Hawker 900XP vs. Sovereign

[400A]

What kind of Hawker are you flying? The 4000?? Because that's the only Hawker I've flown that will sit on .80 "all day long".

Unless you are flying down below FL350, ISA + 20 and have the thing at max continuous, I have a hard time believing you are sitting on .80 and 465 TAS.

You are also comparing a Mid to a Super... so of course the 680 is going to be bigger.

Just get a Challenger 300 and be done with it. Direct operating cost is very close... and if you're going to spend the cash on a 680, the 300 is a much better buy.

As a side note, if you do not know how to effectively climb the aircraft, you are correct, it will not do it.

 

[Bleeds On]

Cut all those numbers in half for explosive.

Why, and where did you glean this info? The way I understand it, a body that is already at a cabin alt of either FL400 or FL450 has the TUC stated. I doubt they factored a specific cabin leak rate. I could be wrong but please show me that.

Edit: Did a little search. While I can't confirm the veracity of this study, it concurs with FSI's notes and states "rapid decompression". http://www.theairlinepilots.com/medical/decompressionandhypoxia.htm

 

[400A]

Why, and where did you glean this info? The way I understand it, a body that is already at a cabin alt of either FL400 or FL450 has the TUC stated. I doubt they factored a specific cabin leak rate. I could be wrong but please show me that.

Edit: Did a little search. While I can't confirm the veracity of this study, it concurs with FSI's notes and states "rapid decompression". http://www.theairlinepilots.com/medical/decompressionandhypoxia.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness

 

[Bleeds On]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness

"[citation needed]" The problem with wikipedia. While I don't deny it would have an effect, I believe it's factored into the time range. Cut it in half...don't cut it in half, it isn't much time any way you skin it.

 

[400A]

You are also comparing a Mid to a Super... so of course the 680 is going to be bigger.

.

Could care less what category the marketing department places them in. The 680 and the 900XP are almost identical on paper. Even their weights are only 2000 pounds apart. Sovereign cabin is barely bigger. not a factor with an avg of 4 pax.

300 is not in the budget. Wish it was.

 

[Bleeds On]

Could care less what category the marketing department places them in. The 680 and the 900XP are almost identical on paper. Even their weights are only 2000 pounds apart. Sovereign cabin is barely bigger. not a factor with an avg of 4 pax.

300 is not in the budget. Wish it was.

So back on topic....What is your budget, roughly? How far back in age are you willing to go? Do you have in-house MX that would possibly transition to a 900XP more easily and retain all the usual reps on speed dial? Etc etc.

 

[400A]

So back on topic....What is your budget, roughly? How far back in age are you willing to go? Do you have in-house MX that would possibly transition to a 900XP more easily and retain all the usual reps on speed dial? Etc etc.

We buy new. We use the factory service center. Settled on a New 900XP assuming production is allowed to resume. Accomplished differences during recurrent last week. We will pay much less than we did for our 2008.

 

[400A]

"[citation needed]" The problem with wikipedia. While I don't deny it would have an effect, I believe it's factored into the time range. Cut it in half...don't cut it in half, it isn't much time any way you skin it.

2 more.

http://www.abag.org.br/noticias/155.html

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Time_of_Useful_Consciousness

I will also note that I have been through this. If you don't think an explosion will shorten the time versus something slower, you are fooling yourself.

 

[CDogg]

As a matter of fact, yes I do! You should try honesty some time!

Now you are jumping to conclusions, "hoss"... I have a special issuance, because I am actually indeed honest.

As for running a 900XP at .80 all day long, still calling the BS flag, sorry "hoss".

You are going to pay 10m + for a 900XP, and probably around 15m for a 680... so why were you even comparing the two if you would not consider looking for a nice Challenger 300 in the 12m range, twice the airplane of the 900XP for the same price, and similar operating costs... Don't get me wrong I am all about the Hawker, still fly one today, but seems like for the dollar it's not really the best bang for the buck buying a new one for what you have described so far.

 

[400A]

Now you are jumping to conclusions, "hoss"... I have a special issuance, because I am actually indeed honest.

As for running a 900XP at .80 all day long, still calling the BS flag, sorry "hoss".

You are going to pay 10m + for a 900XP, and probably around 15m for a 680... so why were you even comparing the two if you would not consider looking for a nice Challenger 300 in the 12m range, twice the airplane of the 900XP for the same price, and similar operating costs... Don't get me wrong I am all about the Hawker, still fly one today, but seems like for the dollar it's not really the best bang for the buck buying a new one for what you have described so far.

Because the boss wants new! It's just that simple. Guess all my friends that fly 900's are liars.

 

[CDogg]

New 900XP for 10 any day over a New 680 for 13-15 any day. Much much more comfortable in the back and up front.

900 I fly seems to like it around .74/430 at mid weights - .76 getting towards the last hour or 2 if you are keeping the power pushed up a bit. We are seeing around .75 the last hour or 2 at around 1300lb/hr. Mid weights we usually see 1850-1900 first hour, then set around 1400lbs the second hour and usually get right around .74. I could see getting .78 like you refer to, but the power would have to be pretty far up and you are just pissing fuel away at that point.


The -50's do pretty good. Enjoy the new bird, put wifi on it!

 

[kingairyahoo]

minus all the hooplah, this is a pretty good* thread...


