Falcon 2000EX VS Challenger 604

[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

 

[CatYaaak]

Easy choice

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.
QUOTE]

I'll have to disagree.. on the occasion of hearing it for 3-4 hours, the sound of the RAT would quite possibly be the sweetest sound in the world...much better than no sound...a silence eventually accompanied by darkness and a lot of wandering around in the sky looking for dirt.

But on the other hand, we know for a fact that ditched Falcons float and bob quite happily in the ocean...to the point of becoming a hazard to shipping lanes and having to be sunk by naval gunfire. That's pretty cool.

So in answer to the original question and in my professional opinion gained through years of experience, I'd go with whichever aicraft the boss's wife/gilfriend/mistress thinks is "cuter".

 

[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.

Here you go again with the ETOPS. You really don't undersatnd the ETOPS concept do you? Boeing does not sell ETOPS and non ETOPS airframes. THEY ARE THE SAME. It's up to the operator to comply with AC120-42A
http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/g?SEARCH=td+4.8%2F5%3A120-42+a
The airfame never changes. What changes is the way the aircraft is operated, maintained and documented. Things like; Engine health monitoring, Predeparture service checks, event oriented reliability reliability programs. If someting fails on an ETOPS aircraft the FAA notification process gets involved. ETOPS procedures cost airlines money so that is why some airlines chose to only cert a % of the fleet. Non ETOPS procedures are completly different.

BUT THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE WAY THE MFR BUILDS THE AIRCRAFT!

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.

The 900/50 have 3 engines & an APU. The G4/5 have 2 engines, an APU and an HMG. The CL604 has 2 engines and APU and a RAT. Each of these corporate jets has FOUR sources of electrical power. They were ALL orignaly built by their mfrs as Intl aircraft. How many systems does the 2000 have? Three, why because its mfr did not initially design the airframe to compete with their 3 engine models, hence it was not designed as an international aircraft. This isn't a difficult concept folks.

Now look at the 2 engine 121 aircraft orignally designed by their Mfr's for international over water ops. The 757/767/777/A300/310/330 all have FOUR electrical sources. Once again how many does the F2000 have?
My argument is: Not weather AC 120-42a ETOPS procedures are being complied with because, ETOPS DOES NOT APPLY to us.


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.

My point is up until the 2000 how many modern wide body domestic corporate jets were being produced? None. The Dassault folks felt that by leaving out costly international equipment they could save money and bring the cost of the aircraft in for less then the 604 or the G4. That's why the orginal 2000 came with only 2 IRS, no 3rd IRS option, no back up electrical system, yada yada. The Falcon 900ex was already out wth the additional fuel tanks designed. How come dassault didn't initially add them to the 2000?

My greater 48 comment was intended to show that plenty of folks want a North America aircraft. How many N registered Net jet F2000's do you see in Europe?

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.

I am not saying anything negative about the 2000ex intl operators. The orginal poster question asked the question 2000 vs the 604. My point is, if I was purchasing a new airframe and plan on operating internationaly go with the 604, it was orginally designed to be an intl aircraft.

have a nice weekend

 

[banned username 2]

The G4/5 have 2 engines, an APU and an HMG. The CL604 has 2 engines and APU and a RAT. Each of these corporate jets has FOUR sources of electrical power.

Can't start the APU airborne on the 50 or 900...

 

[Bandit60]

Our flight department look at both aircraft and picked the 2000ex. While I dont fly it myself, the guys that do fly the 2000ex also flew the Challenger. They have nothing but great things to say about the 2000ex.

 

[fokkerjet]

My experience with the GV, after losing the GCU over the Pacific, I was unable to start the APU at FL390 (two attempts), so I settled with operating on one IDG for the remainder of the flight (about one hour or so). From what I remember of the incident, my load on the remaining IDG was somewhere below 50%, but the galley had been loadshedded (if that's a word) already. A non-event in any case! One of our current GV Captains said he can only get the APU to start below FL280, and the current procedure is not to try and start the APU since you have the HMG as backup. He told me that Gulfsteam doesn't expect the APU to start at FL390 anymore either.

