Gulfstream IV and V maintenance issues [Archive]

Flight Safety

14th Feb 2001, 03:41

Stressfree, no I'm not part of that company, the "handle" just happened to be available when I registered at Pprune.

Departure reliability and unscheduled downtime for both the G-IV and G-V are something I have an interest in, especially when operating them from the US to overseas locations and back. Any "excessive" downtime for unscheduled maintenance (in either domestic or overseas ops) is also something I'm curious about.

Stressfree, thanks for your comments. Does anyone have experience operating these aircraft on ETOPS flights, and how is the overseas service situation when service outside the US is required?

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 14 February 2001).]

fokkerjet

15th Feb 2001, 05:43

Flight Safety.

To start, I'm not a big Gulfstream fan. In my career I've flown the GI and GIVSP, now I'm in the GV and the GI had to be the best Gulfstream ever built. I flew a 25 year old airplane for 5 months in airline service out of EGBB to various European cities (over 500 hours ) and can only remember scrubbing a trip once due to a maintenance problem. No nosewheel tire in stock. The GIVSP I flew was almost just as reliable, I just didn't think it was a very modern aircraft for the price of it. The Falcon 900 line, while not quite as comfortable up front, was/is a very modern executive jet. Now I'm in the GV, and I dread it everytime I put power on the thing because I know I'm going to be faced with some sort of problem. Most are simple fixes(re-boots)and some require MEL write-offs. Every now and then, maintenance needs to fix something before we can fly again. I think for the money people pay for this thing, dispatch reliability needs to improve greatly.

Flight Safety

15th Feb 2001, 09:27

Fokkerjet, thanks for your comments. It must be a little discouraging to have to put up with repeated problems. I imagine that once Gulfstream gets a new product out the door, they work (like everyone else) to sort out the problems until the aircraft finally reaches its design reliability goals (as they did with the GI and GIVSP). However it's approaching 4 years since the GV first went into service, and you'd think Gulfstream would have sorted out all (or nearly all) of the issues by now. Gulfstream has an impressive marketing image, but I agree with you the attention to detail in perfecting a new aircraft model should be a lot higher for the price you pay for them.

One thing about Gulfstream aircraft that I'm strongly drawn to is their very impressive safety record, as this is a strong selling point for me. I'm also curious about how well the GV performs on the long sector flights it was designed for, and how difficult (or easy) those flights are on both the pilots and the passengers.

By the way, I did a long slow walk around of a Falcon 50 today. I was impressed, its a very nice airplane. I just wish it had more range for a 3 engine aircraft, then of course there's always the 900.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

fokkerjet

16th Feb 2001, 01:28

Flight Safety,

Probably one reason for the good safety record is because of the people who fly them. When a company (or person) pays $40 -50 million for an aircraft they tend to spend a lot of money in training for their crews. As the aircraft gets older and out of date, the companies that end up with those aircraft tend not to spend a lot of money training and now the accident rate starts climbing on that type.

I've only been on the GV since October, but I've had 3 11.5 hour trips in it and I've found it not to bad. For ultra long trips, we fly with 3 pilots and 1 F/A. On these legs, the pilots switch seats every 2 hours so you end up with a break every 4 hours which works very nicely. Our GV has a crew rest area and we never see the passengers during the flight. On a couple of our planes there is a small galley for the pilots across from the rest area, along with a mini lav. Our other aircraft are equipped with a forward galley which puts all 4 of us up front, it's kind of crowded then but, not to bad. The passenger side of the aircraft is about the same size as the GIV so it's how the aircraft is loaded and configured as to how comfortable it is. One 11 hour flight was with 12 passengers http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif and I can't believe anyone was comfortable back there http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
, but most of our long trips are with 2 or 3 passengers which allows everyone some space.

On our last trip from Asia, we climbed straight to FL410 to Alaska, then climbed to FL450. We finished up at FL470 and burned about 33,000 pounds of fuel on a 11.5 hour trip. We cruised at M.80 until entering Canadian airspace then stepped it up to M.83 the rest of the way.

