Choice of Bizjet Selection.
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.
For starters B&CA runs once a year a bizjet comparison.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere
Age: 42
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: European Union
Age: 44
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
I would go for the Challenger 300, or any Falcon if you can afford it.
I would go for the Challenger 300, or any Falcon if you can afford it.
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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by I.R.PIRATE; 6th Sep 2011 at 13:14.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
get G4 sp, and then....
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in the hotel
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: was Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Age: 47
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than one sink, actually
I.R. Pirate
actually, my last G-IV/SP had one kitchen sink, two lavs with a sink each, and one bidet
the G-IV before that had a fully enclosed shower stall
actually, my last G-IV/SP had one kitchen sink, two lavs with a sink each, and one bidet
the G-IV before that had a fully enclosed shower stall
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Treetops
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: MCO (occasionally)
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
And Jet Aviation is right there on Seletar.
FR
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: MCO (occasionally)
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
updates
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: was Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Age: 47
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-IV and G-IV/SP differences
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.
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.
the ASC-190 option or the G-IV/SP
