Hawker 4000, Challenger 300 or Falcon 50EX?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuname, speak for yourself, not all pilots buy a toy for themselves...some of us get a plane that fits the mission.
That said, given the choice, I find it's funny that pilots will pick fat whales that sit the 30s getting hammered in the weather and always having to turn for the airlines.
So be it. If the boss wants to drop 20 mil on pig and put his nephew at the controls, he gets a big turd that will cost him his shirt. Never fail.
That said, given the choice, I find it's funny that pilots will pick fat whales that sit the 30s getting hammered in the weather and always having to turn for the airlines.
So be it. If the boss wants to drop 20 mil on pig and put his nephew at the controls, he gets a big turd that will cost him his shirt. Never fail.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheRobe
Do you honestly think there are principles out there that allow a pilot to go and spend millions of $s on what they want, if that idiot exists he well deserves what he gets. And if you bother to read the initial post, thats what its all about, getting other peoples input to identify a good candidate aircraft for the mission. After all, the guy must have been asked or he would not have posted. I only said that as pilots we all have our favourites and as such, if the aircraft is suitable, we might suggest it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you shall book an appointment with a specialist of some kind...or go through meditation, or alternatively have a break...
But i think i can trace your anger to the ergonomics of the SPX, and its "duck walk" on a wet runway, or it's Skydrol system ? or Rubber boots ?
Talking about rubber you shall start using some, it will ease your inner pain..
Have a wonderful and restful life ...
I love the 50EX, operating costs might be a stopper if not flown very often. The Hawker 4000 born Horizon, is just what it is, a plane on the horizon, do not touch it.
The BD100 is the best in its class, performance of the EX for half of the operating, but 2 or 3 times the acquisition price, then it is a cash and accounting exercise.
Except if the famous 80% travel pattern calls for more than 2000 miles with 8 pax + i would not go to 2000/900/GLF or other larger airframes, you are loosing the benefits of the small cabin. But if your routine is 3000 Nm+ no question, get three engines no airstart and bang.....900EX
But like it was said in other posts, the end decision might well be very different than what you would expect.
But i think i can trace your anger to the ergonomics of the SPX, and its "duck walk" on a wet runway, or it's Skydrol system ? or Rubber boots ?
Talking about rubber you shall start using some, it will ease your inner pain..
Have a wonderful and restful life ...
I love the 50EX, operating costs might be a stopper if not flown very often. The Hawker 4000 born Horizon, is just what it is, a plane on the horizon, do not touch it.
The BD100 is the best in its class, performance of the EX for half of the operating, but 2 or 3 times the acquisition price, then it is a cash and accounting exercise.
Except if the famous 80% travel pattern calls for more than 2000 miles with 8 pax + i would not go to 2000/900/GLF or other larger airframes, you are loosing the benefits of the small cabin. But if your routine is 3000 Nm+ no question, get three engines no airstart and bang.....900EX
But like it was said in other posts, the end decision might well be very different than what you would expect.
Last edited by CL300; 13th Jan 2013 at 06:38.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NuName, you honestly think arguing with this guy will achieve anything?
He knows everything. Period.
You and I are just idiot pilots. Despite the fact he doesnt know you or me or the circiumstances we operate/work in.
Not worth a second thought IMO.
@CL300:
He knows everything. Period.
You and I are just idiot pilots. Despite the fact he doesnt know you or me or the circiumstances we operate/work in.
Not worth a second thought IMO.
@CL300:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Age: 43
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We haven't made any decision yet. Still considering more ways. I've never said we are not in touch with any specialist for this acquisition. I was just looking for any new good opinions from real flying guys and may be new idea or suggestions. Our base mission is 3000NM, 4-8 people. That's the reason why I'm playing with max payload vs range.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3000 Nm Russia bound, is like coming back to East coast from Europe , you need PLENTY of fuel.. therefore your plane is a 4000+ Nm plane. and 3000 Nm is equal to 8 hours in the plane.....well....the aircrafts you mentioned on your first post are not suitable.
