CL300 or CE-680

[Webslinger]

BD-100 or CE-680?
Can anyone currently flying either of these aircraft give some accurate information?
1. DOC= Direct operating costs per hr.
2. Max range with 4pax, and 8pax from a SL airport.
3. Takeoff distance 4pax/8pax on a 85F day at SL.
4. Landing distance 4pax/8pax on a 85F day at SL.
5. Cu.Feet of baggage space.
6. Maint. parts support. Good, bad, ugly.
Thanx in advance.

 

[BoilerUP]

Haven't flown either aircraft, but I was bored so I scanned the pertinent pages into .pdf files...you can download them below.

2008 B&CA Purchase Planning Handbook

2008 B&CA Ops Planning Guide

 

[ttflyer]

BD-100 or CE-680?
Can anyone currently flying either of these aircraft give some accurate information?
1. DOC= Direct operating costs per hr.
2. Max range with 4pax, and 8pax from a SL airport.
3. Takeoff distance 4pax/8pax on a 85F day at SL.
4. Landing distance 4pax/8pax on a 85F day at SL.
5. Cu.Feet of baggage space.
6. Maint. parts support. Good, bad, ugly.
Thanx in advance.

If those are your only criteria for selection, it looks like you already made up your mind...

 

[NJAowner]

I only sit in the back (and don't fly), but from my perspective the CL-300 is hands down the more comfortable interior. And more expensive.

Fly safe.

 

[thatpilotguy]

I fly a 300...if you give me a couple of routes that you are trying to compare I can run a couple flight plans and give you some numbers. As for DOC, the data on the 300 from Bombardier is actually right on. Very close to the DOC of the Lear 60. Surprising, I know.

It's a very reliable airplane, I think most everyone operating one will say the same. Dealing with Bombardier is another story. At times it's like a horror movie, and when you think the problem has been resolved they release another chapter, and completely out do themselves in shear incompitance.

 

[LRvsH25B]

BD-100 or CE-680?
Can anyone currently flying either of these aircraft give some accurate information?
1. DOC= Direct operating costs per hr.
2. Max range with 4pax, and 8pax from a SL airport.
3. Takeoff distance 4pax/8pax on a 85F day at SL.
4. Landing distance 4pax/8pax on a 85F day at SL.
5. Cu.Feet of baggage space.
6. Maint. parts support. Good, bad, ugly.
Thanx in advance.

Clearly, they are both fine aircraft. But I would suggest talking up "thatpilotguy" for his input on dealing with Bombardier. I know of several companies, including the people I work for, eliminating Bombardier's aircraft from their selection process due to customer support. No slam at our friends to the north, but remember the rules are not the same in Canada as they are here in the US, so as long as you understand that going into it, then let the cards fall where they may. Just be careful, a great new aircraft acquired on YOUR recommendation can quickly make you look incompetent. You wouldn't be the first, but the difference here is that you had fair warning, but the real tragedy here is that Bombardier makes great aircraft, but they don't get their due, mainly because Bombardier is:
1) Unwilling to listen closely to Customer input. Example: with a few changes, the LJ60 could have put the hawker production line out of business, but Bombardier was unwilling to embrace the innovative input customers were suggesting (longer Fuselage, a little more range, re-engineer the Braking and T/R systems, etc)
2) Customer Support is so poor. Example: AOG aircraft has a part expedited overnight to the aircraft,a nd when the part shows, it's the wrong one. Phone call to Canada is met with arrogance and indifference. Esentially, "Tough ********************".

 

[BoilerUP]

1) Unwilling to listen closely to Customer input. Example: with a few changes, the LJ60 could have put the hawker production line out of business, but Bombardier was unwilling to embrace the innovative input customers were suggesting (longer Fuselage, a little more range, re-engineer the Braking and T/R systems, etc)

Sounds an awful lot like the Lear 85...

 

[thatpilotguy]

There is no debate that Bombardier falls well short in terms of customer service. Thankfully (knocking on wood and typing at the same time) we have never had an issue that has come back to the attention of the owner. Most of what we have had to deal with has fallen on the shoulders of our chief pilot. What should or could have been resolved easily, is complicated by their internal lack of departmental communication. No one there seems to talk with each other, you combine that with high turn over in positions and there is a gap in consistancy as well.

I understand that it's hard to look past this when choosing an aircraft. When I stated that Bombardier lack customer service, I say it as a warning to the increased work load on the pilots, mechanics, DOM's and so forth. The 300 is a great airplane, feel free to PM me and we can discuss details, but truly you won't be dissapointed in the aircraft, it really does do all that is advertised.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Sounds an awful lot like the Lear 85...