DC3Flyer

16th Feb 2001, 07:16

Flightsafety,

There is some truth behind the concept of NOT purchasing an airplane that is one of the first 25 serial numbers of a new type. I have had more problems in the earlier serial numbers than the later ones but more often than not we have some sort of glitch that requires attention. Not to comforting when you're doing extensive international flying. Good luck.

Flight Safety

16th Feb 2001, 11:05

Fokkerjet, here's the entire NTSB incident/accident list for the G-II thru G-V series aircraft from 1/1/83 to today's date.

G-II 7/27/90 - DEN90LA168
This was a clear air turbulence encounter, with injuries.

GV-1(?) 7/24/95 - FTW95LA316
I think this was a G-IV, not a GV. This was a landing gear strut failure caused by a maintenance error. Strut failed on landing, no injuries.

G-IV 10/30/96 - CHI97MA017
This is the only fatal accident listed with 4 fatalities. A mixed crew of two pilots from two different companies got confused over the correct position of the Nose Wheel Steering Select Control Switch ("Hand Wheel Only" or "Normal" position) prior to takeoff. The aircraft departed the runway to the left in a strong cross wind and crashed because of high ground speed. The confusion was caused by different company procedures.

G-IV 3/13/99 - DEN99IA053
Engine fire caused by a wire chaffing on a fuel line. The engine was shutdown and landing was uneventful. AD was issued for this problem.

G-IV 6/6/00 - DEN00LA165
Clear air turbulence encounter, with injuries.

That's the entire (complete) accident history for these aircraft types since 1/1/83 to today's date in the US. I find this to be very impressive. I think you're right about accidents increasing as the aircraft age (with pilot training and other issues), but here only a single G-II incident is listed, and no G-III incident of any kind is listed. Why Gulfstreams (G-IIs thru G-Vs) defy the normal pattern I don't know, but they do.

I also want to thank you again for your comments, I appreciate them greatly.

DC3flyer, I normally don't buy a new car in the first year of a new model for the same reasons.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 16 February 2001).]

fokkerjet

16th Feb 2001, 19:59

Flight Safety,

I remember several more that you missed.

GII that crashed in Tri Cities Tennessee, killing all on board. Maybe 15 years ago. CFIT accident.

GIII that crashed/ditched on approach in Switz. FlightSafety showed the video of divers filming the aircraft sitting on the bottom of the lake when I attended GV initial last year. This happened, maybe two years ago. CFIT accident.

GII that ran into the side of a mountain during approach, somewhere in Asia I believe. All killed. Maybe 10 years ago. CFIT accident.

GII/III that overran the runway while landing in the Los Angeles area last year. The crew left the passenger behind in the aircraft as they evacuated the aircraft. CFIT accident.

GV, within the last two weeks, had a left hydraulic system failure and left the runway after landing at Long Beach.

GIII midair two months ago in the Los Angeles area. GIII overran and descended down into a King Air approaching the same airport. Both aircraft landed safely.

True, the aircraft does have a good safety record, but I believe most of that safety record is because of the professionally trained crews that fly these aircraft. Falcon's record is just as good, looking at the F50/900 line, and the Challenger also. These are very expensive aircraft flown by large corporations, worldwide, and the crews are highly trained and seasoned.

Flight Safety

18th Feb 2001, 15:34

Fokkerjet, accidents outside the US I haven't researched, but I don't understand why I can't find the accidents you listed for the US? The Tennessee accident may have occurred before 1/1/83 (the oldest online at NTSB), but the others I cannot find. Surely the regs require reporting incidents and accidents such as the ones you mentioned (the 2 in LA and the 1 in Long Beach).

