Falcon 50 versus Hawker 800XP

[HvyjetFO]

Considering upgrade from C650 to DA50 or H25B. Need better short field performance and range and these potentially would be in the price range (not the EX). Any insight? Problems with either? Thanks.
Hvy

 

[fisherpilot]

I've never flown either one, but have friends that have flown both. I'm almost positive they would say to go with the 50 hands down. I know it has great performance off of short runways.

 

[LJ45]

The operating cost of the DA50 will be much higher than the Hawker.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

The operating cost of the DA50 will be much higher than the Hawker.

You can operate full out of 4500 feet most days of the year and go anywhere in CONUS with the 50. NY to London non-stop usually, but almost always requires a stop on the way back. I think we used 2600 lbs an hour for fuel planning. I know nothing about the Hawker, but our 50 was bullet proof rarely requiring unscheduled maintenance. They are getting up there in age. If you look at them, make sure they have had the corrosion inspection Falcon requires to continue maintaining them.

 

[Tgaug6300]

How many people? What is typical mission? How short of runway are we talking?

 

[johnsonrod]

Go with the Falcon 50!

The Falcon 50 looks far better on the ramp... I would say that some people feel the third engine adds to safety and that can be important to the owner. Hopefully you would find a F50 with some basic EFIS as well so that it looks somewhat modern up front...

 

[HvyjetFO]

Our typical mission is 7 pax, 1000 miles or less, out and backs. Ooperate to many small towns with 5000 ft runways that the 650 just doesnt do well with. Occasionally have transcons that require fuel stop. Potential exists to expand into more international flying. We consistenly fight CG issues and runway performance in the 650. The 800XP appears more in line with DOCs we have been dealing with, although I don't like the cabin layout and the baggage compartment arrangement. The 50 is has everything we need and then some, although I am most concerned with reasonable DOCs and maintenance.

 

[LJ45]

excel?

 

[BoilerUP]

http://www.jetsearch.com/index.php/JetComparison

The Falcon 50 would be an all-around more capable aircraft, but at a substantially higher DOC (roughly 50% higher based on the Conklin numbers from the above link). Of note, it also shows the 800XP with ~20% lower DOCs than the Citation III.

For the cost of a mid-80s Falcon 50, you could probably pick up an early 2000s 800XP with PL21, do new paint/interior, and install API winglets for the same total acqusition cost.

 

[jet2work]

The Hawker is a very reliable and capable aircraft. The Collins ProLine Equipped XP's are a joy to fly. The Achilles heel of the Hawker is it's lack of baggage space. If you are doing out and back trips with brief cases, then the airplane is perfect.

The Hawker is built like a tank. It is a 40+ year old design. I have flown old ones and new ones, and they are reliable aircraft that are not maintenance intensive. First hour fuel burn is about 2000PPH, 2nd hour 1800, 3rd Hour 1700, 4th 1600. DOCs are very reasonable. The aircraft performs well hot and high (but nothing like the Falcon). If you are going out of a higher elevation mountainous airport with an obstacle departure (Aspen, Eagle, Telluride etc..) there are times when you cannot do it unless the weather is above published takeoff minima (technically Part 91 you can do whatever you want as long as you are not afraid of being labled careless and reckless).

The Falcon is a good airplane too. It has the same engines as the Hawker (TFE731's) The cabin is not much bigger than the Hawker, and by virtue of the fact that you are looking at a straight 50, you will likely end up with a dated cockpit. If you need short runway performance or high elevation performance, the 50 is what you need. If you have your own fuel farm and can tanker fuel, you can bring down the cost of operations in ways that you cannot in the Hawker. One last thing. The Falcon has trailing link landing gear. The Hawker does not. The Falcon will make you look like a better pilot. The Hawker will make you a better pilot.

 

[Tgaug6300]

excel?

XL is a great airplane, but it can't do non-stop coast to coast. I would recommend the C680. It will beat all the others runway numbers. Price point maybe an issue though.

 

[LongBoarder]

One last thing. The Falcon has trailing link landing gear. The Hawker does not. The Falcon will make you look like a better pilot. The Hawker will make you a better pilot.

As I am currently flying the Falcon 900EX and having flown the HS125.... The Hawker is a very deliberate plane. You have to pick it up and put it where you want. Stable... will make you look good. Maybe even an Old Mans Airplane. The Falcon on the otherhand is a pilots plane. Very light on the controls, you will do just about everything with trim only. Ours is 9 years old and we have only been AOG 1 time in those 9 years. But the landing gear is stiff... and it is very difficult to make a landing that you will be happy with.

High, Hot, and Heavy... The Falcon will make the trip, where the Hawker will need a tech stop to get home.

It is all about the mighty dollar... and the fact that there is no perfect airplane.

LB

 

[Hugh Johnson]

The 20 has trailing link gear, the 50 does not.

 

[2EASYPilot]

As I am currently flying the Falcon 900EX and having flown the HS125.... The Hawker is a very deliberate plane. You have to pick it up and put it where you want. Stable... will make you look good. Maybe even an Old Mans Airplane. The Falcon on the otherhand is a pilots plane. Very light on the controls, you will do just about everything with trim only. Ours is 9 years old and we have only been AOG 1 time in those 9 years. But the landing gear is stiff... and it is very difficult to make a landing that you will be happy with.

