Choice of Bizjet Selection.

[FreeLanderII]

We are deciding on buying a biz jet and would like to get feed back on the Hawker 4000 and the Challenger 300, will need to fly about 6 passengers
And would mostly fly from Selatar, Singapore to Beijing, Darwin and sometimes to Melbourne.
Please advise on support, reliability and views on the two jets.....or any other choices that are better?
Thank You;)

[Savoia]

You've doubtless read Hawker's sales blurb but, in case you haven't here are some snapshots:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-64MBcEO0W10/Tl1iZJT1aKI/AAAAAAAAEtA/mVEs5I6P_5o/HSCC.png

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-YS9CsYYqByE/Tl1iZkXgLpI/AAAAAAAAEtA/luNY7jZOv9o/PLC.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-gjzil0o82oI/Tl1iZXfMcRI/AAAAAAAAEtA/TKEIqGOBs08/FDI.png

What I can tell you for sure is that they are both fine pieces of equipment and both highly compatible in terms of performance. The Hawker may just lead the Challenger in terms of possessing a slower rate of depreciation but this, for the most part, has yet to be established as used 4000's are still somewhat scarce.

[No RYR for me]

Hawker 4000 gets my vote. Have not flown it but the manufacturer is very good and love what I have seen of it big time. :ok:

[mutt]

Google Earth shows the distance to Melbourne approx 3500 nms nil wind. Are either of these aircraft capable of operating that distance with your required load?

Mutt

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Plenty of safety built in. range depress, or S/E.
glf

[No RYR for me]

maybe for the same amount of money you could get yourself a nice low houred 3 engine Falcon to avoid such issues. I also go for option C :D

[FreeLanderII]

Thank you, any views on the performance and handling? What about the cabin
In-flight, can anyone give me their actual views on this and it's reliability and support.
Appreciate it.

[FreeLanderII]

I would surely like some feedback on this, I think it's a little short, I have used a CL 604 and we did it with 5 pax.
Will this aircrafts do it like what some brokers has said?

[FreeLanderII]

I checked in the web sites and found many aircrafts for sale, also some falcons.
However, will the cost be much more to operate with this additional engine. I think so but how much?
I don't see many in Seletar airport on my visits there, one friend of mine said it could be because of it's high cost? Is this true? What about Pilots, will it be difficult to employ pilots to fly these aircrafts?

[Dimlightbulbs]

If your serious, you need to sit down with someone that has ran a flight department, not a salesmen, and discuss budget, crews, mission requirements, etc

Do you just want a nice big cabin, do you want range, are you willing to stop half way on the longer trips......

[FreeLanderII]

Thanks very much for your feedback. Do you know why is there not many 4000 sold. I was told it uses a composite hull, is this good? Appreciate it.

[FreeLanderII]

Thank you, can anyone let me know where is a service center available in Australia for the Falcon?
How about the CL 300? Is it good?

[FreeLanderII]

Thank you, do you think the Challenger 605 can compete and be better in cost, and reliability....please advise.
However I see many 605's for sale.....does it show a negative image or it's something else?

[Cseries]

Thank you, can anyone let me know where is a service center available in Australia for the Falcon?
Hawker Pacific at Seletar do Falcon servicing

[Genghis the Engineer]

We are deciding on buying a biz jet and would like to get feed back on the Hawker 4000 and the Challenger 300, will need to fly about 6 passengers
And would mostly fly from Selatar, Singapore to Beijing, Darwin and sometimes to Melbourne.
Please advise on support, reliability and views on the two jets.....or any other choices that are better?
Thank You;)

Anybody in the flight test world will have been trained in the tools for making this sort of selection, of the right aeroplane for a role. No harm in asking here, but for an investment like this I'd recommend paying for the services of an experienced Flight Test Engineer who can prepare the evidence for your company board to use in making their decision.

A few thousands spent on a specialist like that could be very handsomely repaid in having made the right decision.

G

[jetopa]

The Hawker might look promising and I'm sure it's a good airplane, but it's rare and new and you might have a problem finding adequate support if something breaks (which it will, no matter what airplane you buy). The sales guys (actually, there is a girl selling Hawkers...) will promise you everything to make you sign the contract - but do you really want to be Beechcraft Hawker's guinea pig in your area? :=

The there are the other usual suspects from Bombardier, Dassault or Gulfstream... Depending on whom you ask, the one is the 'ideal airplane' and the others utter crap. :ok:

If you (or your boss) is willing to spend that much, then get a consultant who's independent and pay him for his/her analysis. Money definitely well spent.

