Falcon 2000EX VS Challenger 604

[fokkerjet]

Now it has to be international..........

 

[G4G5]

Now it has to be international..........

I said "crossing the pond" since when is that not international flying?
Give it up........

 

[G4G5]

Lufthansa flight 408 (EDDL-EWR) and 409 (EWR-EDDL) are operated by Privatair on an Airbus A319.
With an N number? All kidding aside I do not know enough about the JAA ETOPS cert requirements to speak intelligently on a Swiss registered aircraft (private air) flying contract for a JAA country. Does it have a RAT/HMU back up?

People the point is the 737 was never intended to be an international aircraft (like the 2000). When Boeing, Airbus, Gulfstram and Bombardier sit down to draw an international aircraft it ALWAYS has redundant systems, especially electrical systems.

Aloha flies the 737-700 from SNA to HNL.

I don't know enough about these airframes to have insite as to weather they have an HMU or a RAT installed/required, maybe someone can tell me. I know that in the Boeing press release they refer to the CFM56 high dispatch rate and total fleet hours:

"The Next-Generation 737 airplanes are derivatives of the Classic 737s, and are powered by derivatives of the highly reliable CFM56 engines," said Hayhurst. "The increase from 120- to 180-minutes reflects the Next-Generation 737's high dispatch reliability, a fleet service history of 500,000 in-flight hours in just 20 months and high engine reliability rate."

Talk to the folks at IBM about F2000 engine reliability (they had one completly seize, no rotation, at V1, max load, HPN-SJC, in IMC conditions). I seriously doubt that any corporate aircraft has the necessary fleet hours/time ( when compared to the 737) to have the FAA even consider it for ETOPS. But since the FAA doesn't require corporate aircraft to comply with ETOPS, it's a moot point.

My point is, when comparing the 2000 to the 604. If you are going to be flying intl, I would choose the aircraft with the greater system redundancy. And I love the 2000, IMHO, it the best greater 48 (North America) aircraft on the market.

 

[fokkerjet]

I would think that anytime you have to be ETOPS certified, it qualifies..........Hawaii is not international, but 3 or 4 hours out over the Pacific makes it just as "international" for this discussion, as "over the pond".

You got something against taking the F2000 to Alaska?

BTW, what happens if you lose the right engine, or left hydraulic system on your airplane? What happens to your backup? (It's been awhile, I think I have the correct sides!) What's the "back up" on the B727, 747, 757, DC8 and L1011; besides one or two more engines?

 

[GVFlyer]

Hawaii - CONUS

...is the longest over water route on the planet. It is the design point used by all airframers when considering wet footprint, single-engine range capabilities, oxygen requirements, and redundancy issues for aircraft intended for trans-oceanic flight.

GV

 

[2000flyer]

G4G5,

The 2000 (and EX) has two engine driven generators and an APU generator. The stby hyd pump is for hydraulics only. The 2000 had one battery while the 2000EX has two (plus several emer batteries).

Apparently Boeing, Airbus, Gulfstream, Bombardier and even Dasault (with the 3 engine aircraft) feel that it is a good idea

True, a third engine is great. For years and years the airlines mandated 3 or 4 for over water operations. But who mandated (by rule or reason) that a two engine aircraft, such as the 2000/2000EX, was somehow not intended for international work? (I know, you're not saying it "can't" but we "shouldn't" because it's not as safe).

I am missing your point, are you saying that you would feel comfortable flying across the pond in an aircraft without a back up electrical system? Because the last time I check there were NO international commercial flights in any airframes that do not have one.

Yes, I'm perfectly comfortable flying the 2000 or soon the 2000EX across the pond. You're telling me that I can have a complete electrical failure which means I have to lose two generators and an APU generator and, in the case of the EX, drain two batteries to get in that situation. Tell me, does your ABEX system ever fail? Is it possible it could fail? You're telling me just by having that system or a RAT somehow mystically gives you green light to go international? The probablility of losing all electrical and RAT/ABEX are remote...more remote than losing three generators and two batteries?

"The Next-Generation 737 airplanes are derivatives of the Classic 737s, and are powered by derivatives of the highly reliable CFM56 engines," said Hayhurst.

Is there no one out there who would claim high reliability on the CFM or P&W engines or does CFM hold the only distinction?

Nothing against the fine folks at IBM, but they've hated the 2000 from the day they got it. I've heard more complaints than praise about the aircraft from their flight crews and yet, they continue to fly it. If...IF...it's so bad, why have they not replaced it?

