new challenger 605 vs gulfstream 450 or 400

[jb70]

Hi all. I'm looking for a long, medium range jets and i need some real world advice. i'm looking at a new challenger 605. I would like to be able to take 8 pasengers to hawaii direct. then maybe onto new zealand via another fule stop. i would like to be able to have 1 fuel stop and be anyware in the world. I would buy a gs 550 but i'm to cheap. I'm a little worried about 605 customer service and reliability. plus some of thier interiors i have seen look cheap . i'm also looking at gs 450 more money but they seem ready to deal because of the economy. a friend of mine told me to get a gs 400 2002-2004 with 2000 hours or so. So i quess i'm asking opinions on these aircraft as far as safety first and quality of aircraft and reliability and real world range. thanks. for your help. jb (sorry i'm based out of scottsdale az)

[keithskye]

I have flown the Challenger 604 and G-IV a lot in the real world and can give you real world numbers. The 605 is an upgrade of the 604, and the G450 is an upgrade of the G-IV SP. In both cases, the Gulfstream will go roughly one hour further with the same payload, and it will do it while going much higher and faster, which is great when there is weather along the route. Because of the higher normal operating altitude, at least within the US and Canada you can get more direct routing because there are fewer airplanes operating up there. Gulfstream support is also much better than Bombardier support these days, though there was a time when it was the other way around. If you can afford the Gulfstream, then you will be happier with it for the mission you have described, and your pilots will be happier because they will have more options in doing the job that you ask of them.

The downside of the Gulfstream is that it is bigger and heavier, so it burns more fuel, and landing fees and airspace charges are higher because all such fees are based on the max takeoff weight of the aircraft. The Gulfstream also has a bigger "footprint" on the ramp (needs a bigger parking space or hangar space).

The bottom line: if you want better performance and can afford it, go with the Gulfstream. If you are concerned about operating costs, then the Challenger is very very hard to beat for that size cabin!

Keith McLellan
Chief Pilot
Jetsteff Aviation
ATP, CL-604, G-IV, CL-600, G-1159, B-737

[galaxy flyer]

My 2 cents:

If you are based out of KSDL, you have a MTOGW restriction that you will need to consider. If you want the longest range out of KSDL, you will need a G450 or Falcon 900EX. The wet footprint issue might be a factor for the CL605, too. The CL605 is a step down from the G450 in range and performance, as KeithSkye said. For a regular passenger load of 8, the CL605 will probably feel a bit cramped after a flight to NZ.

GF

[hung start]

For my 2 cents
We operate a Legacy 600 which does KLAS PHOG NFFN comfortably with a bigger cabin than the 605 and the G450 and the biggest baggage . The new Legacy 650 does have even more range , M.80 and FL410 . Its worth a look

[NuName]

Pacific, ETOPS = Falcon 900 EX/EASy, 7X for me.

[ericthepilot]

None of the Falcons can do FL410 initial, the 7x can't get of the ramp if you don't have built 7 or whichever latest version you need to fire up the APU ...
Stick to proven track records of dispatch reliability and comfort.
Get a G4 and save yourself some money, and that you can use to paint and set the interior you want.

[NuName]

Not that I understand your comment on the APU or the relevance, there are no issues with "dispatch reliability and comfort" attached to the 900 EX or EX EASy, the 7X I can't comment on. Where initial FL 410 becomes a buy or no buy you will have to explain for me. The difference in purchase price and operating costs still leave the Falcon much more desirable financialy, and, over the ocean I would rather have my backside relying on three powerplants rather than two. If you love the G4, great, so do I, but don't deny the "proven" capability's of another frame.

[keithskye]

There is no statistical evidence that says 3 engines are better than two, especially when you take into account the make and model of the engines in question.

Another factor in choosing an airplane is the maintenance and support issues. Gulfstream factory support is EXCELLENT, as is their warranty program. The ability to climb higher, faster, at heavy weights is a distinct advantage, especially when operating in areas where convective weather is the norm, like the USA and certain areas of the South Pacific.

[NuName]

If what you say were true ETOPS would not exist. As for the rest, I agree, however, Falcon operators are quite loyal suggesting they are content with MX and perf issue's. It costs less to purchase and operate a Falcon and that could be interesting for an operator too. I am not aware of any cause for concern with the engines on the EX, EX EASY or the 7X. Many hours in the B with no major problems, and no warnings from within the industry.

[keithskye]

ETOPS has never been a factor for me or the operations I've flown for (I'm not an airline driver nor do I operate bizjets commercially). The only thing I look at with regard to engine out performance over water is the potential for a wet footprint. I also look at my single engine performance with regard to drift-down altitudes, etc. There are so many factors to consider when making a choice of aircraft to accomplish any given mission. All of the aircraft mentioned here are good performers, but whether you like it or not, there are a lot of subjective reasons for choosing an aircraft, like anything else, as well.

Put 8 pax in the back, lots of bags, and then fly from SDL to HNL and compare the time to climb, initial climb and cruise altitudes, total flight time for the trip, cabin altitude in cruise, cabin size/volume, etc., total direct operating cost of the trip, the size of the windows, the size of the galley, the size of the lav(s), the size of the cockpit, the acquisition cost of the aircraft, the market value after 5 years depreciation, the warranty, etc., etc., etc.,

When you compare all of that and more, then you can START to make a decision about what airplane is "best" for what the BOSS wants to do....

[AgentDenzel]

Global Express.....worth the look. hardly any place the global can't land and the range of 6000 + miles will take u direct to most places!

Good luck.

Which ever bird u buy, prices should be very negotiable on this market...

[No1Avi8tor]

Personally is the word that is missing here, a good salesman is needed to make you happy. I agree with the Guys regarding the other possibilities but is it that what you want? you need somebody who lisens to your desires and than pics the right choise for you.

Just pick a price range and take an afternoon free time and make somebody do the job for you. :ok:

[keithskye]

Good choice as well, and as you said, now's the time to buy, almost anything!

I recommended a Global to a guy in Hawaii who wanted to go from his ranch on the big island of Hawaii non-stop to Teterboro, NJ. He had a 5,000' runway nearby and when I ran the numbers, the Global was the only aircraft that could operate from that runway and go to and from there straight to the NY area.

Lots of good machines out there, but you have to really study the numbers and look closely at what the boss/your client wants to do, and also look at what kind of budget they have, not only for acquisition, but for continued support of the aircraft afterwards. I have already dealt with several owners who could afford the acquisition, but could not justify or afford to operate the aircraft afterwards.