At the end of the day, if you end up with an airplane that does 80% of what you require, you have chosen wisely. :D

[con-pilot]

If you desire to have an aircraft capable of flying a 3,500NM trip, do not purchase an aircraft with an advertised 3,500NM range. Purchase one that has at least a 4,000NM range or more. Personally I would recommend at least an advertised 4,500NM range.

The reason is that the advertised range of any aircraft is the most optimized range that the manufacture can make. It is derived by using average historical winds, very good weather and computer models. In real life one very seldom encounters those conditions.

Also, if you are not going to be the Chief Pilot, I would recommend hiring a chief pilot prior to the purchase. Ideally one with experience in the types of aircraft that you are considering and use his knowledge and experience in choosing the best aircraft that will meet your expectations.

Also, as someone else here suggested, hire a dependable independent aircraft broker to assist you. They usually can recommend some pilots for you to interview.

If you are going to operate from any high altitude airports that has high temperatures, I would strongly recommend the Falcon 900EASY. If not, just add it to the list of aircraft to consider.

I wish you good luck and have a good time selecting the aircraft you need.

[silverknapper]

Freelander

You're in a great position here so enjoy it! Especially with the market as it is, there are bargains to be had!

As everyone says an expert would be the best way to go to advise you. If you don't personally know one however be careful. It can be a messy business. I have personally seen an 'independent' consultant boast about playing manufacturers off against one another for the biggest backhander. Very unfair to the end customer as he is paying also. Indeed Whenever I see the UK plc in question in the completely wrong aircraft for their mission profile it winds me up.

Of the two you mention I would say the 4000 all the way. It is technologically a far superior machine. It's been around a while now, I think there are about 50-60 about. It had a few bugs to start but the latest update seems to have addressed all of them. Because it's the flagship from what I've seen and heard support is excellent.
You asked about composite. It seems to be the way forward. Boeing are building the 787 from it so I'm sure it's the future.

However as someone pointed out look at the number of times you'll fly the longer sector. If it's often enough you may want something bigger. But again you're moving up a class in terms of costs. Only you know if your pax will be ok with a tech stop.

[portsharbourflyer]

Silverknapper, just because Boeing and Airbus are doing the B787 and A350 in composite doesn't mean anything. I can assure both programs have experienced a series of problems due to the use of composites. And anyone with experience of working on the structural side of the industry will know that while composite is the wonder material on paper in practice it is seriously over-rated.

Composites are very difficult to do in service repairs on compared to conventional metallic structures, hence why ATR are going to have all future fuselages made in aluminium; on the technology share agreement with Beoing Alenia could have used the same technology for producing fuselages for ATR, but ground damage issues mean metallic will remain for ATR fuselages.

A400m, I can't believe the thinking behind making a military transport composite considering small arms damage resistance (although this isn't that relevant to a biz jet).


Note Mitstubishi were a major Risk Sharing partner on the 787, hence could have used composite for the MRJ100 they are remaining with metallic as trade studies have shown the metallic design will still be lighter and can be produced more quickly.

You can rarely guraentee that a composite will come out of the curing process 100% as is should be on paper, so you have to assume the fairly conservative reductions in the assumed strength; consequently it is often the case a metallic component can often be just as light as the composite equivalent.

Use of composites is more of a marketing ploy by the manufacturers. I will admit as composite technology improves then one day it may well be better than metallic, but at the same time alloying technology and machining processes are improving as well meaning metallic still remains a competitive option.

Composites are probably popular because of government grants for developing new technology are part funding alot of the composite development.

[GLF5driver]

FreeLanderII -

I have operated corporate aircraft in the Asia Pacific, India Pacific, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Macau region for several years. That includes KL and Seletar. Congratulations on your corporation's decision to privatise their air travel. And welcome to pprune.com.

Without going in to full detail here, properly selecting a relevant aircraft follows fairly well established guidelines. It begins without consideration of any particular aircraft at all. Typically, the choice of a specific manufacturer, make, or model of aircraft comes almost at the end of the process, and is generally driven from within the process. The appropriate category / model of aircraft will narrow to a very specific few models. Choosing among those is another major drill in and of itself.

