Falcon 2000EX VS Challenger 604

[da90drivr]

Depends which pond.....I think Aloha is flying 737s to Hawaii from the West Coast

 

[fokkerjet]

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?

Aloha, Continental, Executive Jet, or any other BBJ operator.

 

[G4G5]

Depends which pond.....I think Aloha is flying 737s to Hawaii from the West Coast

That is an ETOPS certified 737, does anyone know if it has a RAT?

 

[G4G5]

Depends which pond.....I think Aloha is flying 737s to Hawaii from the West Coast

That is an ETOPS certified 737. Does anyone know if it has a RAT

 

[G4G5]

Aloha, Continental, Executive Jet, or any other BBJ operator.

On which routes are Continental and Aloha or any other 121 flying 737's across the Atlantic, or do you know of a different Pond?

 

[fokkerjet]

That is an ETOPS certified 737, does anyone know if it has a RAT?

Wait a minute.....you just told me that ETOPS doesn't matter!

How about the Pacific Ocean!

 

[G4G5]

On the 2000EX I have three engine driven and one electrical standby hydraulic pumps.

Does the 2000 Ex have a 3rd engine generator or are you refering to the APU, did they add one (not trying to be funny, trying to educate myself?
How does the stby hyd pump a source on electricity ( I was not trying to get into a total system redundancy comarison)?

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.

A Dual Gen failure requires you to take that ONE bat and have a min of 22v remaining to start the APU, by the time you get to that point on the checklist ( dark over the pond, reading a check list with a flash light trying to start a cold soaked APU, you better be quick because 22v in the sim comes up pretty quickly, while trying to declare an emergency on the tracks). On the G4/5 or 604 the back up electric system just kicked on automaticly, and I am reading a checklist with lights. What about a bus failure? it's my understanding that on the 2000 you can lose the bus's and then have the same problem?


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.

Not exactly, the F50 was still in production, with the 50ex on the drawing board when the 2000 was designed. Dassault was still trying to market the 50 as the intl aircraft over the 2000. According to the sales men I spoke to, Dassault did not want to lose market share on the 50 so they designed the 2000 as G2 CL600 replacement.

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

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

Have a nice day

 

[G4G5]

Wait a minute.....you just told me that ETOPS doesn't matter!

No you wait a minute, I NEVER used the word ETOPS, you brought it up. What I said was:
"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 (refering to the Atlantic) without one."
I am specificly refering to back up electrical systems ( the whole thread has been about the lack of one on the 2000) and you started us on the ETOPS certification tangent discussion. Which is a whole lot more involved then just having an aircraft with a RAt or an HMU

How about the Pacific Ocean!

Ok and the Pacific. Name me ONE commercial airline that fly's INTERNATIONALLY with the 737? Name me ONE Commercial airline that flys a two engine aircraft INTERNATIONALLY( Pacific or Atlantic) that does not have a back up electrical system?

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.

Have a nice day

 

[501261]

On which routes are Continental and Aloha or any other 121 flying 737's across the Atlantic, or do you know of a different Pond?

Lufthansa flight 408 (EDDL-EWR) and 409 (EWR-EDDL) are operated by Privatair on an Airbus A319.

Aloha flies the 737-700 from SNA to HNL.

 

[G4G5]

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.

So what you are saying is when they built the 2000 that was the case, no back up system was acceptable because they didn't want to compete with their own product line. But now just because they added more gas it's OK and the aircraft is now an international aircraft?

3800 nm does not mean over water. People fly North to South, people tanker and ferry fuel to save money. Heck people even like to fly a trans cons in the winter time and not have to look at the low fuel lights.

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

UOTE]

 

[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.