You're correct in that the Challengers have an excellent safety record, easily as good as the Gulfstreams. The Falcons (50/900) however show some issues. Having looked this morning at their history, I already hate the anti-skid system on the 900. There are a few other issues (like uncontained engine failures) that also concern me, though overall they appear to be excellent aircraft. Maybe my standards are too high, but I want an airplane I can really on as much as possible, and one that won't rise up and kill me someday (and others) because of a technical deficiency. I'm willing to pay for that too.

While I agree with you that very professional pilots make a world of difference in the safe operation of an aircraft, the aircraft itself has to be of a very high engineering standard (at least for me). Then again the best aircraft in the world is no good without the best pilots and training :) .

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 18 February 2001).]

fokkerjet

18th Feb 2001, 17:13

The midair happened at Van Nuys on October 17, 2000 and I was wrong about the GV leaving the runway, it just blew all 4 main tires at Long Beach but that was on January 3,2001.

I flew the F900A/B/EX for about 6 years and I can't recall ever hearing anything about uncontained engine failures with the TFE731-5 or -40. The -5BR had a problem on intro into service, but they didn't come apart.

Flight Safety

19th Feb 2001, 08:28

Fokkerjet, I failed to search the NTSB records using the aircraft model number G-1159, this was my fault. I found additional records including two that you mentioned.

02/19/90 - MKC90MA049 - Little Rock AR
7 fatalities. Pilot caught in windshear on approach and touched down 1600 ft short of Rwy 4. Hit approach lights, railroad tracks, and a fence.

02/14/91 - NYC91LA076 - Cleveland OH
Pilot intentionally groundlooped the AC when he saw there was not enough runway left to stop on snow covered runway. No injuries.

06/17/91 - AIA91WA164 - Caracas
4 fatalities. No cause listed.

05/03/95 - FTW95RA188 - Quito Ecuador
7 fatalities. no cause listed.

10/12/95 - BFO96LA008 - Cleveland OH
Pilot landed on runway with one end under construction. He read the NOTAM, but failed to see the barricades and hit them because of sunglare. No injuries.

03/25/97 - NYC97FA062 - Flushing NY
ATC error. ATC cleared pilot to land on runway at night with a disabled vehicle on runway with its lights out. AC struck the vehicle, no injuries (thank God).

04/30/97 - MIA97LA154 - Miami FL
Nose gear collapsed on landing after thrust reversers deployed. Cause of collapse undetermined (???). No injuries.

02/16/99 - LAX99FA101 - Van Nuys CA
You mentioned this one. Pilot approached too hot and touched down long, departed end of runway and hit several parked AC. Pilots and F/A evacuated without assisting the sole passenger on board, who evacuated on his own. No injuries.

10/17/00 - LAX01FA018A - Van Nuys CA
You mentioned this one also. G-1159 collided in midair with Beech C90 while on approach to runway 16R. Both aircraft landed safely. No injuries.

I think your observation that older aircraft suffer from less experienced and less well trained flight crews applies to the Gulfstream aircraft as well. Again, my mistake.

I'll do more research on the Falcons.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 19 February 2001).]

411A

19th Feb 2001, 11:01

Have most of the problems with the GV been with the airframe, systems or engines? If systems, which ones in particular?

TheDrop

20th Feb 2001, 11:13

A Royal Danish Air Force Gulfstrem (III ?) crashed on approach to Vagar, Faroe Islands (EKVG) some years ago. Apparently caused by heavy winds and windshear, fatal for all on board including high level RDAF staff.

I was told by a controller in the tower that they had the windshear and crashed on the back side of a ridge with a heavy downslope. Must have been one h... of a windshear ! Vagar is amongst the more difficult airports to land in, and this particular day the weather wasn't nice at all.

The F/O officers father was controller at the time being.

It seems that most of these accidents are not type related, but mainly CFIT or caused by severe weather. Let us all hope for EGPWS will come only sooner than later.

Jamie

20th Feb 2001, 11:58

I have been operating the GIV for the last 8 years and the GV for the past 3 1/2 years, here in the UK. I can honestly say that the availability of the aircraft is around 99.8%. As you quite rightly state, when a problem is found it is either OK to despatch as per the MMEL or to exchange, fix the part.
GIV and GV aircraft are very easy and reliable in an operation whereever in the world they maybe situated.

