Falcon 50 versus Hawker 800XP

[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!