Falcon 2000EX VS Challenger 604

[Flat Spot]

What are your thoughts on these 2 airplanes? Which is the better overall plane? Why? How about the new EASy avionics VS Proline4. Does the 2000 operate well at FL470? How about reliability and costs? Just curious. Thanks for any input you have.

 

[G4G5]

I flew the 2000 for 3 years and only got to 470 once. IMHO it's not a realistic altitude in the 2000. Never having flow the 604 I would not have a point of reference to compare it to BUT.

Isn't the 2000EX a lot more money?

The 2000EX is not an over water aircraft. The 604 has a Ram Air turbine as an additional safety measure, the 2000 has NOTHING!

 

[GVFlyer]

Brie versus Molsons

How will you use the aircraft? The Falcon 2000EX is a superb continental jet, but lacks the redundancy for prudent trans-oceanic flight. The 604 is okay for crossing the ocean, but is a piggy performer.

The G450 on the other hand....

 

[2000flyer]

You G-Wiz guys really crack me up on the "international use" issue. I'm sure the design team at Dassault said "you know, lets design a 3800nm airplane but make sure everyone knows not to fly it over water! It will be the perfect aircraft for flying from TEB to SFO or EGGW to LFPB but should never NEVER NEVER be flown from EINN to KBGR!"

Excuse my french, but give me a f'n break! Are those life rafts for crossing Lake Michigan? Tell the Hawker 800 guys I had lunch with two weeks ago who fly 75% international. Tell that to the Citation X crews who fly international. Hell, tell it to Charles as he set out for Paris in a piston single!

I've flown international in a straight 2000 several times. No problem. We plan for every contingency, just like you do in your Gulfstream. I'm curious, does the BBJ have a RAM to help out in the event of an engine failure? I'm just asking because I'm curious. Does the G2/3/4/5?

I do know guys are flight planning the EX at 3000# the first hour. 604 crews I've spoke with plan 4000 the first hour. A crew I know in the Rockies area say to make Europe non-stop they have to start out at...gulp...M0.72. They get to London with minimal reserves...but HEY!....they had the RAM just in case!

I've only had our 2000 to FL470 twice and G4G5 is correct, it's really not worth the effort. The EX, however, should be better with the extra thrust.

As for the 2000EX, I'll let you know in a couple months. Thats if I live through the three international flights we have planned!

I apologize for being such an arse on the international issue. To each their own. If you want to spend more for a 604 that will give you about 200nm more range over an EX, burn more fuel and flies slower/lower...oh yeah...and has a RAM, go for it. Dassault builds an excellent product that pilot's, for several years now, have flown over water with no problems that a RAM would have provided relief for.

Kindest Regards,
2000Flyer

 

[2000flyer]

A quick google search and I answered some of my own questions. The GV does have a RAT (Ram Air Tubine...sorry for the "RAM" in the other post), and the B767 does as well so I'm assuming the BBJ would as well.

Regards,
2000Flyer

 

[G100driver]

You G-Wiz guys really me up on the "international use" issue. I'm sure the design team at Dassault said "you know, lets design a 3800nm airplane but make sure everyone knows not to fly it over water! It will be the perfect aircraft for flying from TEB to SFO or EGGW to LFPB but should never NEVER NEVER be flown from EINN to KBGR!"

Excuse my french, but give me a f'n break! Are those life rafts for crossing Lake Michigan? Tell the Hawker 800 guys I had lunch with two weeks ago who fly 75% international. Tell that to the Citation X crews who fly international. Hell, tell it to Charles as he set out for Paris in a piston single!

I've flown international in a straight 2000 several times. No problem. We plan for every contingency, just like you do in your Gulfstream. I'm curious, does the BBJ have a RAM to help out in the event of an engine failure? I'm just asking because I'm curious. Does the G2/3/4/5?

I do know guys are flight planning the EX at 3000# the first hour. 604 crews I've spoke with plan 4000 the first hour. A crew I know in the Rockies area say to make Europe non-stop they have to start out at...gulp...M0.72. They get to London with minimal reserves...but HEY!....they had the RAM just in case!

I've only had our 2000 to FL470 twice and G4G5 is correct, it's really not worth the effort. The EX, however, should be better with the extra thrust.

As for the 2000EX, I'll let you know in a couple months. Thats if I live through the three international flights we have planned!

I apologize for being such an arse on the international issue. To each their own. If you want to spend more for a 604 that will give you about 200nm more range over an EX, burn more fuel and flies slower/lower...oh yeah...and has a RAM, go for it. Dassault builds an excellent product that pilot's, for several years now, have flown over water with no problems that a RAM would have provided relief for.