Maybe so, Boiler, but it's simply too little too late. Look at the 60XR. WTF was that? They slapped the PL21 in it and gave owners more interior design options; 2 items that were not big on the list for returning customers and/or folks debating between the new Hawkers with the PL21. Now, here they are with the LJ85, but it's too late. The market is no longer there to support it's development costs and when it dos not sell, it will be labeled a failure. It's probably going to be a GREAT airplane, but most will never know because it should have been out 5-10 years ago.

 

[Gear Up!]

Hands down, I would go with the C-680 just look at the performance numbers and the Vref speeds and then read the reviews of dealing with Bombardier... My opinion..

 

[jonjuan]

Maybe so, Boiler, but it's simply too little too late. Look at the 60XR. WTF was that? They slapped the PL21 in it and gave owners more interior design options; 2 items that were not big on the list for returning customers and/or folks debating between the new Hawkers with the PL21. Now, here they are with the LJ85, but it's too late. The market is no longer there to support it's development costs and when it dos not sell, it will be labeled a failure. It's probably going to be a GREAT airplane, but most will never know because it should have been out 5-10 years ago.

WTF are you talking about??? The XR was simply BBAs version of Citations keeping the same tube, making a few upgrade and continuing the sales tube as evidenced by the Ultra/Encore versions. The 60 was a mod of the 55 and the XR a mod of the 60. It MADE MONEY for BBA as the Hawker 700/800/XP/750/900 did for HB. Very little development costs for a great return. Do you realize the 45/40/XR cost over $500 Million in development? Why do you think Citation hasn't put out a clean sheet aircraft in oh, 20 years?
The 85 will put the wood to the Sov and anything else around it. BBA knows how to design, test, and build a plane (OK, the original GLEX had teething pains). The CL300 was announced 18 months AFTER the Hawker Horizon and certified 5 years later. The Hawker 4000? It was announced in 2005!
The 85 should have been out 5-10 years ago? Really? How was the composite manufacturing process in 1998? Synthetic vision?
Fact is, BBA makes great planes, but the reason for anyone to make great planes is to make money. The 85 will be certified well before the G650, btw.

 

[X man]

cl 300 vs Ce 680

I have not flown the 300, great cockpit and interior, the numbers look very good for range , payload, and speed. It is a great looking aircraft with the right paint job. I have flown the 680, and it has a smaller cockpit, not really a stand up cabin, but comfortable, It is not as fast or as long legged, but it is a great aircraft to fly, really good take off and landing speeds, climbs to the higher flight levels at gross TOW. We operated one in the ME, and India, with minimum headaches. Cessna will back you up at all times, their product support is excellent, and they will listen to your problems and put a team on to it ASAP. I am sorry I cannot get they take off numbers for you at present, but the take off numbers at sea level are very impressive. As a pilot I would rather spend 7 hours in the cockpit of the CL 300, as a Chief Pilot , the decision would be a bit more difficult.

Cheers

 

[ElCid88]

I really like the disks that Conklin and DeDecker put out. You can plug in the numbers for each aircraft and it will give you very acurate fixed and variable operating costs. The nice thing is you will get unbiased information to show your bosses. Let them sit in each aircraft, and let them decide. I also agree that Bombardier and Cessna both put out fairly acurate numbers (surprisingly). Good luck.

 

[Webslinger]

Thank you all for all of the information you have given. Much appreciated.

 

[CA1900]

The CL300 was announced 18 months AFTER the Hawker Horizon and certified 5 years later. The Hawker 4000? It was announced in 2005!

The Hawker 4000 is the Horizon. In 2005, we finally saw the first prototype. The program was announced in 1996, and is just now finally (sort of) getting them out the door. Sad.

 

[EngineThunder]

I fly the 300 and think it is a great airplane for our department. We also looked at the C-680 but we ran into issues with contaminated runway numbers. We operate out of a 5100' strip in northern Ohio and it simply wouldn't do it due to Vmcg numbers on contaminated runways. We even called another operator in our area to make sure we were crunching the numbers right and they told us that 5100' in the winter time would not work. Mach .73 LRC speed to get the 2,950 nm range in the C-680, while Mach .80 is the LRC in the Challenger to fly 3,000 nm. Cabin size and comfort, large internal baggage were other factors too. The C-680 flew nice and does have low Vref speeds (100 kts) but in the end the 300 just was the total package for us. Any questions PM me.

 

[Webslinger]

Good info...thats the info I need. Real numbers, not BS that the OEM salesmen tell you. Thanks again.