Falcon 900EX vs. G-IV SP

[Gulfstream 200]

And here is the kicker ...

How many Gulfstreams 4's ran of the end of the runway ?

.

http://www.jeff-betty.com/GIV-TEB/imagepages/image21.htm

For those who dont speak Grummanese, thats a smashed up GIV off the end of the runway at TEB.

These things happen....even to Grummans.

 

[LegacyDriver]

http://www.jeff-betty.com/giv-teb/imagepages/image21.htm

for those who dont speak grummanese, thats a smashed up giv off the end of the runway at teb.

These things happen....even to grummans.

pwned....

 

[Hugh Johnson]

And here is the kicker ...

How many Gulfstreams 4's ran of the end of the runway ? None.
How many F900 (or F50) ? Go look it up. Thats right. SINGLE engine thrust reverser. Any contaminated runway landing and those skinny tires on the Falcon make you slip and slide while your looking to stop it.
Hence quite a few flight departments left their Falcon 900 at the end of the runway and bought a Gulfstream 4 (or better).

That may cost you in fuel, but not in stopping power like from that one hair dryer engine in the middle on the Falcon
And without those slutty slats ....

FAIL, nice try though.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20041201-0



02/14/91 - NYC91LA076 - Cleveland OH
Pilot intentionally groundlooped the AC when he saw there was not enough runway left to stop on snow covered runway. No injuries.

02/16/99 - LAX99FA101 - Van Nuys CA
Pilot approached too hot and touched down long, departed end of runway and hit several parked AC. Pilots and F/A evacuated without assisting the sole passenger on board, who evacuated on his own. No injuries.

http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20041206X01928.asp


All in all pretty good though.

 

[gulfstreameric]

But how many hairdryers got run off ....

 

[con-pilot]

Blatant assumptions that one aircraft manufacture is highly superior than any other is akin to a couple of teenagers in the high school parking lot arguing over which is better; a Chevy or a Ford.

The G-IVSP and the Falcon 900EX are both superior products, anyone who is lucky enough to fly either one is fortunate. With us, the reason for purchasing the 900EX was it's better high and hot performance.

And yes, with with VFR fuel reserves in the winter, with the normal tail winds, below a certain temperature*, one can go non-stop KASE-EGGW in the 900EX, not the 900B, I've done it and know of a couple of other operators that have as well. Admittedly I only did that trip once, we left the minute the airport opened and it was clear and very cold that morning.

As for the thrust reverser issue, last I heard under Part 91, you cannot factor thrust reverser into runway requirements for stopping. So that is a non-qualifier from the get go.





* Danged if I can remember the temperature now, retired old fart you know.

 

[gulfstreameric]

But running of the runway when you want to use that single one T/R your relying on to stop before hitting the grassy area is a factor, and a correlation for your paycheck .....

Part whatever you clear in your bank account !

 

[LegacyDriver]

Well....I'm gonna agree with Small Johnson (God forbid). At idle reverse in the Legacy I had wads more stopping effect/power than full reverse in the Falcon 50EX (and the EMB in full reverse slows down incredibly well, the Falcon not so much). I'm sure the Gulfstream is similar to the EMB in that regard. The brake system on the EMB embarassed the 50, as well. But....airplanes overrun. It happens. Falcon knows their product doesn't always stop well with contamination as reflected in their performance data.

 

[con-pilot]

Well, all I can say is that I never went off the end of a runway in a Falcon, course I never ran off the end of a runway in anything that I ever flew in over 40 years and 21,000+ hours either.

 

[SansPlane]

http://www.jeff-betty.com/GIV-TEB/imagepages/image36.htm

 

[Tigers]

What are the MTBFs for the 731 and the Rolls?

Ask Boeing about Rolls Royce engines on the 787?

 

[LegacyDriver]

Compared to Embraers and G-Strings....Falcons are sh*t. Sorry.

 

[BoilerUP]

Runway overruns are the fault of the airplane how again?

Short of a brake failure, its almost ALWAYS the fault of the guys up front that any airplane goes off the runway - fast approach speeds, not touching down in the TDZ, not properly applying spoilers/lift dump per AFM, not applying maximum braking, not properly compensating for runway contamination, etc. TR isn't factored into certificated landing distances but of course, it helps...and could be the difference between stopping and not when you end up with a stupid pilot trick.

I know actual runway used on landing in our CJ2+ without reverse is greater than our old Citation II with TRs, but it doesn't have anything to do with the capability of the CJ to stop (it will) - its that idle/moderate reverse provides a smoother deceleration for our passengers than moderate/heavy braking.

 

[Kingairrick]

But running of the runway when you want to use that single one T/R your relying on to stop before hitting the grassy area is a factor, and a correlation for your paycheck .....

If you are relying on any thrust reverser, on any aircraft, to stop you "before hitting the grassy area," you have a pretty good chance of hitting it one day.

 

[LegacyDriver]

I don't think he's saying you rely on the T/R to stop in terms of factoring it in. He's referring to the fact that the stopping power of the brake/tire/ABS combo of the Falcon being poor/unreliable. So by default the T/R is all ya' really got (and all it does is make noise).

 

[Quimby]

Are the brakes on the DA-50/900's really that weak? I don't know, never flown either. I just have a hard time believing it's as bad as some say on here.

If the 50/900's needed more reversing/stopping power, I would have thought that Dassault would have put 3 TR's on the airplanes, or possibly modded them by now.