Kindest Regards,
2000Flyer

You are not an arse if you are correct .... only if you make foolhardy statements.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I dont think anyone implied that one COULD NOT take a 2000 across the Atlantic.

But as far as very often, or as in the case of that hawker 800 crew that does 75% intl - one would really have to question the logic behind their aircraft selection. Anyone in thier right mind would rather be First Class on BA or Virgin than cramped into a Hawker as they swing through Gander and/or Kef...torture...

A 2000 is not an International airplane. Once a year or so to London - fine - but frequent crossing - nah.

3 engines and/or a RAT is surely something to think about.

 

[Flat Spot]

My objective in asking the question, was not to start an arguement, but to get peoples honest thoughts on these aircraft. Our Dept may be faced with the prospect of selecting one of these aircraft for our domestic op's. We have received info from the manufactures as well as independent sources. However I believe that info gathered from all sources can benefit us in making a good selection. So thank you for any insights you may have.

 

[2000flyer]

I dont think anyone implied that one COULD NOT take a 2000 across the Atlantic.

But as far as very often, or as in the case of that hawker 800 crew that does 75% intl - one would really have to question the logic behind their aircraft selection. Anyone in thier right mind would rather be First Class on BA or Virgin than cramped into a Hawker as they swing through Gander and/or Kef...torture...

A 2000 is not an International airplane. Once a year or so to London - fine - but frequent crossing - nah.

3 engines and/or a RAT is surely something to think about.

My guess, since this company flying the Hawker started off in an old 600 and now have an 800XP fly it because the like it and can afford it.

Let me ask you this...if a 2000 is good for London "once a year or so" why not 5, 6, or 7 times? Are we increasing our odds for droom by doing so? With that argument, am I throwing caution to the wind on every flight, be it international or domestic?

Yes, the company I work for could go out tomorrow and buy a 900EX. But in our situation flying 2-4 international trips a year, a 900EX would be overkill for the other 98% of our flying in the U.S. So, for another $10M we've now outsized our needs. I can't count on both hands the number of company's I personally know of who ran out and bought the biggest and badest, even if it was a BE350, and within a year there was no more flight department. So, we make due with what we have. Now, personally I feel a 3800nm aircraft seems reasonable to take international, wouldn't you?

2000Flyer

 

[2000flyer]

My objective in asking the question, was not to start an arguement, but to get peoples honest thoughts on these aircraft. Our Dept may be faced with the prospect of selecting one of these aircraft for our domestic op's. We have received info from the manufactures as well as independent sources. However I believe that info gathered from all sources can benefit us in making a good selection. So thank you for any insights you may have.

Flat Spot...sorry to hijack your question. Try Conklin and Decker. They have several tools for comparing aircraft. I know there are some on this board who are currently flying the EX. I'd give you more info but we haven't taken delivery of ours yet. The 2000EX is still in it's infancy as far as performance numbers go. Again, those who are flying them will have real world numbers.

Both are great aircraft. I believe, with the exception of range, the 2000EX's performance is superior to the 604. The cabins are nearly identical in size. Operating costs, from what little I've read on the 604, appear to favor the EX.

I've flown the 2000 for nearly 7 years and it's a great aircraft. I can only recall one flight in that time frame that we had to cancel a trip due to maintenance. We have a great relationship with both Dassault and Falcon Service Centers and have had virtually no problems in getting parts or part supplies.

I would suggest taking one of your typical trips and have each manufacturer send a demonstrator out. There you will not only see the real world numbers (not what the salesman or brochures tell you) and your principal will also be able to compare each cabin and ride.

Good luck in your search.

2000Flyer

 

[Gulfstream 200]

My guess, since this company flying the Hawker started off in an old 600 and now have an 800XP fly it because the like it and can afford it.

Let me ask you this...if a 2000 is good for London "once a year or so" why not 5, 6, or 7 times? Are we increasing our odds for droom by doing so? With that argument, am I throwing caution to the wind on every flight, be it international or domestic?

Yes, the company I work for could go out tomorrow and buy a 900EX. But in our situation flying 2-4 international trips a year, a 900EX would be overkill for the other 98% of our flying in the U.S. So, for another $10M we've now outsized our needs. I can't count on both hands the number of company's I personally know of who ran out and bought the biggest and badest, even if it was a BE350, and within a year there was no more flight department. So, we make due with what we have. Now, personally I feel a 3800nm aircraft seems reasonable to take international, wouldn't you?

