GIV vs. CL604?

[Gulfstream 200]

That redline stuff is for people who want to get somewhere.....today.....

lumpin' along at FL390 and .78 like a fat French Croissant just aint cuttin' it.

.

and the 2000.....it aint got a RAT - cant take it overwater...right?

.

 

[G100driver]

That redline stuff is for people who want to get somewhere.....today.....

lumpin' along at FL390 and .78 like a fat French Croissant just aint cuttin' it.
.

Hence the reason for the 2000EX. Not only does it have a superior cabin (8 pax or less granted), but you cruise at .83. AND rumor has it you can even cross Lake Michigan.

 

[G100driver]

RAT ... gimme a break. I take a 2000EX to HI any day before I go over in a CL-601 and have that RAT drop at my ETP and me go splash.

This whole RAT thing is over blown. Let us look at this rationally. Why do you want a RAT? In the event that you have a complete electrical failure (at least in the Falcon 2000 senerio) If you loose both Gens at the same time you are probably on fire or have a MASSIVE short. If you loose one, you will decend to FL350 and light the APU. As far a hydaulic goes, the 2000 has 4 pumps. 2 for each engine. The airplane will not fall out of the sky like the cl-604 will if you loose all 4. WHEW .... I hope this cures you irrational paranoia

WOW, I cannot believe I just took the bait ..... again

 

[semperfido]

Gotta give this one to Sleepy. The Falcon cabin is MUCH roomer and more quite than the G-IVsp (unless all you look at is length ). It also has a much smaller footprint and can manuver on the ground in places that the G-IV cannot. Not to mention lighter weights that can restrict you at some airports.

These were the reasons for our purchase of the 2000EX(new) vs the then new G-300.

All that red line stuff is for pilots and such. Not for guys who write checks.

I have to say that I have experience in all 3 (G,F&C) and all are nice and I would be happy to fly any of them. BUT if given the choice for boss, pilot or indian chief, the GULFSTREAM product wins. It outperforms the rivals. I can't remember a time when a falcons smaller "footprint" mattered. "lighter weights"-- fooey! I don't know anything about f2000 vs g300--that was not the original question. It was g4 vs cl604. Falcon wasn't even mentioned. Go with a fairly new G4sp. The boss will love you and you will be satisfied. Don't dick around if he is willing to buy one.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Hence the reason for the 2000EX. Not only does it have a superior cabin (8 pax or less granted), but you cruise at .83. AND rumor has it you can even cross Lake Michigan.

SO....a 2000 can go - full fuel - straight to FL410 and reach redline?

No way, dont cross any water w/o 3 engines or a RAT. fagetaboutit.

.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I have to say that I have experience in all 3 (G,F&C) and all are nice and I would be happy to fly any of them. BUT if given the choice for boss, pilot or indian chief, the GULFSTREAM product wins. It outperforms the rivals. I can't remember a time when a falcons smaller "footprint" mattered. "lighter weights"-- fooey! I don't know anything about f2000 vs g300--that was not the original question. It was g4 vs cl604. Falcon wasn't even mentioned. Go with a fairly new G4sp. The boss will love you and you will be satisfied. Don't dick around if he is willing to buy one.

"smaller footprints" are always toted by guys who fly smaller airplanes...."we dont have to show off, we can afford anything - we CHOSE the smaller bird"....yup, sure ya did sport.

Its like when their girlfriends tell them "Oh honey, size dosen't matter" and they feel manly for a little while.....but deep down inside - they both know size really DOES matter......

.

 

[GVFlyer]

Falcon, Falcon, Falcon......... Get the DA-900EX instead, you boss will like the cabin much better than the Gulfstream cabin. So will you. I would not but anything from Canadair.

???

G350/G450 Cabin... 40'4" L x 7'4" W x 6'2" H Volume: 1,525 cu. ft.
F900EX Cabin.........33'2" L x 7'8" W x 6'2" H Volume: 1,267 cu. ft

GV

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

...has a much smaller footprint and can manuver on the ground in places that the G-IV cannot. Not to mention lighter weights that can restrict you at some airports.

Where? When? Tell me one ramp you've been on or one airport you've gone to that I can't go to in a IV.

There are about 5,500 airports in the U.S. The ones I can't get into in a IV you wouldn't want to go into in ANY jet.