 

[G4G5]

Can't start the APU airborne on the 50 or 900...

Thanks for the info, as I am about to become a 900/50 driver any tips are greatly appreciated. As far as the APU, I will take a running 3rd engine any day of the week.

 

[banned username 2]

Thanks for the info, as I am about to become a 900/50 driver any tips are greatly appreciated. As far as the APU, I will take a running 3rd engine any day of the week.

is the 900/50's your going to be flying the EX models (I hope)???

I have about 1,800 hours in the 50EX and about 1,200 hours in the 900EX, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have...

 

[G4G5]

is the 900/50's your going to be flying the EX models (I hope)???

I have about 1,800 hours in the 50EX and about 1,200 hours in the 900EX, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have...

Thanks, don't be surprised if I take you up, I start school in Oct. Yes they are both brand new EX's (of which I have zero time in)

 

[rice]

Thanks for the info, as I am about to become a 900/50 driver any tips are greatly appreciated. As far as the APU, I will take a running 3rd engine any day of the week.

Well then I guess that answers my question? Check your PM. I should be in 900 recurrent some time in Oct. First "Cold one" is on me if we meet up.

 

[GVFlyer]

GV APU Starts

My experience with the GV, after losing the GCU over the Pacific, I was unable to start the APU at FL390 (two attempts), so I settled with operating on one IDG for the remainder of the flight (about one hour or so). From what I remember of the incident, my load on the remaining IDG was somewhere below 50%, but the galley had been loadshedded (if that's a word) already. A non-event in any case! One of our current GV Captains said he can only get the APU to start below FL280, and the current procedure is not to try and start the APU since you have the HMG as backup. He told me that Gulfsteam doesn't expect the APU to start at FL390 anymore either.

The following verbage is from the Gulfstream, Model G550 Acceptance Flight Test Quality Assurance Procedure:


" 3.8.85 APU START AT FL430, M.80. - PERFORM. The APU must start within two attempts at FL390...Note that above FL360 there is a 16 second delay while the Bleed Air Augmentation Valve operates prior to indication of a successful APU start sequence."


This is a certification standard. The aircraft must do this before it can be issued a Certificate of Airworthiness. If your aircraft do not meet this standard, they should be repaired in that your crews would be unable to comply with the G550 Flight Manual ABNORMAL / EMERGENCY procedures for Dual Generator Failure and Single Generator Failure.

Some crews have experienced difficulty in high altitude APU starts because they do not properly follow the APU start procedures which include turning the right battery off prior to attempting a start and waiting for BAAV operation to determine a successful start.

GV

 

[fokkerjet]

I'll pass on the information.


In my case, we followed the checklist......including turning off the battery. No light-off on either attempt. I didn't write it up, but talked to our Gulfstream Rep, and he said that Gulfstream did not expect the APU to start when cold-soaked at FL390.

The current Captain that I talked to recently, said he has experimented at starting the APU at different altitudes, and found that he can only start the APU below FL280......that's during climb, and during descent. He also noted something in the Breakfast Minutes relating to this subject.....I don't recall what he said about it.

Now, this was in a GV, not the G550; any difference? BTW, we sold the airplane I had the problem in, this Captain has been experimenting in another airplane(s).

I was thinking about that GV that had the dual engine flame-out a few years ago, having only battery power (no HMG of course) remaining, it was nice to know that you can rapidly restart these engines....I didn't ask what the cleaning bill was after that experience.

One other thing, IDG is Integrated Drive Generator, and the Gulfstream has only two, mounted on the gearbox of each engine, and on the APU, you have an AC Generator. All three are the same AC generators, but on the engines, since their RPM's vary, you need a CSD to keep the AC Generator rpm's constant. The APU runs at a constant rpm, no CSD needed.

 

[GVFlyer]

One other thing, IDG is Integrated Drive Generator, and the Gulfstream has only two, mounted on the gearbox of each engine, and on the APU, you have an AC Generator. All three are the same AC generators, but on the engines, since their RPM's vary, you need a CSD to keep the AC Generator rpm's constant. The APU runs at a constant rpm, no CSD needed.

You are exactly correct.

GV