Hawker 800 vs. 800 XP

[FalconPilot69]

Could anyone tell me what the actual cost savings and performance differences are between the 800 and the 800 XP. I am also interested in finding out what the cost is to put on winglets and if there is a true savings there as well as far as performance and fuel burn. My boss is looking at them and I am doing the research for him.

Thank you in advance.

Falconpilot69

PS. Feel free to email me if you wish.

 

[Senior_Citizen]

easy: http://www.omnijet.com/database/hs8001000/
accurate : Cocklin & de Decker

 

[FalconPilot69]

Winglets?

Senior,

Thank you for the reply. Rumor has it that the XP has a winglet conversion that will increase the range by adding an additional 45 minutes of flight as well as better performance. Do you or anyone know this to be fact? Also, I am told that the conversion cost is approximately 500,000. Do you know if this is fact as well?

Thank you again.

 

[Senior_Citizen]

the only data I know is from AP web site: http://www.aviationpartners.com/hawker/hawker.html
also for pricing, on the web you can found some references:http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04nbaa/aircraft2_07.htm

The Hawkers are good planes, reliables and with the best support in it's class, but its performance is far behind the G100/G150, LJ60, and Ce680 (Sovereign), th winglets helps, but the performance numbers can't be used for Planning, because the plane wasn't re-certified, and only has an STC to use the winglets, (it's my opinion, you must to write to AP inc for acurate data).

I saw a Hawker 800Xp with winglets and looks awesome, like a mini G-IV.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

Falcon,

Take a look here: http://www.aviationpartners.com/hawker/hawk_faqs.html. This should answer your winglet questions.

cc

Edit: Ugghh... were going to have to change Senior name to QuickDraw... or mine to Pokey!

 

[starvingcfi]

saw a straight 800 with the winglets on friday. looks pretty cool.

 

[Bandit60]

the only data I know is from AP web site: http://www.aviationpartners.com/hawker/hawker.html
also for pricing, on the web you can found some references:http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04nbaa/aircraft2_07.htm

The Hawkers are good planes, reliables and with the best support in it's class, but its performance is far behind the G100/G150, LJ60, and Ce680 (Sovereign), th winglets helps, but the performance numbers can't be used for Planning, because the plane wasn't re-certified, and only has an STC to use the winglets, (it's my opinion, you must to write to AP inc for acurate data).

I saw a Hawker 800Xp with winglets and looks awesome, like a mini G-IV.

\
I have to disagree with you on that the performance is far behind the LJ60. Yea it wont climb as fast or as high, but it has much better take off numbers in all phases. The hawker has longer legs and is much more stable at altitude. It does much better high and hot numbers than the lj60 (not second segment) but the Hawker800xp can take off with flaps 0 so the length of time your at second segment is extremely short. There are many trips that I can do now that I could not do with the LJ60.
Dont get me wrong..I love the Lears, they are a blast to fly.
PS The Hawker with the proline 21 is nice

 

[westwind driver]

Just my 2 cents;

If you really start looking at the 800 series, and turn more towards straight 800s, I would HIGHLY suggest aiming for one without thrust reversers. On the straight 800 they are just about a waist. They take a couple of hundred pounds away from your payload (T/Rs add to the BOW)

By the time you land in a Hawker and deploy the lift-dump, the aircraft has slowed considerably and the T/Rs lose the majority of their effectiveness.

I know 800 (with T/Rs) pilots that upon touchdown deploy the T/Rs to idle-deploy and then deploy the speed-brakes/lift-dump. The lift-dump sends the flaps to a near 90 degree down angle acting like big barn doors, causing lots of aerodynamic drag. The 800 has good brakes on it too, so below 80 why not use them?

Maybe by getting a straight 800 without T/Rs, you'll save money vs. an 800XP, and you could afford the 1/2 MIL to do the winglets? Not sure what kind of weight they add, but I wouldn't think it to be much.

I would like to hear more opinions on the 800 with/without TRs topic.

 

[FalconPilot69]

Thank you

Thanks a lot guys. I really appreciate all of the info that you gave me.

Fly safe.

FalconPilot69

 

[patq1]

Just my 2 cents;

If you really start looking at the 800 series, and turn more towards straight 800s, I would HIGHLY suggest aiming for one without thrust reversers. On the straight 800 they are just about a waist. They take a couple of hundred pounds away from your payload (T/Rs add to the BOW)

By the time you land in a Hawker and deploy the lift-dump, the aircraft has slowed considerably and the T/Rs lose the majority of their effectiveness.

I know 800 (with T/Rs) pilots that upon touchdown deploy the T/Rs to idle-deploy and then deploy the speed-brakes/lift-dump. The lift-dump sends the flaps to a near 90 degree down angle acting like big barn doors, causing lots of aerodynamic drag. The 800 has good brakes on it too, so below 80 why not use them?

Maybe by getting a straight 800 without T/Rs, you'll save money vs. an 800XP, and you could afford the 1/2 MIL to do the winglets? Not sure what kind of weight they add, but I wouldn't think it to be much.

I would like to hear more opinions on the 800 with/without TRs topic.