Ace

 

[CatYaaak]

SO....a 2000 can go - full fuel - straight to FL410 and reach redline?

No way, dont cross any water w/o 3 engines or a RAT. fagetaboutit.

.

For the 2000 (straight, not EX) Mmo at FL410 is appx. .855 mach. Granted, it won't do that when heavy, but it's not exactly a dog either. Don't know much about the -731-powered Falcons you fly but this is what I saw just yesterday in our 2000. Pretty close to your scenario, in fact:

Departed the UK with 11,700 lbs of fuel (max minus 400 lbs) bound for Cairo. Climbed straight to FL410 after being held down at 5000' by London for a few minutes. No struggling involved (especially if you're comparing it to a Challenger). ISA +5 at altitude, and accelerated to .81 immediately then .83 within 45 1 hour, burning 890lbs/hr per side. Temps went to ISA so we asked and received non-standard FL430, maintained .83 burning about 850lbs/side. FL450 was achievable but would mean slowing to .80 mach and winds slackened off.

But the airplane was basically designed to fly efficiently and comfortably between FL390 and 430 at .80 mach. With an intial altitude of either FL390 or FL400, I honestly don't ever remember not being able to do this....certainly never struggling to make .78 as you say. I've had it to FL450 a few times when temps were ISA and weight was about 30K (6,500 less than MTOW), so could maintain .80 mach, but never saw much use to take it up to it's ceiling of 47,000 because perf really does drop off there.

The 2000 EX does better than the straight 2000 though, and I'm sure the G-lV wins in the power department. But I've got enough time in Challengers 600's and 604's (not including the truly doggy RJs I've had the displeasure to fly) that I'd choose the Falcon 2000 over it any day based on everything except cockpit space (nobody beats a Challenger in that department).

I've never been too concerned about the lack of a RAT, and granted the only body of water we fly over routinely is the puddle Med and some parts of the Indian Ocean, but we do also go over a lot of remote desert areas in the ME and Africa, and jungles where cannibals would probably toss you in a cooking pot if you had to belly one in.

I think I'd rather be floating in a raft, and besides, it's been proven that Falcons can float in the ocean for days until having to be sunk by the Navy because they become a hazard to shipping, whereas Gulfstreams sink like a stone upon contact with relatively placid Lake Geneve. Camel spiders can't get you if you're in a raft either.

 

[HMR]

Camel spiders can't get you if you're in a raft either.

Well... I guess that settles it then.

 

[Bumz_Rush]

cockpit space

Sorry to come in late, but for cockit space for average or larger crew members, the Challenger range wins all the time against the Falcon, and G4 G4SP.

The G550 is almost as spacious for the drivers as the Challenger range.

So if your butt is challenged, or your legs are longer than needed, the Challenger is the answer......

 

[typhoonpilot]

Guys this is a trick question. What he was being asked is what do you think I should buy. What type of trips are presently being done and what does the next two years of trips look like. Unless you are carrying more than 8 passengers or doing a great deal of international flying on a very regular basis, there isn't a major benefit to getting those aircraft. At a former company, I recommended a much smaller aircraft than the boss wanted. They made the purchase based on that recommendation, they still have the aircraft, they are very happy with it and the department is still operating, despite 9/11 and a business down turn. And the aircraft recommended is capable of doing 100% of all the trips non-stop.

This is the best answer so far. Get the airplane that makes the most sense and will be the most reliable and affordable for the mission.

TP

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Departed the UK with 11,700 lbs of fuel (max minus 400 lbs) bound for Cairo. Climbed straight to FL410 after being held down at 5000' by London for a few minutes. No struggling involved (especially if you're comparing it to a Challenger). ISA +5 at altitude, and accelerated to .81 immediately then .83 within 45 1 hour, burning 890lbs/hr per side. Temps went to ISA so we asked and received non-standard FL430, maintained .83 burning about 850lbs/side. FL450 was achievable but would mean slowing to .80 mach and winds slackened off.





So basically, the answer to my question is NO. Even with the better 2000EX you cant leave with full full, climb into the 40's and reach red line.

Its not a 747. There is no reason one should not be able to do this. You buy a bizjet to fill it up, climb up above weather, traffic, and tracks - and get there fast. God forbid its an ISA+15 night in S America. Be fun to trudge throught he storm tops all maxed out at FL360...not...How about leaving a tech stop (like Shannon) are you going to be above the tracks at your desired altitude and airspeed by your entry point? Sunds like a struggle to me....maybe Shanwick will just lump you in with the airliners at FL3xx. Enjoy the bumps...