Flight Safety

20th Feb 2001, 13:30

My thanks to all for your posts. I agree with TheDrop, every aircraft should have EGPWS, and I also agree that nearly all of the Gulfstream accidents listed above have no bearing on the type. Jamie, your comments are what I hoped operating the GV would be like.

Fokkerjet has gotten me interested in looking more closely at the Falcons (particularly the 900), which I might not have done otherwise. I've looked at the NTSB records for the Falcons (50/900) and I've seen two uncontained engine failures (on a 900 and a 2000 ?), and a fairly recent problem with the wheel mounted Tachometer Generators that supply wheel rpm related voltages to the 900 anti-skid system. When the TGs are out of spec, they can causing a strong pull to one side (sometimes off of the runway) when braking. The TGs appear to be high maintenance and require frequent inspections (per the manual) to insure proper operation of the anti-skid system. I honestly don't like this. It seems to me that a redesign of the TGs with a low maintenance brushless design (instead of the current high maintenance brush and commutator design) would solve the problems they are having. I haven't looked yet at all of the ADs and SBs issued for the two aircraft, where I hope to learn more about any other outstanding issues.

I understand the 900 can operate on poorer airfields than either the Challenger or the GV. Do any of you have any experience with this? The 900 also wouldn't require any ETOPS considerations. Like 411A, I'd also like to know what systems specifically are giving problems on the GV.

Thanks again to all of you.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 20 February 2001).]

con-pilot

23rd Feb 2001, 02:06

I can't answer the question about "poorer runways" about the 900EX verus the IVSP, but the 900EX has a big advantage over the IVSP when it comes to high and hot runways.

All last year we looked very hard at the Falcon 900EX verus the G-IVSP. The Falcon won hands down when it came to total range from high altitude airports. The boss lives in Aspen Co. 7,004ft runway, elv. 7,800ft. The temp. can get up to 25c+ in the summer. Very tough SID climb requirements. At 0c the 900EX can go nonstop Aspen to London, 4,300 miles, the G-IVSP can't do that leg no matter what the temp. is.

One more example, then I'll go away. Bogota Colombia (SKBO), elv. 8,361ft, 12,467ft runways. The G-IVSP cannot go from SKBO to KHOU (Houston Hobby), 2,100miles and meet the SID climb requirements, the 900EX can. And like Fokkerjet said, no ETOP problems.

Don't get me wrong, the G-IVSP is a hell of an airplane, in some areas better than the 900EX, but when it comes to high and hot, no contest.

gaunty

23rd Feb 2001, 19:07

con-pilot

Spot on, at the end of the day its the hot and high performance that finds out the men from the boys, the tart up from the design up.

Flight Safety

23rd Feb 2001, 19:53

After looking at some of the ADs for the Falcons, there appears to be the occasional quality problem with a subcontracter's component, requiring either redesign, replacement, or frequent inspections. However this does appear to be fairly rare, and is nothing out of the ordinary for most aircraft, and in fact I'd say the Falcons are better than most in this regard.

I've come to really appreciate the Falcon 900, it's a very fine aircraft, worthy of the comments posted. It's an excellent aircraft with unique capabilities.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

bearcat88

27th Feb 2001, 22:58

Flight Safety,
I just reviewed your correspondance trail and I can't believe you'd be shopping for war stories while shopping for aircraft. With your access to incident reports, sub-contractor issues and the like it appears that there is more to you than meets the eye. Suffice to say that at the level of Challenger, G-IV and Falcon 900s all the aircraft are well bult and have excellent manufacturer support. Your question boils down to a matter of cockpit/cabin ergonomics, creature comfort and cost. Take one out for a test drive and see what the boss (and his accountant) has to say.

Flight Safety

28th Feb 2001, 13:09

Bearcat88, they're not really "war stories" as you call them.