We had both T/R and non T/R 800s where I used to work. And yes, normally on landing I would open the T/Rs to idle and that's it. The airplane does decelerate quite nicely with the lift dump. I would still rather have the reversers than not. That little bit extra is always nice to have especially on a slippery runway when the brakes aren't much help. I would much rather have the reversers than the winglets.

pat

 

[sonicyouth]

I fly straight 800s, with and without TR's. The brakes and antiskid are awesome on the Hawker, but it's nice to have TR's going into short and slippery runways to assist, and as a backup. (ex.- EYW, PWK, APF, etc.)

 

[h25b]

Flying late model 800A's with TR's for 3 years I can't think of a single instance where the additional BOW that the TR's added would have made any difference.


Our aircraft were something like 16,000 empty. I think Maw Ramp. was 27,520. So if you top off (10,000#) it leaves you with a useful load of 1520#... So you could put 5 200 lb. pax plus 520 lbs. of bags.

Get the TR's ...

 

[Rick1128]

Flying late model 800A's with TR's for 3 years I can't think of a single instance where the additional BOW that the TR's added would have made any difference.


Our aircraft were something like 16,000 empty. I think Maw Ramp. was 27,520. So if you top off (10,000#) it leaves you with a useful load of 1520#... So you could put 5 200 lb. pax plus 520 lbs. of bags.

Get the TR's ...

It isn't the 5 pax that bites you, it's the 8 or 9 the boss wants to take and insists on going nonstop coast to coast. I flew a 700 with them and it was a conplete waste of useful load. And I believe the weight is more like 600 pounds.

 

[irapilot]

T/Rs are much more penalty on a 700 than on an 800. On a 700 I would not get T/Rs, on an 800 or 800XP - no question, I would get T/Rs.

800XP is a really great a/c, not the fastest, not the best all around rwy performance, not the sexiest, but a sturdy ride that passengers love. I would love to fly one with winglets to see what it feels like and how it performs.

Of course, it is no WSCOD.

 

[h25b]

I took off out of somewhere in FL one summer in an 800A right behind a 700. The difference in performance is night and day. I would agree that in a 700 TR's wouldn't be worth the weight, but in a 800 or 800XP they make no difference and given the choice I would suggest getting a bird with the TR's.

The 700's are performance pigs, and the 800/800XP are entirely different animals (at least performance wise)...

 

[FracCapt]

I took off out of somewhere in FL one summer in an 800A right behind a 700. The difference in performance is night and day. I would agree that in a 700 TR's wouldn't be worth the weight, but in a 800 or 800XP they make no difference and given the choice I would suggest getting a bird with the TR's.

Speaking from 2500 hours in 700/800/800XP lines, with and without TR's, I say avoid the TR's on an 800A and 700(no choice on the 800XP, you get 'em - period). H25B said that their BOW with TR's is 16,000....most 800A's are significantly heavier than that with TR's.

 

[h25b]

Speaking from 2500 hours in 700/800/800XP lines, with and without TR's, I say avoid the TR's on an 800A and 700(no choice on the 800XP, you get 'em - period). H25B said that their BOW with TR's is 16,000....most 800A's are significantly heavier than that with TR's.

I looked it up and our a/c bow's were in the neighborhood of 16,300.... I was 300# off. So I guess if you plan on getting an 800A, filling it up with 7 pax + bags, and then trying to make it coast to coast you could have a problem.

 

[FracCapt]

I looked it up and our a/c bow's were in the neighborhood of 16,300.... I was 300# off. So I guess if you plan on getting an 800A, filling it up with 7 pax + bags, and then trying to make it coast to coast you could have a problem.

Or if you're planning on getting an 800A with a 16,300 BOW(without the ZFW mod) and putting 7 or 8 people and bags on it. Many of our 800A's with TR's are 16,300 to 16,500 BOW, giving us only about 1000-1200lbs of payload before reaching ZFW. We have pax limits(as little as 5) on many of our 800A's due to the low available payload.

From my experience, 800A's with TR's climb slower and must level at a lower altitude than ones without TR's. I'm not sure what the charts say about this, as I've never compared them side by side....but look in your performance book, just behind the takeoff tab data, and find the MGTOW for a cruise altitude chart and/or the max altitude for weight/temp chart and compare them between TR and non TR airplanes. This could greatly reduce the range of the aircraft.

 

[h25b]

I think if I were in the market for a Hawker I'd get an 800XP... We were based in the Midwest with our 800A's so we never tried any coast to coast trips. My personal record was a 5 hr. 50 min. leg ... Overall, great airplanes and my only complaint was baggage space.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

Just out of curiosity, I looked up the BOW's on the 800A's I flew (no TR's)... they were in the range of 15.6 to 15.8. As much as I like having reversers for those occasions when braking action turns out to be less than reported, I'd look for an 800A without them. They may slow you down a little but you can't plan on it. What you can plan on is reduced payload, increased fuel burn and increased maintenance costs. I'm just not sure the cost/benefit ratio is there. JMHO though... I suppose the first time they save your bacon you don't care what they cost!

cc