If this is a real event you speak of, then, as others have suggested, you simply must engage the services of a professional. In business, one does this as matter of course with any planned multi-million dollar (sing dollar, ringgit, rupee, dinar, pound, euro) expenditure. Whether that experienced, paid professional is to be the Manager or Chief Pilot of your new Flight Department, or a well known major Aircraft Brokerage House, or other Qualified and Experienced Consultant, is one of your early decisions and each consideration requires a fair amount of research on its own.

You seem to have identified some of your needs, including destinations, but please don't talk about a specific aircraft until you can quote the actual Airways distances that you will have to fly to reach them and their alternate airports. Average trip winds and temps aloft? Standard delays? Runway requirements? Can any of the aircraft you are posting here operate routinely and full range out of Seletar? An experienced advisor can provide the questions you should be asking, and provide the answers that ultimately will shape your choice of aircraft.

Now, with that out of the way; a quick commentary on some of the posted aircraft. Scrap them. The Hawker 4000 is not generally supported outside of the US, has not yet been certified in most countries; indeed, is not fully certified in the US! It has a legion of reasons not to be considered. The Challenger 300 is a superb aircraft for domestic US, Europe, Australia service. A positively great aircraft for what it was intended, but by no measure an international aircraft. Point one is the lack of provisions for even a single Inertial Navigation System, much less the common two or three systems found on over-water aircraft.

For non-stop 4000+ mile trips (statute or nautical?), you should be looking at a Falcon 900 variant, the G-IV/SP, G450, G-V, or G550. (nb - ETOPS and the number of engines is a requirement for corporate aircraft in only a few countries, even then only under very specific operating parameters)

For reference:
Seletar (WSSL) to Beijing (ZBAA) via Airways - 2538 nm
Seletar (WSSL) to Darwin (YPDN) via Airways - 1819 nm
Seletar (WSSL) to Melbourne (YMML) via Airways - 3310 nm

Approximate IFR ranges with 6 passengers using NBAA domestic reserves:
Challenger 604/605 - 4000 nm
Falcon 900B - 3960 nm
Falcon 2000EX - 3990 nm
Gulfstream G-IV/SP - 4030 nm
Gulfstream V - 6450 nm

Your capital outlay for aircraft acquisition and startup will be probably be somewhere in excess of $12 to $14 Million Dollars US. Your annual budget may be upwards of a million dollars.

Again, fantasy choices of aircraft here are fun, but are a diversion outside of and ahead of a professionally guided process.

Regards and good luck.

[wondering]

If your are looking at the CL300 and H4000, have you considered the G280 (nee G250)? That is if you are not planning to fly to the ME.

For starters B&CA runs once a year a bizjet comparison.

[whenrealityhurts]

GLF5 driver nailed it.

During my aircraft acquisition days for the 'boss'...initially it was fun to explore new planes...now when I get the call from someone thinking about starting a flight department, I roll my eyes, especially when they say, 'I was thinking about a Hawker'..and have no idea what it costs, it's range, where it will be worked on etc.

I have known guys to drop out of school on one type, to start on another type because an aircraft buy fell through, and quite honestly no one really knew what they wanted.

In my opinion many of the purchased are driven by everything but raw performance...the boss likes the cabin, the pilot likes all the goodies in the cockpit, the pilot can't plan fuel, so he buys a plane with so much range, fuel planning won't be an issue...

Few times in my career have I been able to jump into a new plane, and that's usually due to the boss just wanting new...that's it...saving money had little to do with it.

These days I could probably speed up the process of purchasing a plane, getting the boss to a place where he knows what he wants by simply talking to him for an hour running through pictures in the controller.

[Max Payne]

The operational experience in our company with the Hawker 4000 is: Per two flights one week of maintenance, and apparently the Honeywell EPIC avionics is so good that the crew is willing to trade it in for our 25-year-old Collins Pro Line 4. :E I would go for the Challenger 300, or any Falcon if you can afford it.

[500 above]

Wondering,

The G280 shouldn't have an issue in the ME. The Astra, Astra SP may do but I can tell you for a fact the G100, G150 and the G200 don't anymore. We take our IAI built Gulfstream data plated aircraft to Beirut, Jordan, Qatar, Dubai, Yemen, Egypt etc with no hassles. Years ago in Beirut we had an issue, but Gulfstream resolved this with the AIS and all was well again.

The 280 will be a good aircraft. Beats a Chally 300 hands down. Falcon 2000S however is cheaper slightly...

[I.R.PIRATE]

Buy a midlife G-IV-SP, and use the money saved on purchasing something new for the fuel bill. Well over 4000 mile range, and you can carry the entire kitchen, including the sink. Easy to fly, easy to maintain, good dispatch reliability.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Put Honeywell up front...