My friend (and though I've never personally met you I consider you a friend). No one will argue the values of reduntency. Several will argue the ability to use a given aircraft on a given trip. Because I don't have four, five or six backups doesn't mean I'm somehow less safe or less prudent than the folks who have them.

This, IMHO, has been a great debate, not only from the stand point of operations, but also in generating a bigger picture for all to look at and think about. We all have our favorite aircraft or personal reasons. If anyone's company said "we're selling the G5 and getting a 2000EX, but keeping our international schedule," I highly doubt you'd see a mass exodus of pilot's screaming "it's no longer safe to work here!!!" We operate with the tools we're given. We do it daily. We do it professionally. Most important, we do it SAFELY!

2000Flyer

 

[G4G5]

I would think that anytime you have to be ETOPS certified, it qualifies..........Hawaii is not international, but 3 or 4 hours out over the Pacific makes it just as "international" for this discussion, as "over the pond".

Etops is not part of the discussion, first off who is flying an ETOPS Falcon, Gulfstream or Bombardier? No One

Secondly the only reason why the 737 was able to get etops was that they were able to prove to the FAA that the CFM's have a tremendously high dispatch relialbility rate. From the Boeing press release:

"high dispatch reliability, a fleet service history of 500,000 in-flight hours in just 20 months and high engine reliability rate." see above post for full quote.

Which corporate aircraft will ever post the kind of flight hours the 737 does? Not one, certianly not the F2000

Since when does part 91 need ETOPS certification?

So why do you keep bringing ETOPS up? Once again, ETOPS is a lot more involved then just adding a RAT or an HMU



You got something against taking the F2000 to Alaska?

Nothing at all, and I never sais anything to the contrary. Once North & Souh are fine, Latin America is fine. But the 2000 was NEVER designed to be a long distance over water aircraft.

BTW, what happens if you lose the right engine, or left hydraulic system on your airplane? What happens to your backup? (It's been awhile, I think I have the correct sides!)

What's the "back up" on the B727, 747, 757, DC8 and L1011; besides one or two more engines?

Besides one or two more engines? What are you thinking. An additional engine is one heck of a back up. Why would a 4 engine aircraft with 4 generators need a RAt/HMU? Most Boeings (at least the ones I am familiar with 757/767/777) and Airbus's(330, with the 320 having an identical cockpit I would venture to guess that it is eaisly retrofited) have RAT's.What was your point by asking what the back up is on a 747?

If you flew the Gulfstream you would know that a loss of either hyd system is not that big of a deal. I have had complete single system fluid loss's in both the G4 and the f2000. Neither was what I would consider to be a major problem.

 

[G100driver]

I have had complete fluid loss's in both the G4 and the f2000. Neither was what I would consider to be a major problem.

So you are the ONE guy who had that happen on the DA-2000. We talked about the ONLY incident that a Falcon 2000 had a complete loss of both hydraulic pressures while I was at initial training at FSI. That must have been interesting.

 

[G4G5]

So you are the ONE guy who had that happen on the DA-2000. We talked about the ONLY incident that a Falcon 2000 had a complete loss of both hydraulic pressures while I was at initial training at FSI. That must have been interesting.

Not a total fluid loss. I had a permaswage fitting on the #1 Engine hyd pump come apart, an instanious loss of system press and fluid. I still had the other system. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Mudworm]

Question for 604 guys

What is the performance penalty for RAT operations? We looked at that machine some years back and If I remember rightly if the RAT deploys (intentional or not) there are certain operational limitations and a performance penalties that could make you swim the last few meters if it happens at the wrong time and place (ie ETP on a KATL-EINN trip). I think that is why we are in a GIV today.

 

[CarjCapt]

What is the performance penalty for RAT operations? We looked at that machine some years back and If I remember rightly if the RAT deploys (intentional or not) there are certain operational limitations and a performance penalties that could make you swim the last few meters if it happens at the wrong time and place (ie ETP on a KATL-EINN trip). I think that is why we are in a GIV today.

While I don't fly the 604 there are some limitations with the RAT on the CL65 which I believe is the same. There is a speed limitation of 250 KIAS expect for the purpose of starting a engine after a dual engine flame out.

It does make some noise and if you don't make a normal landing and bang it on the RAT may swing up an smack the side of the fuselage.

I've tested it twice and it will wake you up.

 

[Mudworm]

While I don't fly the 604 there are some limitations with the RAT on the CL65 which I believe is the same. There is a speed limitation of 250 KIAS expect for the purpose of starting a engine after a dual engine flame out.

It does make some noise and if you don't make a normal landing and bang it on the RAT may swing up an smack the side of the fuselage.

I've tested it twice and it will wake you up.

