Reliability Gulf - Dassault ?

[Corona]

Again guys, help us to fly...

My boss has decided to abandon the plan of a mixed fleet (the midsize and the fractional on the GEx while we wait the delivery of the new 7x).

Now he plan to order a G450 or a Falcon 900EX Easy, after talking with the sales man, they offered a good position on the backlog, so the new bird will be delivered on about 11-13 months.

We know about the dispatch record of the Gulfs, also we charted a 900C and our impressions about both birds are excellent.

Also is impressive the Airborne Support of Gulfstream, but Dassalts customers also said they have the best and most flexible warranty (possible Dassault will offer an airborne support program).

The 900's burns very little fuel, has better avionics but a smaller cabin and costs 3 million more equipped with EVS.

The gulf is very reliable, roomier and handsome, but as a some operators commented, some items (not in the 900) requires frequent replacement, also the windshields are expensive, the hydraulic fluid is very corrosive, etc.

I knew here are some certified drivers on both planes.

What is your personal impression about the flying characteristics of each airplane?

Who is easier to fly?

Who is safer to land?

Who is easier (or practical) to maintain?

You could also look at the Embraer Legacy (nicknamed the WSCoD on this board). Apparently, according to at least one pilot here, it can do the job of a Gulfstream or Falcon and for a much lower price!

C

 

[2000flyer]

I see, so the 5X is speculation. Lets see, if they said go today the first deliveries would be about 2010. Whats a little lead time. Of course, the 7X is sold through about 2008-2009 so whats another year.

I'd bet a MINIMUM of 3-5 years before a "5X" announcement, 5-7 for deliveries. I believe it would be a great aircraft, no doubt, but DFJ has shown they'd rather cautiously enter a market rather than dive in and hope. If you question that, look back about 10 years or so, DFJ announced the Falcon 9000. Very...VERY similar to todays 7X, of course without the new wing, engines, EASy, etc. When they found there wasn't a market, they dropped it. Same for a SSTBJ. Sure, it will happen someday but not after years and years of careful consideration.

2000Flyer

 

[Flyinjunk]

Again guys, help us to fly...

My boss has decided to abandon the plan of a mixed fleet (the midsize and the fractional on the GEx while we wait the delivery of the new 7x).

Now he plan to order a G450 or a Falcon 900EX Easy, after talking with the sales man, they offered a good position on the backlog, so the new bird will be delivered on about 11-13 months.

We know about the dispatch record of the Gulfs, also we charted a 900C and our impressions about both birds are excellent.

Also is impressive the Airborne Support of Gulfstream, but Dassalts customers also said they have the best and most flexible warranty (possible Dassault will offer an airborne support program).

The 900's burns very little fuel, has better avionics but a smaller cabin and costs 3 million more equipped with EVS.

The gulf is very reliable, roomier and handsome, but as a some operators commented, some items (not in the 900) requires frequent replacement, also the windshields are expensive, the hydraulic fluid is very corrosive, etc.

I knew here are some certified drivers on both planes.

What is your personal impression about the flying characteristics of each airplane?

Who is easier to fly?

Who is safer to land?

Who is easier (or practical) to maintain?

My brother Go Gulfstream !
You have asked the wrong forum for advise. This one is filled with francophile dassault loving (&$&^(&%(&$(&$
GO GULFSTREAM.

 

[2000flyer]

This one is filled with francophile dassault loving (&$&^(&%(&$(&$GO GULFSTREAM.

I beg your pardon? What did you just call us???

 

[semperfido]

My brother Go Gulfstream !
You have asked the wrong forum for advise. This one is filled with francophile dassault loving (&$&^(&%(&$(&$
GO GULFSTREAM.

ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

 

[Flyinjunk]

I beg your pardon? What did you just call us???

Well big boy at least I didnt call ya shirley ;-0)

 

[Flyinjunk]

I need a drink

 

[GVFlyer]

...get the 900EX Easy now. The Falcon has better flying qualities, better performance, and a nicer cabin.

I was trying to stay out of this, but it's apparrent that an injection of facts is necessary in this dialog. All performance data - 8 pax, standard day, sea level where applicable.


Gulfstream G450/Falcon 900EX

Cabin: G450 - 40'4"L x 6'2" x 7'4" / F900 - 33'2" x 6'2" x 7'8"

Interior volume: G450 - 1,525 cu. ft. / F900 - 1,267 cu.ft.

Baggage volume: G450 - 169 cu.ft. / F900 - 127 cu. ft.

Max. T/O wt.: G450 - 74,600 lb. / F900 - 49,000 lb.

Max Ldg. wt.: G450 - 66,000 lb. / F900 - 44,500 lb.

Max. payload: G450 - 6,000 lb. / F900 - 4,615 lb.

Normal Cruise: G450 - M 0.80 / F900 - M 0.80

Long Range Cruise: G450 - M 0.80 / F900 - M 0.77

MMO (Mach): G450 - M 0.88 / F900 - M 0.84/0.87

Range at Normal Cruise: G450 - 4,350 nm. / F900 - 4,125 nm

Range at Long Range Cruise: G450 - 4,350 nm. / F900 - 4,263 nm.

