DA50 vs. CE750

[CapnVegetto]

Gathering info for a guy that's interested in a jet. He's already specified NO small jets, he wants a midsize at least cabin. For his typical mission, I'm thinking this is two viable options. Can someone give me ideas on operating costs, acquisition costs, performance #'s (payload, range, runway needed, etc). Typically 700 to 1500 mile trips to good size airports, 5 pax with bags, no international stuff, ('cept Mexico and Canada eh).

Also, if you can think of another jet that might fit his needs that is not a Hawker or a Sabreliner (he doesn't like 'em) let me know. Thanks everyone in advance!!

 

[Senior_Citizen]

Consider the Citation Soverign, and The Gulfstream G150.

 

[CapnVegetto]

Consider the Citation Soverign, and The Gulfstream G150.

I was considering that also.....maybe even a CE-650. I've got a little bit of experience with the 650's, but I don't know anything about operating costs, mx, etc.

Also I know a Sovereign is a CE-680, is that a seperate type from the 650?

 

[On Your Six]

I was considering that also.....maybe even a CE-650. I've got a little bit of experience with the 650's, but I don't know anything about operating costs, mx, etc.

Also I know a Sovereign is a CE-680, is that a seperate type from the 650?

Have you considered the Challenger 300? I know there are actually a few delivery positions available (probably at a big premium). I have heard only good things about the CL300 - and I like its looks on the ramp...

 

[CapnVegetto]

Have you considered the Challenger 300? I know there are actually a few delivery positions available (probably at a big premium). I have heard only good things about the CL300 - and I like its looks on the ramp...

Haven't really thought about that one......I'll run it by him. I'm kind of biased against Ski-Doo jets though. I've got 500 hours in the CRJ, and I think it's a piece of $hit, and the company I work for now operates a CL-601 and even though I don't fly it, I know it's a hangar queen. (Down ALL THE TIME for MX).

I'll do some research though......thx for the suggestion.

 

[some_dude]

Yes, the CE-680 is a separate type from the CE-650.

Based on the mission you described, I'd say the Sovereign would be a pretty good choice, assuming you want a new aircraft.

I was considering that also.....maybe even a CE-650. I've got a little bit of experience with the 650's, but I don't know anything about operating costs, mx, etc.

Also I know a Sovereign is a CE-680, is that a seperate type from the 650?

 

[ultrarunner]

Gathering info for a guy that's interested in a jet. He's already specified NO small jets, he wants a midsize at least cabin. For his typical mission, I'm thinking this is two viable options. Can someone give me ideas on operating costs, acquisition costs, performance #'s (payload, range, runway needed, etc). Typically 700 to 1500 mile trips to good size airports, 5 pax with bags, no international stuff, ('cept Mexico and Canada eh).

Also, if you can think of another jet that might fit his needs that is not a Hawker or a Sabreliner (he doesn't like 'em) let me know. Thanks everyone in advance!!

LR-60. It's got good payload, good speed, and reasonable DOC's. And there are some good late model ones available.

Poke around here to compare planes:

<http://www.corporatejetsales.com/reports/jetcom3.htm>

 

[Whale Rider]

The CE-750 is the way to go. You can't beat for speed and economy if you're criss-crossing the lower 48. For more info:

www.cessna.com

 

[CapnVegetto]

Guys thanks for all the input. I appreciate it.

 

[Blueridge]

I have no way of verifying the numbers are accurate, but here's a pretty comprehensive source for the financials on many of the current jets out there:

http://www.omnijet.com/database/

BR

 

[falconpilot]

Three engines is better than two...... Go with the 50.... None of the airplanes mentioned can touch it in runway performance... The speed is not bad either... Not sure what your price range is, but you can get one thats been retrofitted to the -40 engines and proline 21 cockpit for 10 to 12 mil.

 

[CapnVegetto]

I have no way of verifying the numbers are accurate, but here's a pretty comprehensive source for the financials on many of the current jets out there:

http://www.omnijet.com/database/

BR

This is PERFECT. Thank you!!

