604 to 605.
I think the only reason we had it dump at Kef was because the ramp is on a lateral slope so that all the snow runs off into the drains, as a result the left wing was probably a couple of feet below the level of the right wing.
Thanks. I know it's the same system, I was referring to quirks relating to an individual airframe. They must exist otherwise we wouldn't be hearing different stories.
You are fortunate to have a boss that is actually considering an upgrade in this economy. Just hanging on to what you've got is a victory nowadays!
The 600 series Challengers are great values, but the key feature that sells them is the cabin. It's great! And since the man who writes the check also rides in back, that's what appeals the most.
As such, he may not see much difference between the 601 and the 604, except in the price. However, things have a way of equalizing in used aircraft values, so what may seem like a good deal up front ususally means higher costs later in operating and upgrade costs. Because of that, I like to recommend buying the newest aircraft possible.
The Challengers were never really performance leaders in any catagory, but do have well-rounded performance. But, once again, the cabin steals the show, and the pilots have to deal with whatever performance compromises there are.
I've always been a big fan of the Falcon design philosify, so I would be remiss if I didn't put a plug in for their products. The 2000/2000EX competes very favorably with the Challenger, with an unmatched safety record. That slatted wing makes a world of difference......
The Challenger 601-604 must have some sort of a supercritical icing vulnerability.
There have been at least 3-4 icing related accidents on it in the last very few years.
I am sure that Challenger pilots are just as professional as pilots of Beech, Citations, Hawkers, Falcons , Gulfstreams, Learjets, so this has to be an airplane weakness. Specially when you take into account total airframes of all the other types together versus the Challenger.
Statistically it doesn't seem to add up.
Not much wing out there (and no slats) for a big fattie that it is.( not an expert)
I guess all you Challenger pilots will have to be EXTRA carefull out there in the winter!
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