T/O Dist. MGTOW: G450 - 5,450 ft. / F900 - 5,370 ft.

Ldg. Dist MLW: G450 - 3,260 ft. / F900 - 3,670 ft.

Initial Altitude: G450 - FL410 / F900 - FL390

Max. Alt.: G450 - FL450 @60K lbs (FL430@ 68K lbs) / F900 - FL510 @ ? Lbs

Engines:G450 - (2) Rolls-Royce Tay 611-8C / F900 - (3) Garrett TFE-731-60

Thrust rating ea.: G450 - 13,850 lbs. / F900 - 5,000 lbs.

TBO: G450 - 12,000 hours / F900 - 6,000 hours

Direct Operating Cost: G450 - $1,744 hr. / F900 $ 1,688 hr.

Price in millions: G450 - $33.50 / F900 - $34.65

Our pilots that fly both (GV and DA-900) prefer the Falcon.

De gustibus non est disputandum


GV







~

 

[Senior_Citizen]

... Lets see, if they said go today the first deliveries would be about 2010 ......
2000Flyer

Maybe, the 7X is sold to the 2008, if the "5X" is announced 2007 (a yr later the 7X cert) the 7X backlog could delay this plane to 2009, but it's possible a parallel product line, now the 900EX & DX are built on the same line, but the 900B was built on a different line, the 7X line is new, so the old 900C line still unused.

My source says the "5X" could be available also by 2008. after the "5X", Dassault will develop a twin engined 7X, to replace the 2000EX but this plane coulnd't fly until 2011, the 5X development requires only 8-11 months to acieve the papers, because is a minimal modification of the 7X but a twin engined variant could require more than 3 years to be certified. if developed, because Dassault also could upgrade the current 200EX with the 7X's engines and widshelds, retaining the wing, also integrating FBW to the 2000EX.

More Honeywell also anounces a replacemente engine for the TFE731 series, based on the AS907 developed for the CL300, more reliable, with less SFC, and compatible with current airframes, so will require only an STC to upgrade an AC.
That means another version of the 900EX/DX on the next 3 years.

Very interesting is the Bomardiers's position, with the new Thales Cockpit, the Globals could become the most advanced bizjets, also the G5000 has better field performance than any bizjet (with maybe the only exception of the Da-7X), but Bomardier requires to improve the support, also some quality issues.

To date we can't see a clear winner, the Falcons fly better, but the gulfs grants more satisfaction and less whorries,....

 

[Senior_Citizen]

I was trying to stay out of this, but it's apparrent that an injection of facts is necessary in this dialog. All performance data - 8 pax, standard day, sea level where applicable.


Gulfstream G450/Falcon 900EX
.
.
.
.

Price in millions: G450 - $33.50 / F900 - $34.65

GV

Thanks, we know this data.

 

[GVFlyer]

Thanks, we know this data.

I was replying to a post by Sleepy, but since you asked...

Considering the fact that the Gulfstream is clearly superior to the Dassault in nearly every aspect, why is this such a difficult decision for you?

And what do you mean by "the Falcons fly better"? There is no artificial feel system required on the Gulfstream and no Gulfstream has ever killed anyone because of it's flying qualities or "Arthur Q" system as has the Falcon with the 6 killed on the Greek Foreign Ministry Falcon nor has a Gulfstream permanently disabled a flight attendant as did the Amways Falcon in a repeat of the Greek mishap.

GV








~

 

[falconpilot]

WHAT?!?! GOOFSTREAM SUPERIOR THAN A FALCON!!! GIVE SOME OF WHAT YOUR SMOKIN" BUDDY!

I could have sworn that the 900 has more cabin volume than a GIV, but I could be wrong... Personally I would rather fly a Falcon than any Gulfstream any day of the week and twice on Sunday.... But I'm pretty Falcon bias. Plus I haven't had the luxury of getting to fly any of the new Gulfstreams, just the GII and GIII. They are a sexy lookin' airplane though!! Anyhow... Also the operation cost is cheaper with the 900 to, atleast it was last time I checked... Not sure what the MX cost difference is.. Plus 3 engines is better than 2! However, I did read somewhere that the chances of a Gulfstream's engines failing are as good as all 3 on a 900 failing at the same time....

 

[corp_da20_guy]

I have been wathcing this thread. This has got to be flame bait...I'm sorry. I can not see any individual or corporation depending on someone who uses grammar in the manner above to aquire an aircraft worth $35 mil. I just can't see it. Maybe I'm way off here, but to be able to properly guide and converse with an individual that could afford these types of aircraft would more than likely take someone that is very eloquent. (Unless you happen to be the buyers son or other direct relative)

Good information is coming to light...but I'm just not buying it...sorry to be so pessimistic.

Fly safe!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I never understood that "A Falcon flys better" joke....

Usually that is the last defense of a Falcon Pilot..

A Falcon does NOT fly superior to anything else, in fact, as a Falcon pilot I can tell you I think its has a TERRIBLE feel. It feels like a Cessna 150. Its underpowered - even with 3 engines. It has terriible brakes, terrible nosewheel steering, and one TR that can hardly blow dry leaves, nevermind stop you on a slick runway.....and dont tell me about #'s being produced w/o TR's - I KNOW the drill.....but thanks Id rather have them.