 

[miles otoole]

Three engines is better than two...... Go with the 50.... None of the airplanes mentioned can touch it in runway performance...

My book shows the 300 with better runway #s than the 50EX. Does the 50 outperform the 50EX?

 

[SKIPPYFIFTY]

The CL-300 might have better landing numbers, but there is know way that a CL-300 will have better takeoff numbers than a Falcon 50 or a 50EX. The 50EX is a new generation 50. So the EX will out perform the staight 50 hands down.

 

[miles otoole]

The CL-300 might have better landing numbers, but there is know way that a CL-300 will have better takeoff numbers than a Falcon 50 or a 50EX. The 50EX is a new generation 50. So the EX will out perform the staight 50 hands down.

I see balanced field length (SL,ISA,MTOW) for the 300 at 4,720 and 4,890 for the 50EX. At 5000 feet, 25C the 300 is 6,860 and 9,310 for the 50EX. Am I missing something?

 

[gern_blanston]

The 300's got GREAT runway numbers. Our hangar neighbors are looking at one. Spanks our Falcon 2000 handily in runway performance, and looks like it gets the '50, as well.

 

[JetPilot500]

The CL-300 might have better landing numbers, but there is know way that a CL-300 will have better takeoff numbers than a Falcon 50 or a 50EX. The 50EX is a new generation 50. So the EX will out perform the staight 50 hands down.

With regard to Takeoff & Landing numbers, there is no difference in the 50 & 50EX. In fact they are the same performance charts from Dassault.

Climb and Cruise numbers are significantly better in the 50EX.



As far as the CX vs 50EX, you mentioned your average trip was 700-1500 miles.... You're not gonna notice much of a time difference. You can easily cruise at .84 in the 50EX. In fact, during decent you can maintain a much higher indicated speed (up to 370 KIAS) in the 50...can't do that in a CX. So you could make up some time there if you needed too. In reality, the difference would be about 3 minutes extra flight time per hour in the 50EX versus the CX. So a 2+00 flight in a CX would take 2+06 in a 50EX. Hardly noticable to anyone.

Hope this helps,
JetPilot500

 

[Kingairrick]

I see balanced field length (SL,ISA,MTOW) for the 300 at 4,720 and 4,890 for the 50EX. At 5000 feet, 25C the 300 is 6,860 and 9,310 for the 50EX. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE
The correct number for the 5000ft/25deg is 7100' BFL. That's with enough gas for 7 hours...(MTOW-40,780)
The challenger 300 is a really cool airplane. I don't think anyone would argue it's performance. Now the Bombardier (overall) dispatch rate...not comparable...

I think all the airplanes discussed are more than the misson reqirements listed in his origional post. He really should be looking at a Hawker (doesn't like them) or a Citation XL. You don't need a 50 or an X to go 1500 miles.

 

[AlfaCharlie]

BFL numbers

I agree with the 7100ft. number..........9690 is for slats only takeoff, better second segment but lousy bfl. The 50EX is awsome. We routinely fly out of a 3800 ft. runway in the deep south. We compared the challengers and the falcons before buying. I believe the falcons have great runway numbers because they are graceful flyers. The challengers have great runway numbers because they have enormous brakes. Comparing the 50EX to the CE750 is no contest. The Falcon is built (arguably) better than most. The X is really fast but it is still a Cessna, still held together with two-sided sticky tape. I don't want to bash Cessna. I have a lot of time in citations, and they are great airplanes. But they are built to be affordable. Having said all that.....the 50EX, while a superb aircraft, is awfully expensive and costly to operate. You sure don't want the guy to bite off more than he can chew. Start with something he can easily afford. He can always upgrade later.

 

[GVFlyer]

The Falcon is a couple of orders of magnitude more reliable than the Citation X. US Bank got rid of their Citation X's because they thought they were dangerous, GM is replacing their five Citation X's with Gulfstream G350's because of the Citations poor dispatch reliability.

GV