You are left with the most economical : Falcon 900c / EX ; the american muscle : Gulfstream 4/4SP; and the sleek beast Global Express.
The logical buy is the falcon, because of the support and the technology used. The most comfortable is the Global, the pride leaves you with the GLF.
Anyway, it will be a good step from the 150....
You are left with the most economical : Falcon 900c / EX ; the american muscle : Gulfstream 4/4SP; and the sleek beast Global Express.
The logical buy is the falcon, because of the support and the technology used. The most comfortable is the Global, the pride leaves you with the GLF.
Anyway, it will be a good step from the 150....
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now, how can I get into corporate
I flew the guys for 14 years as a lowlife air taxi dude before they showed some mercy and employed me. Thats how I made my entry into corporate...
Last edited by His dudeness; 13th Jan 2013 at 15:36.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 19 th. hole
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with CL300, 3000 nm. in CIS is tough with initial mentioned aircraft due to distance of alternates and using 85% Boeing probables.
Also would not consider Falcon 900C due to the -5BR engines and not many of them produced which lowers residual value. 900EX/DX are better options with the -60 engines.
Cheers
MB
Also would not consider Falcon 900C due to the -5BR engines and not many of them produced which lowers residual value. 900EX/DX are better options with the -60 engines.
Cheers
MB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 19 th. hole
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there it is, the original poster asks a question and the thread turns into a Pissing/Johnson contest.
As a 25 plus year corporate pilot, with a little bit of experience in acquisition, completion, delivery, budgeting and managing, I find it very sad that we have turned this and other Biz Av threads into this.
If you want to discuss individual merits, or issues take it off line, otherwise how about we try to help someone who has asked some questions to enhance and/or expand their operation for their principal or corporation.
Cheers
MB
As a 25 plus year corporate pilot, with a little bit of experience in acquisition, completion, delivery, budgeting and managing, I find it very sad that we have turned this and other Biz Av threads into this.
If you want to discuss individual merits, or issues take it off line, otherwise how about we try to help someone who has asked some questions to enhance and/or expand their operation for their principal or corporation.
Cheers
MB
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mizuno boy
Nobody is forced to read this forum, if it upsets you then just don't. However, I do agree with your principle and to this end I did volunteer my opinion to him but if someone, because of this, wishes to snipe I will respond, as I would expect you to. As far as taking it off line, well that would be the end of the conversation wouldn't it? This is still a freedom of speech forum. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Age: 43
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was busy a little bit and when I come back I'm wondering how this thread turned out. I wanted just your opinion and experience. I thought it can help me to make a better decision and it can help to anybody else. It should be primary purpose of this forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wanted just your opinion and experience. I thought it can help me to make a better decision and it can help to anybody else. It should be primary purpose of this forum.
Thats why I choose to answer like I did. Guilty your honor.
As a 25 plus year corporate pilot, with a little bit of experience in acquisition, completion, delivery, budgeting and managing, I find it very sad that we have turned this and other Biz Av threads into this.
If you want to discuss individual merits
If you want to discuss individual merits
Is it best to let it stand or to let the asking guy 'know' what experience your opinion comes from especially if it is questioned ? (yes I know I could write anything)
Last edited by His dudeness; 14th Jan 2013 at 08:55.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR- Clearly you are a god among us mere mortals. I can't even begin to imagine what it is like to fly or work with/for you. Great CRM in your cockpit I'm sure.
Maybe I can paraphrase the original thought of this thread, before you descended into d##k measuring. The question was, what would you recommend? A Camry, an Accord or an Altima? You suggest a Cadillac Escalade. Clearly you understand the question even better than the original poster. Yet you continue to push your view. Yup, an Escalade is a heck of a vehicle, just not in the same class.
And while I'm at it...why can't a fellow aviator ask for opinions from his peers about this? Do you believe he will tell his boss "we should buy a xxxx" because he read it on PPRUNE? He just wants some operator perspective. Something a seller or manufacturer might omit.
And yes experience does count. There's a reason everybody references years in a position and total flying time when looking (and paying) for quality. It's not the only thing...attitude should count.