It just tells me, once again, its a typical underpowered Dassault product.

Dont get me wrong. Its a reliable airplane - starts every time, simple systems, built tough....and if you have that toted deisre to leave a 2500' strip in the mountains and make NY or LA - heck, buy the short field Falcon..oh...and it sips fuel.....easy at the pump.....saves money...a bizjet braggin about fuel economy....great.

I just dont see it as a performer by any means...

line it up next to the other medium-long range bizjets (think G300-450) and it just cant win!!

 

[CatYaaak]

So basically, the answer to my question is NO. Even with the better 2000EX you cant leave with full full, climb into the 40's and reach red line.

Its not a 747. There is no reason one should not be able to do this. You buy a bizjet to fill it up, climb up above weather, traffic, and tracks - and get there fast. God forbid its an ISA+15 night in S America. Be fun to trudge throught he storm tops all maxed out at FL360...not...How about leaving a tech stop (like Shannon) are you going to be above the tracks at your desired altitude and airspeed by your entry point? Sunds like a struggle to me....maybe Shanwick will just lump you in with the airliners at FL3xx. Enjoy the bumps...

It just tells me, once again, its a typical underpowered Dassault product.

Dont get me wrong. Its a reliable airplane - starts every time, simple systems, built tough....and if you have that toted deisre to leave a 2500' strip in the mountains and make NY or LA - heck, buy the short field Falcon..oh...and it sips fuel.....easy at the pump.....saves money...a bizjet braggin about fuel economy....great.

I just dont see it as a performer by any means...

line it up next to the other medium-long range bizjets (think G300-450) and it just cant win!!

You'd have to refresh my memory as to what Mmo and max certified altitude are on the Challenger. I don't recall it being a high-flying, shlt-hot rod, but perhaps I was going so fast, so high, it stripped away those particular brain cells along with the others that would recall pulling the thrust levers back to stay below the barber pole (um..right). Maybe I'm getting my numbers mixed up, but I thought the max alt. of the 604 was FL410 (someone correct me if that's wrong).

We see ISA+15 (and higher sometimes in the climb) here in the ME Sandpit, and like I said never recall not being able to make FL390 or FL400 initially maintaining .80. Nope, we can't do .855 to .862 at max weight, and now I'm secretly very ashamed of that. Boo hoo I'm just not flying a real jet!

No 2,500' strips around here..they don't build them that short ( I have seen some driveways that long). But if being able to get out of medium-length runways with relative ease when the OAT is in the +45C to +50C range as it routinely is here for half the year with enough gas to go someplace, then I guess I don't mind being "underpowered" if the other choice is a ground-loving Bombardier hog.

Until you, I've never met a pilot that didn't give a thought to BFL as it relates to operational flexiblity, but I suppose it's possible that I've been mis-prioritizing over the years. I should have been worrying about those tenths of a mach number instead. Why, that could mean a whole extra 15 knots or so if I'm slowpokin' along .81 or .83. No doubt when I'm at FL430 or FL450 at .81 or .80, I'm just a friggin' high altitude road block!

I'm sure the G-300/-450 outperforms the 2000 or EX in the max-weight, high-speed, high-alt cruise regime, but it should for the extra $$$. According to you even heavy it shrugs-off ISA +15 no sweat in the 40s and you have to rein it in to prevent overspeeding, so that's pretty impressive not many aircraft will do that..Challengers certainly not. I admit that I don't have what anyone would call "experience" in Gulfstreams, just a few hours of G-1V stick time after some bounces around the patch. But aside from great climb perf I do recall it handles like a truck...kind of Westwind-y, in fact. That doesn't really generate (for me anyway) a woodie as far as classifying it as a "pilot's airplane". I did notice that you avoided the proven floating performance of each, so the Falcon is clearly superior in terms of being a "pilot's boat".

One thing for sure, you'll never hear any pilot who's flown all three saying "Gee, I sure wish this Falcon flew more like a Gulfstream or Challenger". I'll just have to go seek self-esteem counseling on that Mmo thing though. Perhaps Oprah will listen.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

I did notice that you avoided the proven floating performance of each, so the Falcon is clearly superior in terms of being a "pilot's boat".