In evaluating whether an aircraft is the best aircraft for the intended purpose, how the flight crews feel about operating a particular aircraft is important. Their experiences with maintenance issues are also important from their perspective as flight crew, since they have to deal directly with the operational consequences of those issues.

When considering the purchase of aircraft and putting them into operational service, there are a whole variety of issues to consider (as I'm sure you know), and these issues weigh in among them. I tend to think I can get a few honest opinions here as well, and honest opinions are always valuable.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

Zones

30th Mar 2001, 15:44

Folks

Been reading this interesting thread, and it has led to a couple of quezzies:

Anyone care to comment on effects of "higher than normal" utilisation on reliability of the subject aircraft ? (ie GIV/IVsp/V 900/900ex etc etc etc)

What would be maximum practical utilisation which wouldn't affect "normal" reliability performance of the aircraft?

Could they cope with 300+ hrs per month ?

Also - when comparing GIVSP with 900 - which has "better" cabin - length / width / noise / galley space ?

Appreciate any comments.
Cheers
Zones.

con-pilot

30th Mar 2001, 20:27

Believe it or not the passenger cabin in the 900 is a little bit bigger than in the G-IVSP. However the galley is a lot larger in the G-IVSP. The lavs in the G-IVSP are a litte bigger. From what I could tell the noise levels are the same.

I am 6'5" tall and weigh 225lbs. So cockpit room is very important to me. The 900 cockpit has more room than the G-IV, at least to me.

Both are really good airplanes.

fokkerjet

2nd Apr 2001, 05:04

con-pilot.
Tell us about the engine failure at ASE? If I read this correctly, you're flying an -EX?

I was in OKC, last week looking for ya! Parked next to a -B and thought it might have been you but they were from California.

[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 02 April 2001).]

con-pilot

2nd Apr 2001, 21:46

fokkerjet, Igition Override;

We haven't got the 900EX yet, it's still being finished in Little Rock. And by the way I'm based at Wiley Post, PWA. We are based at The Service Center, south end of airport.

I am going to start a new topic here in Biz forum about the ASE abort. It was in a Sabre 65.

Flight Safety

3rd Apr 2001, 03:04

I've been meaning to reply to Zones' question about utilization, but haven't had time until now.

Either aicraft type (Gulfstream or Falcons) have high dispatch rates, which would be crucial to utilization rates as high as 300 per month per aircraft. However the main issue that needs to be addressed at utilization rates this high (10 hrs/day average) would be the maintenance issue.

Good maintenance planning for utilization rates this high would be crucial both to keeping the aircraft servicable and dispatch ready, and keeping the maintenance costs-per-flight-hour at or close to the normal rates experienced during lower utilization rates.

This would cover things like having a spares inventory for high failure items, and items that are consumed fairly quickly such are tires, etc. This might also include having maintenance staff available to work at night. Inspections would have to be well planned in advance, whether your maintenance department does them, or you contract for this. I know that here in Dallas the major service centers require scheduling of your aircraft into their maintenance centers, and this would require good planning, coordination, and monitoring with dispatch of the hours flown by each aircraft. Depending on the engine used and its TBO, engine replacements (overhauls) would likely occur at least once a year and would have to be carefully planned to keep the overall utilization rate high, and a servicable fleet available if more that one aircraft is being used at dispatch rates this high.

Also, you would need good knowledge of the field service capability of the service organizations (factory and otherwise) in the various areas where you're operating, so they can assist you if needed in a timely manner.

It short, excellent advanced maintenance planning would facilitate good coordination of scheduled maintenance with operational readiness, quick return to service of the aircraft when unscheduled maintenance occurs, and most of all it would keep the costs in line with normal cost-per-flight-hour rates.

This requires that someone (or a small group) stay on top of the maintenance issues at all times, and they would have to coordinate regularly with dispatch.