2000Flyer

Yes, I think it can be done. I have done it - in much less capable aircraft than a DA2000.

If my paycheck came from a company that flew a 2000 to Europe 2-4 times a year - I would fly that 2000 to Europe 2-4 times a year. I wouldn't be thrilled doing it, but thats my job.

My point was - there are compelling reasons NOT to buy a 2000 over a CL604 if going to Europe, that was all. I wasn't mocking what you do personally. Christ, I have flown a Lear 35 to Europe....why? It paid the bills and the owner wanted to go (only once, he realized how stupid that was)

Again, all I say is that crossing the pond - I would take the 604 with the RAT over the DA2000 ANYDAY.

Now, it appears he is looking for a DOMESTIC aircraft...the 2000 will be just fine. Falcons aren't powerful, they aren't pretty, but they are VERY RELIABLE!!!

Good Luck either way!


PS - and c'mon 2000flyer....a bigger plane is NEVER "overkill"!!!!

 

[G100driver]

My objective in asking the question, was not to start an arguement, but to get peoples honest thoughts on these aircraft. Our Dept may be faced with the prospect of selecting one of these aircraft for our domestic op's. We have received info from the manufactures as well as independent sources. However I believe that info gathered from all sources can benefit us in making a good selection. So thank you for any insights you may have.

I would ask what causes pain to your CFO. Is it the cost of capital or the cost of operation? The 2000EX has lower DOC's but costs more than a 604 (especially if you are looking at used 604's).

From pure flight characteristics stand point you cannot go wrong with a Falcon. It has GREAT short field performance and performs well high and hot. This is not an area that 604's are well known for.

It is also a blast to fly. The EX will climb to FL410 MTOW in 18 min's at temps greater than ISA+10.

Life must not be too bad if these are the decisions that you are having to make.

 

[G4G5]

You G-Wiz guys really crack me up on the "international use" issue. I'm sure the design team at Dassault said "you know, lets design a 3800nm airplane but make sure everyone knows not to fly it over water! It will be the perfect aircraft for flying from TEB to SFO or EGGW to LFPB but should never NEVER NEVER be flown from EINN to KBGR!"

If the FAA won't let the traveling public cross the pond on an aircraft without a back up system what does that tell you? No 121 carrier crosses the pond without one.

Excuse my french, but give me a f'n break! Are those life rafts for crossing Lake Michigan? Tell the Hawker 800 guys I had lunch with two weeks ago who fly 75% international. Tell that to the Citation X crews who fly international. Hell, tell it to Charles as he set out for Paris in a piston single!

Raymond Orteig had offered a $25,000 prize to do it, what do you get today if you try something that stupid? He offered that 25k in 1919, what is that in 2004 dollars? People will do dumb things for that much money, I wonder what the FAA would have said? You know the same guys that mandate the life rafts. You may want to look at the life raft FARs.

I've flown international in a straight 2000 several times. No problem. We plan for every contingency, just like you do in your Gulfstream. I'm curious, does the BBJ have a RAM to help out in the event of an engine failure? I'm just asking because I'm curious. Does the G2/3/4/5?

The G4/5 (never having flown the 2/3) have an "Abex system" it is a hydraulic pump that has a generator connected to it. Simply put if you have hyd pressure, you have electrics. It also has TWO batteries and in some cases up to 7 Ebats (most have 4).

I do know guys are flight planning the EX at 3000# the first hour. 604 crews I've spoke with plan 4000 the first hour. A crew I know in the Rockies area say to make Europe non-stop they have to start out at...gulp...M0.72. They get to London with minimal reserves...but HEY!....they had the RAM just in case!

I've only had our 2000 to FL470 twice and G4G5 is correct, it's really not worth the effort. The EX, however, should be better with the extra thrust.

As for the 2000EX, I'll let you know in a couple months. Thats if I live through the three international flights we have planned!

I apologize for being such an arse on the international issue. To each their own. If you want to spend more for a 604 that will give you about 200nm more range over an EX, burn more fuel and flies slower/lower...oh yeah...and has a RAM, go for it. Dassault builds an excellent product that pilot's, for several years now, have flown over water with no problems that a RAM would have provided relief for.

The 2000 is an excellent aircraft but not an international aircraft. This came directly from the words of the Dassualt sales man who sold the company I was working for their aircraft. He asked how the aircraft was and I said, " awesome on fuel, I just did HPN- SJC on under 10,000#, half the burn of my G4" Then I asked him, why do the low fuel lights come on with 1000# per side, how can you expect to go any distance and not see the lights (aircraft holds 12,000#) He said, "Dassault did not want to build an aircraft that competed with the THREE engine aircraft for international flying, it was not their intent to take market share away from their own product, if you want to do that buy a 50 or a 900"

 

[fokkerjet]

So I guess you're implying that Gulfstreams are ETOPS ready?

