G-III vs. FA-50

[SheGaveMeClap]

The boss is talking about upgrading to something that will go to Europe and Hawaii. Unfortunately, the budget isn't there for the latest and greatest equipment, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $9.5-10.0 million. I've noticed you can fit a G-III or a straight FA-50 in that budget.

Anybody have any realistic performance numbers on these airplanes? Range vs. payload? Full seats? Full fuel?

Fuel burn for the 1st hour, 2nd, 3rd, etc.? I've read in some performance specs. the III burns a little over 3,000 lb/hr. Is this accurate?

Any mx gremlins to watch for in either airplane?

Both brands seem to have excellent reputations and it would be great to put either type in our hangar. I'd like to hear it all, the good, bad and ugly. Thanks in advance....

Clap

 

[HMR]

FWIW- We spent about twelve months looking at the 50, G-III, G200, CL601 plus very early GIV's and CL604's. We ran every conceivable scenario and decided on the Falcon 50. The biggest person in the owner's family is 5'9", 170lbs so the cabin wasn't an issue. We can put 10 pax, full fuel and lots of luggage on board and still be able to take off from our home base's <6,000' runway. You can get an older 50, strip it down to bare metal and rebuild it with a 50EX interior, new paint and install the Collins Pro Line 21 avionics suite for $9.5-10 million.

I used to have the performance #'s for all the A/C I listed but I can't find them right now. I got ALOT of help from pilots on this board. Be sure to run a search.

Good Luck!

 

[jet-blast]

Falcon #'s

Our company flies 50's, 50EX and 900B. I did some performance #'s from SLC (Salt Lake) to TEB about a week ago. Here is the performance figures with times and fuel burn for all the models.
I have used our flight plan service (GDC) to calculate real time performance numbers for each of the following aircraft, 50, 50EX and a 900B. The pseudo flight departs SLC today at 1500Z enroute to TEB. Routing is optimized per the planning software.

Falcon 50EX
15000 lbs fuel for takeoff
600 lbs payload
Altitude FL390
.80 mach
Time=3hr55min
Fuel burn=8431 lbs

Falcon 900B
15000 lbs fuel for takeoff
600 lbs payload
Altitude FL390
.80 mach
Time=3hr52min
Fuel burn=8473 lbs

Falcon 50
15000 lbs fuel for takeoff
600 lbs payload
Altitude FL370
.80 mach
Time=3hr54min
Fuel burn=9382 lbs

 

[Rick1128]

I haven't flown either aircraft. But I have looked at both aircraft for a previous employer. If you plan on doing Europe, you have pretty much made your decision already. The 50. It meets stage three which Europe enforces more or less strictly than places like Naples, FL and Santa Monica. The G3 doesn't meet it unless it is hush kitted. And I believe there is a preformance penalty for that.

On the other hand, Gulfstream's product support is the Platium Standard. Dassault doesn't come close. But they are much better than Bombardier on support.

 

[psysicx]

Aero Air has a sweet looking G-III for sale.There asking 4 million.

 

[semperfido]

The boss is talking about upgrading to something that will go to Europe and Hawaii. Unfortunately, the budget isn't there for the latest and greatest equipment,
Clap

what part of country you be operating out of? a f50 is pretty unfomfortable (pilots & pax) past the 6 hr mark. Plus you will probably be stopping for fuel coming back from eur depending on departure pt and destination (makes for a long ride). on the other hand, even if they did get a G'string 4 or 5 they would just stretch it out to its limits and you would then be in the same boat. a f50 is a fine bird- go for it

 

[con-pilot]

Sorry to say that if you want to operate in Europe you need to drop the G-III from your list. The G-III is not a stage 3 aircraft and it will not be allowed to operate in most cities in the UK and Europe.

There is a hush kit on the market for G-IIIs, however I don't know if it will allow European operations. Maybe there is G-III operator here can shed more light on the subject.