Does it have its qualities? YES, I think it does...it is very simple and reliable.. that means a lot. It also feels well built. If I was going to get thrown into very severe self induced turbulence I would be hapy to be in a Falcon. They seem strong.

But this "fly like no other" bull.....no way....

On top of all this, you guys gotta quit jerking off about it. This guy asking is questionable as it is...I doubt he's making any real decisions....pilots get all self important when these decisions are brought up. Bottom line is the guy with the bucks is going to make the decision. He dosent give a $hit if Joe Pilot says "It flys nice" -- he just tells you he values your opinion to make you feel good.

wake up.

 

[semperfido]

after flying da50 for 2500 hrs and then a da900 for 900 hrs i was impressed by the superior design of the g4. i still feel the same way 14 yrs later.

 

[GVFlyer]

WHAT?!?! GOOFSTREAM SUPERIOR THAN A FALCON!!! GIVE SOME OF WHAT YOUR SMOKIN" BUDDY!

I could have sworn that the 900 has more cabin volume than a GIV, but I could be wrong... Personally I would rather fly a Falcon than any Gulfstream any day of the week and twice on Sunday.... But I'm pretty Falcon bias. Plus I haven't had the luxury of getting to fly any of the new Gulfstreams, just the GII and GIII. They are a sexy lookin' airplane though!! Anyhow... Also the operation cost is cheaper with the 900 to, atleast it was last time I checked... Not sure what the MX cost difference is.. Plus 3 engines is better than 2! However, I did read somewhere that the chances of a Gulfstream's engines failing are as good as all 3 on a 900 failing at the same time....

G450 Interior volume is 1,525 cu.ft (G500/G550 - 1,669 cu. ft.), Falcon 900EX interior volume is 1,267 cu. ft.

I, for one, would really prefer not to fly at all on Sunday, however...

You are almost right - statisticaly you are more likely to lose two of the Falcon's Honeywell TFE 731's (originally designed as a DC-10 APU) than one of the Gulfstream's Rolls-Royces. Part of the reason is the rotational velocity of the spools on the two engines. The Garrett runs at 101% and just over 40,000 rpm, while the Rolls-Royce loafs along at 88-89% with the fastest spool on the engine turning just 11,000 rpm.

Maintenance costs are a component of operating costs - did you notice the 12,000 hour TBO on the Gulfstream's engines?

And by the way, if three-engined airplanes were a good idea, someone besides Dassault would make them. Even Yak stopped. The reason the Falcon was made with three engines is because their was no engine available with an appropriate thrust deck to allow for a two engine design.

Dassault has always grandfathered design elements when desiging new aircraft - the 900 was built on the 50 wing, the 2000 has the 900 cabin - so it is likely that the new 7X wing will be the basis of a new product line.

Note Bene: At Dassault's request Honeywell no longer releases TFE-731 engine reliability statistics.

 

[TIS]

can you afford a g550? a g450 is just a souped up g4.

Actually it's really not and there are some VERY good reasons to stay away from a G-V/500/550. For example, suppose your primary mission needs to be picking people up or dropping off in SMO. Youre not gonna be doing that in the GV.

g200 isn't a gulfstream- no comparison.

100% true! I've heard several G100/200 guys start struttin' about the Gulfstream they're flying only to have them eventually reveal that they've only got little windows to show for it. It's really amazing how many pilots will say or do anything to be a Gulfstream pilot!

or just find a nice used g4 to get your feet wet.

Now this is a really good idea! A G-IVSP will get you out of your 6500' long, 3000' high airport and go 2700 NM at .80M at temps up to 35°C.

Assumptions:
- Tab data used and interpolated between 2000' & 4000' figures
- BOW 43000
- Fuel for 2700NM @.80M = 18500
- Reserve = 5000

You can actually get darn close to 40°C carrying that fuel load or you could do something else. You could also go about 3300 NM at temps up to 30°C because you can carry the fuel to do it.

Gulfstreams are zero compromise aircraft - in general.

Then there is the issue of the engines. The allusion was made to a VW vs. A Ferrari earlier. What about a Rolls Royce? do I really need to say more? Tays don't work very hard to do what they do. Garretts work hard just to run at idle, let alone carry you to FL 410.

TIS

 

[Kingairrick]

I'm leaning towards the corp da20 guy's opinion. As for the debate; twin engine airplanes are nice, I got my multi rating in one...

 

[semperfido]

Actually it's really not and there are some VERY good reasons to stay away from a G-V/500/550. For example, suppose your primary mission needs to be picking people up or dropping off in SMO. Youre not gonna be doing that in the GV.

..LAX

 

[Snakum]

Senior ... every time someone buys a European aircraft, God kills a kitten.

Please Senior C ... think of the kittens!
[url="http://www.activesolutions.com/thichminhthong/images/kitten.jpg"]www.activesolutions.com/thichminhthong/images/kitten.jpghttp://www.activesolutions.com/thichminhthong/images/kitten.jpg[/url]


Minhausen By Proxy (server)