Quite possibly the dumbest quote I've ever seen. RR engines are very reliable (statistically the MOST reliable in history). I'd rather fly an airplane that doesn't NEED to float. That crash into the lake (Jet Aviation, years ago) was CFIT. What you're saying about floatation is sort of like choosing less of an airplane because it is stronger if you run it into a mountain. I won't do either and I'll always pick the strongest, most reliable, and, yes, American airplane!

CatPuke, If you are thinking about landing your plane on the water, I sure don't want to fly in it, or with you.

Ace

 

[CatYaaak]

Quite possibly the dumbest quote I've ever seen. RR engines are very reliable (statistically the MOST reliable in history). I'd rather fly an airplane that doesn't NEED to float. That crash into the lake (Jet Aviation, years ago) was CFIT. What you're saying about floatation is sort of like choosing less of an airplane because it is stronger if you run it into a mountain. I won't do either and I'll always pick the strongest, most reliable, and, yes, American airplane!

CatPuke, If you are thinking about landing your plane on the water, I sure don't want to fly in it, or with you.

Ace

Well, the Falcon that ended up in the drink got there because they were going to run it out of gas and I do believe that all engines including mighty Speys and Tays will "fail" in that circumstance. A planned ditching would also be considered CFIT, or rather, a CFIW event. Hey, I'm no France-fan, but if Falcons are flimsy, that's news to me and pretty much everyone else. If you took the "pilot's boat" thing seriously, well... I seriously don't know what to say.

Don't want to fly with me?....sounds good, Ace, because I prefer to fly with people who have a sense of humor, and I'd obviously drive you crazy with my "dumbness" anyway. You should hear my theories on frozen-water Glacier Landings.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Well, the Falcon that ended up in the drink got there because they were going to run it out of gas and I do believe that all engines including mighty Speys and Tays will "fail" in that circumstance. A planned ditching would also be considered CFIT, or rather, a CFIW event. Hey, I'm no France-fan, but if Falcons are flimsy, that's news to me and pretty much everyone else. If you took the "pilot's boat" thing seriously, well... I seriously don't know what to say.

Don't want to fly with me?....sounds good, Ace, because I prefer to fly with people who have a sense of humor, and I'd obviously drive you crazy with my "dumbness" anyway. You should hear my theories on frozen-water Glacier Landings.

If you call that a sense of humor, you've got bigger problems.

Oops, I almost forgot the smily face

Ace

 

[CatYaaak]

If you call that a sense of humor, you've got bigger problems.

Oops, I almost forgot the smily face

Ace

Well of course I have bigger problems... for instance, there's people around here that would just love to cut my head off or at least shoot me, it's dark, and right now I've suddenly realized I need to go out on the crowded street to buy some smokes. Cigarettes can cause death, but isn't it incredibly funny how they can do it in so many different ways? The big problem, of course, is that I might get there and they won't have my brand.

While I'm out on my stroll, however, I'll focus on what's important and wrack my brain on how to tweak that extra .02 or .03 mach out of my little, sweet-handling French Love Machine. Maybe I'm trimming it wrong?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

eh - dont sweat it yak...

you aint trimming it wrong, its just an underpowered French piece of crap.

simple as that.

(but it floats like no other!!!) - so...if you hit the lottery - inquire with Dassualt about building your boat.....and Gulfstream about building your corporate jet...

.

PS - lay off the smokes man, they'll get you before the fundamentalists do...

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Well of course I have bigger problems... for instance, there's people around here that would just love to cut my head off or at least shoot me, it's dark, and right now I've suddenly realized I need to go out on the crowded street to buy some smokes. Cigarettes can cause death, but isn't it incredibly funny how they can do it in so many different ways? The big problem, of course, is that I might get there and they won't have my brand.

While I'm out on my stroll, however, I'll focus on what's important and wrack my brain on how to tweak that extra .02 or .03 mach out of my little, sweet-handling French Love Machine. Maybe I'm trimming it wrong?

Hmmmm. Took me 30 years to get off the smokes and only 5 to get out of the Falcon. Of the two, the cigs will kill you.

Now you've got me curious, do you look for sense of humor or quality of airmanship in your co-pilots / co-captains (cause mine's kinda a dud on the road but really knows his way around the plane).

Ace