The weight saving is very impressive, the annual avionics repair bill drops.

Don't know the actual cost, bit I can see that a saving is made over the first 5 years with minimal service and replacement costs.

Not certain of WELL over 4000 n miles, but then mine was a heavy airframe.

Glf

[I.R.PIRATE]

Fixed for miles, instead of NM - which comes automatically. In reply to GLF5drvr's post about 4000 (SM or NM??).

[Fossy]

I would either go for a Falcon 900 or CL 604/605. Both are proven aircraft and reliable and for both aircraft maintenance facilities are available in Seletar (JA, HP) & Melbourne (EJ)

[No RYR for me]

GLF5 couldnt agree more, well written.

[GLF5driver]

I.R. Pirate

actually, my last G-IV/SP had one kitchen sink, two lavs with a sink each, and one bidet :p

the G-IV before that had a fully enclosed shower stall

[jungle drums]

As someone already said, in this current market you will get a great value GIV-SP that the boss will love for its room, range and reliability. And the initial savings in capital outlay is a lot of fuel.

With Seletar now at 6000 ft you should get 8+ hours of fuel off on most days to be one stop to Europe or Hawaii (probably 2 to mainland USA) and direct anywhere in Asia or Australia - which (except for mainland USA) is what a GV, G550 or GLEX will do more efficiently and faster.

And Seletar-Dubai should be doable now, it used to be Seletar-Muscat.

[I.R.PIRATE]

Gulfstreamaviator :

Do all G4s not come with Honeywell up front??

SPZ 8000 in the older models, and SPZ8400 in the newer ones?

I have never found anything else in the G4 range??

I am confused?:confused:

[FrankR]

You are right on target IRP, the IV had the SPZ 8000 and SP an 8400. Not much else changed from the IV to the IVSP except for greater landing weight allowing to tanker a bit more fuel. 7 mil for a IV, and 10-12 for an SP. The SP doesn't get rid of any bad habits from the early ones, so not sure it's worth it.

And Jet Aviation is right there on Seletar.

FR

[mutt]

The SP doesn't get rid of any bad habits from the early ones, What type of bad habits are you talking about?

Mutt

[FrankR]

My original sentence probably didn't come across well Mr. Mutt.

Many times, the follow on aircraft improve upon the original or correct something that was really annoying. In the case of say the GII to the GIIB it was a greatly improved wing. From the early to later GIII it was AC/DC to AC only. Both times, the airframe was greatly improved.

My point with the GIV is that there were not any bad habits that were rectified with the change from GIV to GIVSP, so the extra 3-4-5 Million US are perhaps not a necessary investment.

FR

[Gulfstreamaviator]

IR Pirate: I was suggesting PlaneView...... The latest update available.

Glf5 driver: did it also have an original banana paint job, and 2 karioki machines, as well as 5 water tanks for the shower.

Glf

[GLF5driver]

For inquiring minds - G-IV and G-IV/SP differences

s/n 1000 to s/n 1213 are G-IV
s/n 1214 starts G-IV/SP

73,600 lbs AUGW vs 75,000 lbs AUGW (1,400 lbs)

73,200 lbs MTOW vs 74,600 lbs MTOW
- all Gulfstreams are 400 lbs taxi fuel

58,500 lbs Max Landing vs 66,000 lbs Max Landing

Va of 170 KIAS vs Va of 206 KIAS (Max Maneuvering Speed)
All other speeds limitations are identical.

SPZ-8000 FMS vs SPZ-8400 FMS

SPZ-8400 FMS introduces some real niceties for the crew - selectable DH or MDA on the PFDs with alerting, vastly better and truly usable GPWS terrain display on the PFDs, but otherwise are pretty much the same. Same software version numbers for each. ASC-190 typically aircraft remain SPZ-8000 aircraft; the ASC does not involve the SPZ (except for the perf computer)

G-IV BBW Brake-by-Wire (absolutely horrible) vs /SP HMAB (Hydro-Mechanical Analog Braking) (smooth)
- just the difference in braking is almost worth the difference in price bewteen -IV and /SP

G-IV thrust reverser use limited to 1 minute in 30 minutes vs no restriction on /SP.
- open T/Rs heat up the solenoids, lots of failures
- ASC-166 available to mod straight G-IV

Terminology - Gulfstream uses Aircraft Service Changes instead of Service Bulletins, etc.