As far as the number of batteries goes..........it's all about your comfort level. Most corporate jets are Part 25 certified, so they all meet the same requirements for battery life, and I have yet to hear anyone guaranteeing anything above the minimum requirements, with the exception of maybe an APU start attempt.

Actually, I'd be a little more worried about fire......in the galley, cabin or in baggage compartment. A couple of fire extingushiers just aren't going to do the job.

 

[G100driver]

The 2000 is an excellent aircraft but not an international aircraft. This came directly from the words of the Dassualt sales man who sold the company I was working for their aircraft. He asked how the aircraft was and I said, " awesome on fuel, I just did HPN- SJC on under 10,000#, half the burn of my G4" Then I asked him, why do the low fuel lights come on with 1000# per side, how can you expect to go any distance and not see the lights (aircraft holds 12,000#) He said, "Dassault did not want to build an aircraft that competed with the THREE engine aircraft for international flying, it was not their intent to take market share away from their own product, if you want to do that buy a 50 or a 900"

When they built the 2000 that was correct. Dassault knew that it had to compete with the the G-200 CL-604 and the to some extent the the G-IV, hence the development of the 2000EX. . One does not build a 3800nm range airplane to fly from TEB to the West Coast.

As far as the APU goes, I have lit it cold soaked .... worked just fine.

As far the the 121 rules go .... some still think that it is unsafe not to have 3 pilots in the cockpit.

 

[G4G5]

So I guess you're implying that Gulfstreams are ETOPS ready?

QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with ETOPS. Name me one part 121 carrier that crosses the Pond with an aircraft that does not have some form of a back up electrical system. If the FAA won't let you and I purchase a ticket on an aircraft without one what does that tell you?

 

[2000flyer]

On the 2000EX I have three engine driven and one electrical standby hydraulic pumps. For me to lose all four would mean having a dual engine failure, complete electrical failure, loss of APU and loss of two aircraft batteries. In this case, I'm pretty well doomed anyway and a RAT wouldn't help me in the least. My guess given the same scenario in your G5 would results in the exact same outcome...a long, silent glide to the swimming pool. Either way, an event I doubt neither you nor I would ever see.

Should I have a leak in the system, it is designed to trap enough fluid so the standby pump can run crucial items. If, for some reason, I lose total hydraulic fluid, again...a RAT would do me no good with the hydraulics.

Should I lose the electrical system or a component, the hydraulic pumps are still operating. All I've lost, for hydraulic purposes, is gear control lever (still able to extend manually) and flap control. I still have flight controls and thrust reversers. Do I need a RAT?

You are correct in your statement about Dassault not wanting the 2000 to compete with the 900. But it's not because the 900 has three engines. It's because the 900 is their flagship, aka their most expensive seller. Why shoot yourself in the foot? Had Dassault left the original 900 fuel quantity in the 2000 (and had the 2000 had the thrust to carry that much more fuel) it would have waved as it passed the 900 stopping for gas.

The 2000EX fuel, full tanks, is 16,730# and 7000# thrust engines. A strong and well deserved increase for this great aircraft.

Regards,
2000Flyer

I completely agree that backup systems are great. But do I need a backup to the backup backup system?

 

[Groundpounder]

Actually, I'd be a little more worried about fire......in the galley, cabin or in baggage compartment. A couple of fire extingushiers just aren't going to do the job.

Thats kind of funny, my boss was complaining today about how there were too many fire extingushers on the brand new CL-604 they just got. There are two 12 lbs ones in the back, and a smaller one in the cockpit. Considering they cross the pond all the time, I don't see how there could be too many when they are over the middle of the cold north atlantic and they start smelling smoke.

 

[fokkerjet]

QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with ETOPS. Name me one part 121 carrier that crosses the Pond with an aircraft that does not have some form of a back up electrical system. If the FAA won't let you and I purchase a ticket on an aircraft without one what does that tell you?[/QUOTE]
Well it kind of does.........two engine aircraft have different challenges than a three or four engine aircraft. What's the "back up system" on the B737?

 

[G4G5]

Well it kind of does.........two engine aircraft have different challenges than a three or four engine aircraft. What's the "back up system" on the B737?

Which airline is flying 737's across the pond?