My question is more what the increased drag resulting from RAT deployment costs you in fuel burn? Me thinks that in the case of a long leg ending with a significant overwater portion (ie Orlando - Shannon) if one were to have a RAT deploy at the ETP one may not have the fuel required to press on or divert to your ETP alternate.

 

[fokkerjet]

G4g5

To answer your question; the point being is that you started out stating you wanted the same protection afforded airline passengers, on your corporate jet, that they would have on their airliner, and with a twin engine airplane, that involves ETOPS certification. Regarding 121 carriers, you just can't take any twin engine airliner out over the water if you plan on being "x-amount" of hours away from the nearest suitable alternate airport. An example might be the B737.......Continental Airlines operates ETOPS and non-ETOPS versions of the same dash-model aircraft within their fleet, as does American with the B757/B767. If you really want that "same level of safety", you need to be ETOPS, otherwise you are just blowing smoke about having that same level of safety.

I can't speak of other three or four engine aircraft, other than the Falcon 900, but the way I see it, the only difference between electrical systems between the 2000 and 900, is that my third generator on the 2000 is part-time. If I lose one generator, I will load-shed until I'm able to start the APU (about the same procedure as the Gulfstream now, from what I understand). As far as dual generator failures goes, what single event would give me a multiple generator failure with an electrical system that is normally operated split? Lightning strike maybe, if it's electrical, but what's to say that any "back-up" will operate in that case if your busses were fried. Fuel starvation would probably be the most likely event, and I'm pretty sure my battery will last until impact.

My crack about Alaska comes from your earlier statement: "And I love the 2000, IMHO, it the best greater 48 (North America) aircraft on the market." While separated by Canada, Alaska (our 49th State) requires no over-water legs to reach from any point in the lower continuous 48 States, unlike Hawaii (our 50th State) which requires an extend, non-international, overwater leg to reach from any other State. If you were in a twin engine airliner, you would have to be in an ETOPS certified aircraft inorder to have that level of safety that airline passengers enjoy on 121 carriers.

Don't take this wrong, and I'm not disrespecting your opinion on this subject, but really what we are talking about is one's own comfort level. As professionals, we owe it to our passengers to be "on top of our game" on every flight, no matter what cards we are dealt. Sometimes that means doing, or going somewhere that might take us out of our comfort level, but as professionals, we get as much "stuff" on our side as possible before we begin the mission. That stuff could be more fuel, better alternates or routings, additional crew members.....something to even out the odds and put you closer into your comfort level. As I'm sure you do, we always are thinking of a plan B and C, so when the unexpected happens at 30 west, you've already thought out what your corrective action would be, based on what you've been dealt, and you are ready to act on it. The HMG or RAT is an ace in the hole for crews that have that luxury, but it's surly no show stopper for people who don't.

 

[SCT]

The speed limitation after an ADG deployment is 250knts on the 604. I've dropped an ADG on a maint. test, and it is loud. I wouldn't want to listen to that for 3-4 hrs.

I now have around 300 hrs in the Challenger 604 (no Falcon hrs.) and I think it is a good a/c. It does everything reasonably well, good systems, and a very comortable cockpit! We have had very few problems with our 604. Why'll not a Global or G-stream, I think the 604 is a alot of airplane for the money on the used a/c market. Our boss really likes the a/c.

Downsides: At heavier weights and temps., the airplane is a mid FL30s aircraft, only. You seem to be in the weather, instead above. The plane is certified to FL410, but good luck getting there....not enough wing. (We do have a heavy BOW on our a/c, to many options and scotch bottles)

The Rockwell Collins FMSs are cumbersome compared to the Honeywell, in my opinion. They have some nice features, but are hard to move around the pages.

Alot of the systems could be automated and cleaned up like they did for the Global. The 604 has alot of switches and buttons. Bombardier could learn a lesson from Cessna on this design matter.

Any other 604 drivers feel the same way?

 

[GVFlyer]

...the only difference between electrical systems between the 2000 and 900, is that my third generator on the 2000 is part-time. If I lose one generator, I will load-shed until I'm able to start the APU (about the same procedure as the Gulfstream now, from what I understand). . .

The GV/G500/G550 has three 45 KVA Independent Drive Generators any one of which will provide power for 150% of the jet's average electrical load. The third IDG is located on the APU which can be started at FL430, is guaranteed to start at FL390, and will provide 100% power (45kva) to FL450. I can vouch for the fact that the APU will run at FL510 because I have forgotten to shut it down after the APU start test on the production card and flown it to that altitude.

The Hydraulic Motor Generator produces 10 KVA and will power the number one of everything - the Essential Bus.

GV