High, Hot, and Heavy... The Falcon will make the trip, where the Hawker will need a tech stop to get home.

It is all about the mighty dollar... and the fact that there is no perfect airplane.

LB

It's funny you talk about the 900's landings. We had a older 900EX and it was more luck than skill that got us a smooth landing. We have a new 900EX and it is a world of difference in the landings. Much easier to get a smooth one in the new aircraft. It's a mystery to me....

 

[Floyd94]

The 20 has trailing link gear, the 50 does not.

Correct. Neither does the 900.

 

[j3driver]

I operated an 800XP for many years and it is a solid airplane. The luggage space is a little small but overall it is a great plane. If your typical mission is 1000 miles or less you will have no problem operating out of a 5000 feet (@ SL). We operated ours out of Florida and in the summer time we needed about 6500 feet if we were near max take off weight but that gave us enough fuel for over 6 hours of flying. Whatever you decide I am glad your operation is looking to upgrade instead of the alternative.

 

[Kingairrick]

Saturday I flew Seattle-Tampa in our straight 50. Took off with 14500lbs of fuel (not full) and flew the whole trip at Mach.82. Landed with 3200lbs. Flight time 5:02.
Try that in the Hawker. Also, don't underestimate the convenience of baggage capacity that isn't loaded through the pax door.

 

[waka]

The 50 has a backup APU.

 

[LJ45]

Saturday I flew Seattle-Tampa in our straight 50. Took off with 14500lbs of fuel (not full) and flew the whole trip at Mach.82. Landed with 3200lbs. Flight time 5:02.
Try that in the Hawker. Also, don't underestimate the convenience of baggage capacity that isn't loaded through the pax door.

No doubt the F50 is a great airplane, just would want to pay the operating cost on one. :erm:

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

Goog info.

If you do out and backs of less than 1000 nm with 7 PAX, the Hawker would be fine. Baggage becomes an issue at times. DOCs are less as well.

The 50 would be my choice if you sometimes did longer flights than 1000 nm, more than 7 pax, and flew over water with some RONs. Then I would go with the 50 hands down. The 50 EX would be even sweeter.

Maybe it would be cheaper/better to go with the Hawker and charter something bigger if/when you need it or make the tech stop.

 

[HvyjetFO]

No doubt the 50 has more capability...but how are the DOCs? Is C&D close with $3100/hour? And how is the maintenance on it? Any problems?

 

[Kingairrick]

I don't track the DOCs, just a driver, but we plan 3000lbs 1st hour, 2000 every hour after, and always burn less.
Ours is a 1992 model, and has been rock solid reliable. We've had 1 fail to dispatch in the 5 years I've been flying it. It was for a float switch in the fuel system that we wouldn't have even noticed had we not been topping off.
You can steal a really nice 50 for ~$5-6 Million right now. That would be with new paint and interior, all inspections up to date, ready to fly.

 

[con-pilot]

I have flown the Falcon 50, 50EX and the 900EX, however I never flown a 125.

So, I'll ask you one question. Do you know of any mid-size (that's what I consider a Falcon 50 and a 125-800) jet that on most days, even hot ones, that you can fill the seats, the baggage compartment and the fuel tanks, then still be under MGTOW. In the 50EX you can. (Although I'll admit the nine passengers in the cabin for around seven hours or so would not a lot of fun for them.)

The key to the Falcon 50EX is versatility. Yes it costs more to operate, and a higher purchase cost, but remember, you get what you pay for. The last Falcon 50EX I operated just sold for under $13,000,000.00, it was four years old, maintained perfectly, with less than 1,300 hours total time.

Bottom line is a standard Falcon 50 can do everthing a 125-800 can do, a 125-800 cannot do everything a Falcon 50, let alone a 50EX, can do.

Oh, and when you are going from Midway Island to Guam at night, those three engines make you feel a hell of a lot better.

 

[Low and Fast]

Falcon 50 hands down

Having flown both the 800XP and the Falcon 50 (currently) you will find the 50 to be far better on those hot and high days compared to the XP.
We have taken our 50 into Buttonville, Ontario (CYKZ) which is 3900'. Try getting an XP out of there with 7 pax in August and being able to fly to Florida. Not going to happen. As far as fuel burn, well one more engine means about 700 #'s more per hour but the .84 speeds or even .80 is better than you'll get out of a hawker.

I will say that the 800XP is a great airplane and I won't deny it, however the 50 fits the same mission profile with the abilitly to go 3000 NM + if needed. You will find through asking around that the Falcon will acutually be cheaper to operate in the long run due to its overall reliabilty and quality construction.

With the current market offering many Falcon 50's in Low single digit Million dollar range, you could consider even upgrading the engines to the Dash 4's and maybe even throw in a Proline 21 Avionics Suite and you have an airplane that will go nearly 3300 NM and burn 400#'s more an hour than a 800XP in cruise at a speed of .82.

Good luck and feel free to message me if you have any more questions regarding the Falcon 50!