Falcon 900EX vs. G-IV SP

[ILOVEBEER]

Hey guys - The boss' are looking to buy a new airplane and are asking about real world fuel burn numbers. Can someone give me the fuel burn #'s for a flight from VNY-HPN and VNY-PDX for a F900 and G4?

Does anyone have any custom Fltplan.com F900 and G4 performance profiles that I can use? I would just need your user name and "N" number. You can PM me.

Thanks for the help!

 

[Sandhawk]

GLF4 #'s

VNY-HPN - 13,400# @ .80 / FL450

VNY-PDX - 5,900# @ .80 / FL430


I'd be willing to be that the F900 burns are 30% less than than the G-IV, plus just ask the boss what aircraft he would rather be in over the North Atlantic if 2 engines quit....

 

[TransMach]

And onboard his Falcon 900 with three TFE-731 engines rather than two Rolls RB-611's he'll have about 30 more chances of engine failures.

TransMach

 

[ILOVEBEER]

And onboard his Falcon 900 with three TFE-731 engines rather than two Rolls RB-611's he'll have about 30 more chances of engine failures.

TransMach

If you were trying to contribute something useful, FAIL.

 

[BoilerUP]

Fltplan.com actually has a 900EX profile...I presume the cruise speed is 0.80M:

VNY-TEB is 5+11 and 9775lb burn @ FL450; 5+01 and 10,708lb @ FL410.

VNY-PDX is 1+56 and 4562lb @ FL430; 1+55 & 4784lb @ FL400.

 

[con-pilot]

A few years ago I made a comprehensive study between the 900EX and the G-IVSP.

To make a long story short, I visited both factories, we took a number of demo flights in and out of Aspen, from OKC non-stop to London and back, to Bogotá and to islands in the Caribbean in both aircraft. I contacted some operators of both type aircraft to get realistic operating costs.

The end result was that we bought the 900EX, primary reasons were high and hot performance and the comfort of having three engines for the trans Pacific and Atlantic crossings. Around 20f and lower the Falcon 900EX can go from Aspen to London non-stop (with good VFR weather in England), the G-IVSP can not, no matter the temperature.

As for my personal feeling; I liked both aircraft very much, the 900 was nicer hand flying aircraft than the G-IVSP, but not enough to be factored into the decision of which aircraft to buy.

I'll try and find the report I summited to my boss and if I can find it I'll post it here, but in truth I believe it is long gone, along with 900EX when the boss got poor and he had to sell it and replace it with a Falcon 50EX.

In any case, I envy you, because doing such a study is a lot of fun. And do tour both factories, that was a blast.

So have fun and good luck.

 

[ILOVEBEER]

Thanks for the input guys, much appreciated.

 

[NCherches]

I vote Falcon also.

 

[semperfido]

Typed and flown both quite a bit some time ago. They are both fantastic planes. But, when you get down to brass tacks, heads of state, CEO's, Kings & Queens, US Military have more Gulfstreams in service for a reason. Reputation, reliability & Customer Service.

 

[ILOVEBEER]

I think the boss has a pretty bad case of the "G" fever too. Maybe I'll get to try on that grandiose Gulfstream swagger you guys have!

 

[semperfido]

I think the boss has a pretty bad case of the "G" fever too. Maybe I'll get to try on that grandiose Gulfstream swagger you guys have!

Well, hell yea, that's what all his buddy's want.


Oh, and

In my case it is more like a shuffle

 

[ultrarunner]

If your boss is going to shop on fuel burn numbers alone, the 900 will win every day, every leg.

The Gulfstream is over-built, over-powered, over-winged and over-supported.

There is a price to pay for that.

 

[rice]

I'd have some serious doubts about the 900EX making FL450 on the VNY-HPN trip. The plane just does not climb above 430 unless you are VERY light and it won't do it at ISA +--.
I just ran a plan on ARINC for tomorrow; 5 pax, .80m, FL410, ETE 4+40, Burn 9142lbs, landing with 3000lbs.
For the VNY-PDX leg; 5 pax, .82m, FL430, ETE 1+46, Burn 3849lbs, 3000lbs reserve.
That said, it will outperform anything in it's class in the hot and high environment and the 900's short field numbers are outstanding. We do ASE-HTO on a regular basis so we get the fun on both ends. Not ever a problem even landing on a wet runway.
As for the over-water 3 vs. 2 engine thing, not really a good argument IMO. When was the last time anyone heard of G-IV losing one in the NATS?? Now climbing out of ASE 75 times/yr??? I LOVE having 3 motors!!!!

 

[NCherches]

...You would be suprised how many guys want a Gulfstream so they can be in the cool club with their rich buddies... I love the guys who buy a 1960's GII for under 800K and wear Gulfstream hats to the links to impress their buddies...

 

[Rick James]

...You would be suprised how many guys want a Gulfstream so they can be in the cool club with their rich buddies... I love the guys who buy a 1960's GII for under 800K and wear Gulfstream hats to the links to impress their buddies...

True, I enjoyed the guy at Atlantic LAS with Gulfstream shorts,t-shirt, hat, and lanyard getting into an Astra. And yes, it was an Astra and not a G150.

 

[ILOVEBEER]

Thanks everyone. Assuming a dry runway, what is the min runway length you would be comfortable with for landing at normal landing weight? Max landing weight? F900 and G-IV.

Thanks again guys

 

[semperfido]

5K for both


....... For the last 22 yrs that has worked well

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Real airplanes have leading edge lift devices.

 

[Quimby]

Where's GVFlyer?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Yet another...."my boss wants a new airplane so Im going to research on flightinfo.com" thread....

Hey boss, get the Gulfstream! I mean, thats what all heads of states and CEOs have....right? Nevermind resale value or operating costs.

and I'm with Rice...FL450 in a 900ex?...I dont care what the numbers say its not happening very often. That 731 burdened TERD dies at FL370 at standard temps. I never took one above 430, even on a 9hr leg. Its simply a woefully underpowered airplane.....note -- PLEASE dont get your panties in a wad here if its all you have flown, I'm not insulting your mother here - just a real observation.

Now...if landing distance is a concern you need to dig in Dassaults numbers if you ever plan on landing on a contaminated runway...you need approx 10K to keep it legal. When I flew one, luckily we had the option of taking another plane with real TR's and good autobrakes...and we ALWAYS did just that when it was avail and wx was snowy, windy, wet...etc..

$$$ budget wise a 900ex is very attractive, it just has a few issues (IMO)