Falcon 900EX vs. G-IV SP

[TMMT]

Where's GVFlyer?

Probably explaining to the engineers at GA how wrong they are about the G650 and how much better the GV still is...

 

[LongBoarder]

True, I enjoyed the guy at Atlantic LAS with Gulfstream shorts,t-shirt, hat, and lanyard getting into an Astra. And yes, it was an Astra and not a G150.

Sounds like a guy that I used to work for in the Bay Area.... We had an Astra.... Classic #21.... yet when he had it painted, he made sure that they stenciled G100 on the side of it. Tosser

LB

 

[100-1/2]

Slats over sluts any day of the week and twice on Sunday before church!

100-1/2

 

[rice]

Thanks everyone. Assuming a dry runway, what is the min runway length you would be comfortable with for landing at normal landing weight? Max landing weight? F900 and G-IV.

Thanks again guys

ILB,
Most operators that I know use 5000' for min runway length in the 900. Not a bad policy and we typically adhere to that with a couple exceptions. KHTO being the most often one at 4255'. Plan your arrival fuel properly and you can land there on a wet RW with 5 pax even under 135 using the DAAP 80% rule.

Landing on RW 19 at TEB, it's not very difficult to make the turnoff at Taxiway G which I'd guess is not much more than 3500'.

 

[gulfstream2345]

900 v. G whiz

Ok, lets do the math. With three engines v. two engines you have a greater chance of losing an engine. Now lets do more math. These are manufacturer's MTBF (mean time between failure) numbers. The 900 engines fail 3.2 times more often than the G4 engines. Factor that into the 3 v 2 deal and guess what??? I think I would rather be in a Gulfstream. I am typed in both and have flown both. And did I really see Aspen-London mentioned in a 900? That is difficult to believe but if it works then good luck.

 

[patq1]

Ok, lets do the math. With three engines v. two engines you have a greater chance of losing an engine. Now lets do more math. These are manufacturer's MTBF (mean time between failure) numbers. The 900 engines fail 3.2 times more often than the G4 engines. Factor that into the 3 v 2 deal and guess what??? I think I would rather be in a Gulfstream. I am typed in both and have flown both. And did I really see Aspen-London mentioned in a 900? That is difficult to believe but if it works then good luck.

What are the MTBFs for the 731 and the Rolls?

 

[LegacyDriver]

Buy American! Obama needs you to save his Presidency, one G-Whiz at a time. LOL

 

[LJ45]

Doesn't the 900EX have the -60 TFE, which is the newer generation and has a better in-flight shut down rate?

 

[con-pilot]

Doesn't the 900EX have the -60 TFE, which is the newer generation and has a better in-flight shut down rate?

Yes...........


But, remember the old joke.

"Why do you only fly four engine aircraft over the oceans?"

"Because they don't build any five engine aircraft."

 

[gulfstreameric]

And here is the kicker ...

How many Gulfstreams 4's ran of the end of the runway ? None.
How many F900 (or F50) ? Go look it up. Thats right. SINGLE engine thrust reverser. Any contaminated runway landing and those skinny tires on the Falcon make you slip and slide while your looking to stop it.
Hence quite a few flight departments left their Falcon 900 at the end of the runway and bought a Gulfstream 4 (or better).

That may cost you in fuel, but not in stopping power like from that one hair dryer engine in the middle on the Falcon
And without those slutty slats ....

 

[Gulfstream 200]

And here is the kicker ...

How many Gulfstreams 4's ran of the end of the runway ?

.

http://www.jeff-betty.com/GIV-TEB/imagepages/image21.htm

For those who dont speak Grummanese, thats a smashed up GIV off the end of the runway at TEB.

These things happen....even to Grummans.

 

[LegacyDriver]

http://www.jeff-betty.com/giv-teb/imagepages/image21.htm

for those who dont speak grummanese, thats a smashed up giv off the end of the runway at teb.

These things happen....even to grummans.

pwned....

 

[Hugh Johnson]

And here is the kicker ...

How many Gulfstreams 4's ran of the end of the runway ? None.
How many F900 (or F50) ? Go look it up. Thats right. SINGLE engine thrust reverser. Any contaminated runway landing and those skinny tires on the Falcon make you slip and slide while your looking to stop it.
Hence quite a few flight departments left their Falcon 900 at the end of the runway and bought a Gulfstream 4 (or better).

That may cost you in fuel, but not in stopping power like from that one hair dryer engine in the middle on the Falcon
And without those slutty slats ....

FAIL, nice try though.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20041201-0



02/14/91 - NYC91LA076 - Cleveland OH
Pilot intentionally groundlooped the AC when he saw there was not enough runway left to stop on snow covered runway. No injuries.

02/16/99 - LAX99FA101 - Van Nuys CA
Pilot approached too hot and touched down long, departed end of runway and hit several parked AC. Pilots and F/A evacuated without assisting the sole passenger on board, who evacuated on his own. No injuries.

http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20041206X01928.asp


All in all pretty good though.

 

[gulfstreameric]

But how many hairdryers got run off ....

 

[con-pilot]

Blatant assumptions that one aircraft manufacture is highly superior than any other is akin to a couple of teenagers in the high school parking lot arguing over which is better; a Chevy or a Ford.

The G-IVSP and the Falcon 900EX are both superior products, anyone who is lucky enough to fly either one is fortunate. With us, the reason for purchasing the 900EX was it's better high and hot performance.

And yes, with with VFR fuel reserves in the winter, with the normal tail winds, below a certain temperature*, one can go non-stop KASE-EGGW in the 900EX, not the 900B, I've done it and know of a couple of other operators that have as well. Admittedly I only did that trip once, we left the minute the airport opened and it was clear and very cold that morning.

As for the thrust reverser issue, last I heard under Part 91, you cannot factor thrust reverser into runway requirements for stopping. So that is a non-qualifier from the get go.





* Danged if I can remember the temperature now, retired old fart you know.

 

[gulfstreameric]

But running of the runway when you want to use that single one T/R your relying on to stop before hitting the grassy area is a factor, and a correlation for your paycheck .....

Part whatever you clear in your bank account !

 

[LegacyDriver]

Well....I'm gonna agree with Small Johnson (God forbid). At idle reverse in the Legacy I had wads more stopping effect/power than full reverse in the Falcon 50EX (and the EMB in full reverse slows down incredibly well, the Falcon not so much). I'm sure the Gulfstream is similar to the EMB in that regard. The brake system on the EMB embarassed the 50, as well. But....airplanes overrun. It happens. Falcon knows their product doesn't always stop well with contamination as reflected in their performance data.

 

[con-pilot]

Well, all I can say is that I never went off the end of a runway in a Falcon, course I never ran off the end of a runway in anything that I ever flew in over 40 years and 21,000+ hours either.

 

[SansPlane]

http://www.jeff-betty.com/GIV-TEB/imagepages/image36.htm

 

[Tigers]

What are the MTBFs for the 731 and the Rolls?

Ask Boeing about Rolls Royce engines on the 787?