DA50 vs. CE750

[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

 

[Diesel]

The only good thing about the X were the wings that were built by boeining. The rest was built by cessna and that should scare the Sh!t out of you.

Go with a Falcon. The french take pride in their work.

 

[CapnVegetto]

Thanks for all the responses guys. I've already mentioned a Hawker or XL to him, but the XL is too slow for his tastes, and he's heard bad things about Hawker maintenence and speed, and he doesn't want anything to do with 'em. He's an ex navy fighter pilot, so he knows a bit about flying, but he doesn't know anything about corporate airplanes. He just knows he wants a large cabin that goes fast in that price range. Basically, he's looking to drop $10 to $15 mil in a tax write off, so he doesn't have to pay capital gains. I don't know all the details, I don't work for the guy, even. I'm just advising, buddy to buddy.

I appreciate everything!

 

[some_dude]

If he's concerned about the financial merits, he should really look into the Sovereign. He could get a new one for that price, and operate it much less expensively than the other two.

If he wants to fly it himself, he should look at the Falcon. If "going fast" is important for his ego, than the X is the right choice.

Thanks for all the responses guys. I've already mentioned a Hawker or XL to him, but the XL is too slow for his tastes, and he's heard bad things about Hawker maintenence and speed, and he doesn't want anything to do with 'em. He's an ex navy fighter pilot, so he knows a bit about flying, but he doesn't know anything about corporate airplanes. He just knows he wants a large cabin that goes fast in that price range. Basically, he's looking to drop $10 to $15 mil in a tax write off, so he doesn't have to pay capital gains. I don't know all the details, I don't work for the guy, even. I'm just advising, buddy to buddy.

I appreciate everything!

 

[Silver Wings]

The only good thing about the X were the wings that were built by boeining. The rest was built by cessna and that should scare the Sh!t out of you.

Go with a Falcon. The french take pride in their work.

Clearly Diesel hasn't spent any time in France. Most of the time they are on strike !

 

[Kingairrick]

the citation x's wing had to be re-drawn on Falcon's software (Catia)before it would meet the numbers they needed.

 

[NJA Capt]

In reality, the difference would be about 3 minutes extra flight time per hour ... Hardly noticable to anyone.
JetPilot500

Pretty accurate data JP500. Just for grins, I typed the following info into the CX's FMZ.

All conditions are:
0 wind
ISA
1000' MSL airport
FL400
810nm leg
4 pax
TO fuel 7000#
Accl/stop: 3962'

Max cruise: 1:42
Fuel burn: 6100#

.84 = 1:48
Fuel burn 5600#

 

[ocpistolpete]

just talked to a cl604 driver, he said the 300 doc are more than a 604 because of engine reserves...new engine

peter

 

[westwind driver]

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>

Problem with the LR60 is it's field performance at heavy weights. Most of the runways corporate jets operate from are 5000 to 7000 feet in length. The 60 has pretty high Ref speeds and takeoff speeds when it gets warm, or high, or a combination of the above.

Carrying 5 people with bags and fuel in the 60 during the summer puts you right up on the edge of your runway performance numbers with the above mentioned runways.

For range, short field performance, cabin and baggage volume I would suggest looking into the Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680) or Gulfstream G150 (considering new aircraft)

If you're looking at used, I would suggest the Falcon 50 with the -3D or -40 engine mod. A Falcon 50 operator I know has told me they leave central Tennessee, fly to Southern California, buy 75 gals of fuel and return home. He said while maintenance is a bit more costly than other aircraft in the same class/category, reliability is top notch and product support is pretty good.

As for a Citation X (C750); I have talked with too many Netjets pilots who tell me their aircraft are hangar queens, and on any given day only around 50% of the C750 fleet (somewhere around 60 or 70) is operational and ready to fly. One pilot, a training captain on the X, showed me the fleet status one day on his PDA. 46% of the Citation X fleet that day was grounded and unavailable due to mechanical problems.

He later told a Gulfstream Sales Director that the Citation X has been plagued with maintenance issues since day 1, and a lot of NetJets' Citation X pilots joke about the airplane, saying "The Citation X; It's the fastest thing between service centers."

Lots of options out there, but my top picks would be G150, C680 and FA50.

 

[CapnVegetto]

Anybody noticed any 'new airplane bugs' in the CE-680?

 

[Senior_Citizen]

For range, short field performance, cabin and baggage volume I would suggest looking into the Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680) or Gulfstream G150 (considering new aircraft)
...
...
...
As for a Citation X (C750); I have talked with too many Netjets pilots who tell me their aircraft are hangar queens, and on any given day only around 50% of the C750 fleet (somewhere around 60 or 70) is operational and ready to fly. One pilot, a training captain on the X, showed me the fleet status one day on his PDA. 46% of the Citation X fleet that day was grounded and unavailable due to mechanical problems.
...
...
...
Lots of options out there, but my top picks would be G150, C680 and FA50.

Be careful considering the G150, we also operate from short-hot-high (7500'@3000'SL Caribbean) airfields, and no Israeli-Gulfstream (G100-150-200) has enough T.O. performance with our useful load requirements (4-6 people, plus 600+lb baggage).

Also about the Ce750 (X), the models built from 2002 are very improved, in performance and reliability, after consider any option you must contract an good professional advisor service, the latest number about the mean dispatch rate of the C.X fleet data we known was about 98%, the same numbers (+-) are for the G100 and G200.

I (in your place) will consider the G100(vfy runaway performance), Ce650(XLS) ,the G150(vfy runaway performance), Ce680(Sovereign) and the Ce750 (X -models built from 2002-now).