Another issue addressed by the good maintenance planning is flight safety, as it could get tempting to cut corners on maintenance (by postponing scheduled maintenance, doing a lot of MEL dispatching, etc) just to keep the aircraft in the air. It will also take some serious cash to both fly and maintain the aircraft properly at rates this high, as being short on cash could lead to temptations to take shortcuts in maintenance.

The maintenance effort is the key to safe dependable flight operations at utilization rates as high as 300 hours per month.

I could add that dispatch would also need to be both safe and creative in coming up with weather work-arounds, and this would also be a continuous effort. Aircraft used at rates this high would also need to be equipped with the ability to operate safely in adverse weather so that weather delays can be kept to a minimum. I think both the Gulfstreams and the Falcons are Cat III capable, but additional equipment that increases the safety margins would always be helpful.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 02 April 2001).]

fokkerjet

3rd Apr 2001, 04:22

Next time you're around the airport and you see an Executive Jet Gulfstream or Falcon driver, ask the pilot how the airplane is working out. These guy's and gal's are flying aircraft with high utilization rates like you're talking about and they would probably answer your questions.

My experience with Falcon's and Gulfstream's tell me to stay away from the GV if I had any plans to fly that beast 300 hours per month. And really when you think about it, most corporate aircraft aren't designed for that kind of use with the exception of the Global Express, maybe. Since Bombardier also builds the CRJ and Dash 8, they should have some knowledge about building aircraft with high utilization rates and maybe they built the GEX with that in mind.

As far as CAT III goes, the Falcon 2000 is the only corporate jet certified that I'm aware of. The Falcon 900EX was in the process of being certified next by Falcon Jet and Gulfstream is talking about it for the GV and maybe the GIVSP, but I may be wrong.

Like Flight Safety said, you have to have a good maintenance support network in place if you have any hopes of flying these aircraft the way you're asking.

[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 03 April 2001).]

Zones

3rd Apr 2001, 14:05

Thanks Flight Safety & Fokker.

F.S., correct me if I'm wrong:

Basically what you are saying is that as long as the organisation running the aircraft at such utilisation is "geared up for it", with sufficient planning / parts availability, not cutting corners with MEL's etc., then the aircraft should provide adequate despatch performance.

But Fokker's counter is that such a set up would not suffice, due to the basic design philosphy of the aircraft, and that as a result, reliability would be ratsh*t, and costs sky high.

So what aircraft in this category, if any, that is available second hand (ie not Global Express), could be run on a long haul, corporate shuttle service , ie 300hrs-ish /mth ? Need to seat 8-10 in comfort. Trans-atlantic.

Is the answer forget a Biz Jet, and try the majors (BA/VS/UA et al) ?

Thks again.
Z.

Flight Safety

3rd Apr 2001, 16:00

Zones, what you have to consider is that you're talking about typical airliner utilization rates at 300 hrs per month. That means you basically would have to pay attention to, and cover all of the bases that the airlines normally do to keep aircraft safely in the air at those rates. You'd just be doing this on a lot smaller scale.

Something I neglected to mention in my last post, is leaving enough flexibility in the maintenance program to cover the unexpected AD that requires frequent inspections. Fokkerjet is right about the current GV, as a few days ago the FAA issued an AD requiring inspections of the BR710 fan disk every 25 hrs until a new disk is designed that can replaced the existing disk, that will terminate the AD. That kind of thing crops up and you'd have to be flexible and resourceful enough to accommodate it.

I might differ with fokkerjet on utilization of biz jets at this rate. Each airframe is designed for a certain life expectency, which includes total number of hours, and total cycles. Granted most biz jets are not normally expected to be utilized at this rate, but the airframe does not know that the hours and cycles are being accumulated at higher than normal rates, it only knows total hours and total cycles, and scheduled maintenance is geared mainly to these 2 parameters.

I would check with the airframe manufacture regarding total hours and total cycles that the airframe is designed for, to get a good idea of what the total life expectancy of the airframe would be. This is something that airlines normally consider when buying aircraft, but biz jet operators don't think about as much.