*shake well before use, dont leave in direct sunlight, and your mileage may vary

 

[400A]

We fly at mid weights and mid to high 30's due to our stage lengths. (avg 1.5 - 2.0) Ours is as predictable as the day is long. We high speed climb. As a general rule, the last few thousand feet are around .76 and 1000fpm. Level off and set 95% on the N1 and she settles in at .77 to .78. On the rare occasion it is ISA'ish, it will take 93%. Temps are below 900.

We rarely do long range, but on a 4 hour flight from Van Nuys to ATL last November, it was cable of those speeds @ FL410. It did take it about 30 minutes to accelerate. We ran .76. 3:48mins and landed with 2800lbs. To get 5 hours it does require LRC. Our longest flight to date is 4:53 landing with 2200 lbs. Remember, I only have 8500lbs.

I have heard a couple reports that the bigger fan blades on the 900 create a little more drag at altitude.

 

[spxdriver]

New 900XP for 10 any day over a New 680 for 13-15 any day. Much much more comfortable in the back and up front.

Having 500+ hours in both airplanes, I can't say I agree re: comfort. The cockpit is about equal, but the cabin of the Sovereign is far better than the Hawker, and the passengers seem to agree. True, the Sovereign is 6" narrower, but it is 4' longer, and no space is taken up by the baggage area. The double club seating is very comfortable, and the 3000' lower cabin altitude at FL410 helps quite a lot too.

 

[400A]

Having 500+ hours in both airplanes, I can't say I agree re: comfort. The cockpit is about equal, but the cabin of the Sovereign is far better than the Hawker, and the passengers seem to agree. True, the Sovereign is 6" narrower, but it is 4' longer, and no space is taken up by the baggage area. The double club seating is very comfortable, and the 3000' lower cabin altitude at FL410 helps quite a lot too.

I agree 100% on the cabin. Seats in the back were far more comfortable also. Luggage was awesome and the galley was very nice too.

I am a big guy though and the flight decks were not in the same realm to me. Our Beechjet had more room than the Sovereign flight deck and so did our Premier. I could not even stretch my legs out. In the Hawker, I can stretch my legs all the way out and still recline the seat. Sovereign seat was all the way back to the bulkhead. no room to recline.

Would still fly one with a smile on my face though.

In a day and age where one SIC position on a G-150 gets over 600 applicants, It is not a good time to hang your hat on flight deck comfort.

 

[caseyd]

minus all the hooplah, this is a pretty good* thread...


*shake well before use, dont leave in direct sunlight, and your mileage may vary

Agreed...100%.

Anybody want to comment on 680 Capt pay. 2 ship, large mid Atlantic public company. Thanks.

 

[400A]

Agreed...100%.

Anybody want to comment on 680 Capt pay. 2 ship, large mid Atlantic public company. Thanks.

I would be curious to see those numbers also. Realistic numbers in today's economy. Specify what part of the country as well. West Coast pay scales and Southeast pay scales will be very different.

 

[paulsalem]

2012 Pro Pilot Magazine Salary Survey

 

[-FlyAuburn-]

Could care less what category the marketing department places them in. The 680 and the 900XP are almost identical on paper. Even their weights are only 2000 pounds apart. Sovereign cabin is barely bigger. not a factor with an avg of 4 pax.

300 is not in the budget. Wish it was.

Are they identical on range? Also can the 900XP carry 1000 lbs in an aft baggage compartment that is not located inside the cabin?

If the answer is no to both then you have to ask yourself are increased range and payload capacity important enough to make the switch or are they not a factor?

We have two 680s and coming from the Citation X I have to say that the 680 is a fine airplane. There are definitely some things I don't like about it, but all of them had to do with increasing the simplicity of the design and cutting cost.

It is an excellent climbing airplane, can carry plenty of fuel and still have payload to spare for lots of people/bags, and can fly around at or very close to .80 most of the time with no issues in the mid to upper 30s as well as up to and including FL410. Average TAS is 455-460 kts.

Couple that with some of the best short field capability in class and you have a very unique airplane that can do a lot of things and do them well.

 

[400A]

Are they identical on range? Also can the 900XP carry 1000 lbs in an aft baggage compartment that is not located inside the cabin?

If the answer is no to both then you have to ask yourself are increased range and payload capacity important enough to make the switch or are they not a factor?

We have two 680s and coming from the Citation X I have to say that the 680 is a fine airplane. There are definitely some things I don't like about it, but all of them had to do with increasing the simplicity of the design and cutting cost.

It is an excellent climbing airplane, can carry plenty of fuel and still have payload to spare for lots of people/bags, and can fly around at or very close to .80 most of the time with no issues in the mid to upper 30s as well as up to and including FL410. Average TAS is 455-460 kts.

Couple that with some of the best short field capability in class and you have a very unique airplane that can do a lot of things and do them well.

Sovereign Ferry Range: 2847 (Predicated on FL470) 900XP Ferry Range:
2900 (Both NBAA IFR with 200 mile reserve)

Range for both with 2000lbs payload: Approx 2600

Sovereign payload with full fuel: 1197 lbs. 900XP payload with full fuel is 1620 lbs.

We NEVER carry 1000 lbs of luggage, but they do often access it in flight, so I am still trying to see the increased range or payload capabilities.

We never have the need to go under 5000ft of runway.

As I said before. Almost identical.