ASC-190 modifies G-IV to G-IV/SP weights and performance.
- thus there are G-IV's, G-IV/SP's and G-IV ASC-190 a/c - you cannot visually tell them apart. No s/n change, no -dash modifiers, no suffixes, no logos. You have to read the logbooks for ASC-190.
- (actually, on US a/c, check the left side of the tail cone for the TSA required s/n plate, then look at the MLG wheels - different # of slots and rim diameter on the higher gross weight a/c)

Virtually everything /SP is retrofittable to base G-IV through ASC kits if you can afford the dollars and the downtime. ASC-190 is the biggie among ASC's.

G-IV/SP and ASC-190 aircraft have published shorter landing differences because they get official FAA Flight Manual Performance Section credit for automatic ground spoiler deployment on landing. The auto deployment system is essentially the same on G-II, G-III, G-IV, ASC-190, and G-IV/SP aircraft, but only the /SP gets to move the not-legal-for-planning-purposes demonstrated performance pages out of the manufacturers handbook and into the offically sanctioned Flight Manual. There is no real world performance difference. However, in an FAA paperwork world, it becomes important to a -135 charter operator, and for the -91 operator, it "legalizes" what the aircraft can actually do vis-a-vis runway requirements.

The /SP is unique in that it can be operated in two Instrument Approach Categories, Category C or Category D, via an ASC that consists of a reversible placard in a little clear plastic holder for the cockpit and a Flight Manual page insert. You can depart and operate at /SP weights with the placard turned to 66,000 lb MLW, and after burning enough fuel to reduce your landing weight to 58,500 lbs or less, you turn the placard the other way round and become a straight G-IV for approach category purposes. An /SP or ASC-190 aircraft cannot conduct an IFR approach into the ever popular Aspen, Colorado (Approach Categories A,B,C, but no D), but at a Landing Weight of 58,500 lbs or less with the ASC placard installed and turned the right way, they legally may! Not suprising, it's referred to as the Aspen ASC.

(I'm told, this came about because the straight G-IV was delivered at the 58,500 lb Max Landing Weight, and so all the performance data was developed during initial certification of the aircraft.)

Fuel capacities, ranges, speeds, operational altitudes at weight for weight are the same for each variant, though purists like to argue that the straight G-IV is fractionally lighter and so may be a knot or two faster. I have several thousand hours in the beasts and wouldn't take that bet. One cycle through paint and interior and avionics fattens up a lean straight G-IV nicely.

Mmo is .85. Normal Cruise is .80 (460 Kts) in the 40's. Hi-speed cruise is .82, though .83 is do-able if you like the low 30's for flight levels. You need a compelling reason to slow below .80; endurance only really. The difference between KTEB to KVNY (2412 nm) at .82 vs .80 is 20 minutes and 2000 lbs of fuel. At an ISA +10 atmosphere and AUGW take-off, you can go straight to FL380, then FL400 30 minutes later. FL450 is max, and either versions are happy at FL430 or FL450. Climb is 300 KIAS to .75, or 320 and .78 if needed. Descent is Mmo to 300 KIAS, then hold that to 10,000 feet.

Teterboro to Paris is common, and the reverse is okay if hold times aren't excessive. I've done Minneapolis - Hilo many times with legit PSR and landing reserves. (No old bold pilot here!)

Do not sell the G-IV vs /SP weight differences short. I frequently captained both a straight G-IV and a G-IV/SP out of Tokyo. Both aircraft could make the flight from Tokyo to Honolulu non-stop, but in the straight G-IV you could not take passengers with you. One thousand four hundred lbs difference in carrying capacity equals 8 passengers at the FAA's standard 170 lbs, or 6 passengers and their baggage at our Charter Op Spec weight of 210 lbs per passenger. I had actual weights on our Japanese passengers and their luggage, and 1400 lbs amounted to 11 passengers!

If the end user is purely regional or domestic, a straight G-IV is great. If you are going max range or wish or need to tanker fuel frequently, the ASC-190 option or the G-IV/SP becomes the more desirable aircraft.

Please feel free to correct any error here.

[mutt]

GLF5driver, excellent post...... thank you..:D:D:D:D

I presume that the GIV-SP comes with the higher ZFW?

FrankR, thanks for the clarification....:ok:

Mutt

[westhawk]

the ASC-190 option or the G-IV/SPIs that the one that allows selection of the MLW so as to allow designation as an approach category C certificated aircraft or the higher cat D MLW at the flip of a placard?