Fokkerjet has a good idea about looking into Bombardier aircraft since they build RJs (BTW the Challenger is a great airplane and might be suitable). In fact it might be worth it to look into an RJ type aircraft since they are designed for high utilization rates, though these would seat more than 8-10, which might make them too large to be suitable for your needs.

In the end, you may be able to find an aircraft that meets your needs, and is capable of being operated at these high utilization rates. But you're going to have to ask around to see which airframes may have been used like this successfully in the past. Some of the fractional operators may have some history like this. I've personally been shopping biz jets for 3 years now, but the issue of airframe life in total hours and cycles is something I never thought to ask anyone.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

fokkerjet

3rd Apr 2001, 16:26

I guess it depends on the needed range but I'd look at used F900EX's or GIVSP's for an atlantic shuttle aircraft. Both of these aircraft have a cabin that could carry 8 to 10 passengers comfortably and both have a range of 3500 to 4000 miles, depending on BOW's. If the range isn't enough, don't even think of any early serial numbered GV's, they are on the used aircraft market for a reason :mad: .

If you can afford a new aircraft and what something larger, look at the Fairchild Dornier Envoy 7. It's got a big cabin and some decent range. Embraer has a version of the ERJ145 coming out, the Legacy, that's marketed for corporate shuttle use that may have the range you need also.

[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 03 April 2001).]

Flight Safety

3rd Apr 2001, 16:30

Zones, as I think of them, I'll post aircraft here that I think might be worth looking into for your needs.

The first aircraft I can think of is the Gulfstream GIVSP. It sounds like it might be the right size and passenger capacity. It has good range, speed, and field performance, and good dispatch reliability. Service should be good, but you'll have to check this thoroughly because of your utilization rates. It's also normally available on the used aircraft market, while still being new enough to have very modern systems. I have no idea at this time what its airframe life would be.

The Falcon 50s and 900s are worth looking into for the same reasons. They also do not require ETOPS to fly the Altantic, and they are also normally available on the used aircraft market. Again I have no idea about their airframes lives.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

Zones

3rd Apr 2001, 17:41

Cheers for the quick replies.

All helpful and interesting comment. Confirmed many of my original thoughts and added some useful extra's...

I personally am thinking of the GIV-SP, as there are quite a few to choose from.

Not sure that the Falcon cabin quite big enough for comfort. GEX would be nice, as would BBJ / ACJ but they're in next league up for money available. Not sure about Envoy or Corporate EMB145 - only thoughts I had on them was their relative slow cruise speeds... but I don't know much about them.

The web sites are useful sources of basic info, but you can't beat real comment from field users...

cheers for now.

Z.

For conversation/thread continuation - what's wrong with the early GV's ?

fokkerjet

3rd Apr 2001, 18:52

I'm not trying to sell you on other aircraft types but reading the ads for the ERJ145 Legacy, it claims a M.80 cruise, 3200nm range with 10 passengers. The Envoy 7 claims M.80 and about 4000nm. So you can safely say that these two aircraft are in the same league as Falcon's and Gulfstream's in terms of speed but a little short on range. I don't know how the cabin stacks up against the corporate jets, but I'd bet they are larger, which you will need if you travel with 10 adults and luggage.

About the GV. As with any product, never buy the early ones because the manufacture doesn't really know what to expect from them until they are out flying the line. We had early Falcon 900's when they were introduced in the '80s, and we went through the teething pains because of it. The early GV owner's are going through that now, and those of us with early serial numbered aircraft will have to wait until next year, or so, before we can get the new mods that new production aircraft are fitted with now.
I think I heard that the new steering mod won't be available for us until the 450 hour mark (TBO), so in the mean time, no rudder pedal steering for landing. (Lots of fun in crosswinds http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif ) The engines are another problem ( Flight Safety spoke of it).