Maybe I can paraphrase the original thought of this thread, before you descended into d##k measuring. The question was, what would you recommend? A Camry, an Accord or an Altima? You suggest a Cadillac Escalade. Clearly you understand the question even better than the original poster. Yet you continue to push your view. Yup, an Escalade is a heck of a vehicle, just not in the same class.
And while I'm at it...why can't a fellow aviator ask for opinions from his peers about this? Do you believe he will tell his boss "we should buy a xxxx" because he read it on PPRUNE? He just wants some operator perspective. Something a seller or manufacturer might omit.
And yes experience does count. There's a reason everybody references years in a position and total flying time when looking (and paying) for quality. It's not the only thing...attitude should count.
Hawker 4000, you must be kidding at any price--it'll be an expensive orphan in a year.
DA50- cheap, good PERF, but getting expensive to operate.
CL300-sweet flying, PERF pretty much matches the 50, but much better cabin.
Your choice,
GF
DA50- cheap, good PERF, but getting expensive to operate.
CL300-sweet flying, PERF pretty much matches the 50, but much better cabin.
Your choice,
GF
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey, some entertaining handbag-swinging in this thread. 
OP may want to add Gulfstream G280 and perhaps Cessna C680 to his consideration list.
However, Challenger 300 probably the best bet IMHO, overall, out of the 3 suggested.
Falcons are great aircraft but seriously expensive to maintain.
OP may want to add Gulfstream G280 and perhaps Cessna C680 to his consideration list.
However, Challenger 300 probably the best bet IMHO, overall, out of the 3 suggested.
Falcons are great aircraft but seriously expensive to maintain.
Last edited by Booglebox; 18th Jan 2013 at 13:33.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps Cessna C680
Falcons are great aircraft but seriously expensive to maintain.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately yes, your dudejesty. I've heard horror stories like $75k for a set of brake packs for a 900EX, etc. 
They are cracking airplanes though, from a performance, passenger and crew standpoint.
The "new" Sovereign with winglets has slightly better range than the old one... not quite 3000nm but pretty close.
They are cracking airplanes though, from a performance, passenger and crew standpoint.
The "new" Sovereign with winglets has slightly better range than the old one... not quite 3000nm but pretty close.
Last edited by Booglebox; 18th Jan 2013 at 14:52.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are cracking airplanes though
Oh well, me and my dreams.
As for the sov, well Cessna stated sumethin like 2847nm (with 2 pax IIRC) for the now "old" sov and one might be able to squeeze that out of the airplane, but Iīm a firm believer of having at least one 'backdoor' open and that for me is that I plan on FL430 and not 470 + HSC (to have FL470 and LRC as a 'backup') on long flights and with the alternate situation and sometime very wide areas of bad wx I wouldnt plan the sov on more than 2300-2400nm...
Cessna themself say 2500nm with 2000lbs payload at zero winds, HSC & 200nm alternate (again: old sov)
And with 6-8 guys in the back the sov is stretched in every sense. (IMO) The numbers of the new sov are preliminary btw...
There is the range vs. payload graph for the new sov:
Performance & Specs
If you look at the second graph - flight planning, they say fuel used for 4 pax, HSC, optimum altitude and 3000nm is roughly 10000lbs - that would leave you with 1348 lbs (nev Sov max fuel is 11348 vs 11223 of the old)
Thats not enough for comfort in a Russian winter secenario IMO.
We sometimes do trips like HTDA-HESN-EDFM (3800nm) or the like and the difference between having 4 or 6 to 8 pax is very obvious.
Ours is probably one of the lightest ones I might add (DOW 18139lbs / includes 80lbs galley and 30 lbs maps) , meaning we can have at a payload of 1188 lbs at max fuel (11223lbs).
We use 212 lbs for a male pax, so we could have 5 pax with 128 lbs of luggage on board.
The new Sov has slightly higher weights but I guess the 2 mtr of span will weigh something too.
Last edited by His dudeness; 18th Jan 2013 at 15:58.