Gulfstream came out the the GVSP very quickly, less then 140 GV's built, which leads to believe that they had to make some big changes to the aircraft before the GEX and BBJ started getting more of their customers. I think most people are very disappointed with the aircraft, and most of these people started flying the GI, and then grew into the -II, -III, -IV.

[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 03 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 03 April 2001).]

Flight Safety

4th Apr 2001, 00:26

Zones, the GIVSP is out of the new model "teething phase" that fokkerjet spoke of, and is "service mature" in that sense, so you won't have to deal with those problems. The GEX is also suffering the same engine problems as the GV since it's also a new model and uses the same engines.

BTW, I saw my first GEX a few weeks ago, nice airplane. It looked like a large Challenger with funny looking engines (not the normal GE CF-34s but rather the BR710s). Whoever selected the interior on that aircraft missed it however, as the wood looked like highly polished plywood. The overall effect was a very plain interior for such a nice aircraft.

If you decide to look at an ERJ family aircraft, be sure and check out the sheer number of ADs that have been issued for them. I suspect they might be in a new model "teething phase" as well.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

Zones

5th Apr 2001, 20:21

Slight change away from the thread, which I believe was to do with the GIVSP's reliability.... but further to my quezzies, I got one more:

What do you know about the Canadair SE, esp in comparison to others ?

I am lead to believe that because it was designed "around the CRJ", with similar levels of certification, that it could handle higher levels of utilisation better...

It is also slightly bigger than GIVsp, but on downside can only just manage the Atlantic, and ain't no Concorde...

Any knowledge of the aircraft, and how it performs day to day ? As I said, you can only get so much from websites / manufacturers data....

Thks again
Z.

Flight Safety

6th Apr 2001, 00:51

Zones, I just looked at the website info for the SE, and 3 things struck me.

First, the range is rather short, as you said it will just make the Atlantic.

Second and more importantly, the range-payload chart shows that this range is at close to zero payload. It can fly full payload for a range of only 2000nm, before it starts to become payload restricted, and is down to zero payload at 3200nm.

Third, the BFL chart indicates that it's not a very good short field performer. At altitude (5000ft plus) it's pretty far off compared to normal biz jets.

On the plus side, the aircraft is built to airliner standards, with airliner redundancy in the electrical and hydraulic systems. Other systems also seem to be designed for easy and low cost maintenance. The aircraft is basically a CRJ with a biz jet interior, about the same size internally as the GEX.

CRJs are built to handle the utilization rates you have in mind, so there's no question about this aspect of the aircraft. I would think the best operator input would need to come from CRJ pilots.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 05 April 2001).]

Flight Safety

19th Apr 2001, 06:25

Zones, I was curious as to how your selection of an aircraft has been going?

I've been working on your issues some myself (both to help you and to satisfy my own curiosity), and I should have some interesting information for you in a few days. I'll need an e-mail address to send it to you. My e-mail address is listed on the webboard, so feel free to use it.

Regards,
Flight Safety

------------------
Safe flying to you...

Zones

23rd Apr 2001, 15:49

Will email you shortly.
thanks
Z.

Flight Safety

24th Apr 2001, 21:40

Zones, I just sent you e-mail containing some useful information from Gulfstream on using a GIVSP at the high utilization rates you have in mind. I hope it helps.

Cheers

------------------
Safe flying to you...

27th Apr 2001, 22:24

Aspen, Colorado, Last month......GIII went into the ground.......CFIT, obviously. Very tragic.........

I have to go to work at the moment and cannot spend a whole lot of time writing, but I would take a serious look at the Flcon 900EX. I am partial. I have been flying the aircraft (900 & EX), for about ten years and am very impressed with the overall design and reliability. I don't know of any aircraft that has the versatility combination of this aircraft.

Aircraft comparison can become seemingly intractable. Much is not a straight-forward comparison.

A great comparison tool is the Conklin & deDecker "Comparitor". A great tool for comparing apples to apples. Look into it if you are seriously comparing. A LOT of number crunching has been done for you. Do an Internet search for their website.

Jay