Reliability Gulf - Dassault ?

[GVFlyer]

...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)...

Avionics development, like aircraft development, takes years to perfect and Bombardier is starting years behind Gulfstream and Falcon Jet and has very little money for R&D and development. The Global XRS retains the original Global's eight inch CRT displays (Gulfstream Planeview/ Falcon eASY - 14.1 inch full color active matrix LCDs) and the Thales EVS is not a cooled design.

The G5000 has better field performance than the Falcon 7X. It takes the Gulfstream G500 150 ft. more runway to take-off than the G5000, but the Gulfstream's second segment climb is better and once airborne it will fly 700 nm. farther than the G5000 at M 0.80 and 300 nm farther at M 0.85. The G500's landing distance at MLW is within 70 ft. of the G5000's numbers (2770 ft. vs. 2700 ft.)

It's best to try to compare aircraft within the same performance classes:

Gulfstream G350 - Challenger 604 - Falcon 2000EX

Gulfstream G450- Falcon 900EX / 900DX

Gulfstream G500 - Global 5000 - Dassault Falcon 7X

Gulfstream G550 - Global XRS - Boeing BBJ - Airbus A319CJ

Please note that all new aircraft (Global XRS, Falcon 7X) will have typical entry-into-service problems and availability/reliability may not be what you want for the first year or two.


GV

 

[TIS]

evs is a neat toy. it is used about as much as the hud- which is very little.

It's only a toy if you don't have a use for it in your mission profile. Have you ever had to miss on an ILS because there was nothing there at 200'? Perhaps not. There are only a few places in the world where this might be a routine occurrence. California is one of them. With the potential for valley fog in the winter and coastal fog in the summer, the issue is pretty much a full time consideration operating to or from California.

Take a look at 91.175 (l). EVS gets you, for all intents and purposes, Category II minimums on any Cat I approach - without all the messy Cat II certification stuff. If you're dealing with low approaches on a regular basis I'd rather have it than not.

Oh, and if you need to deal with mountainous terrain routinely I'd rather have EVS than not anytime it's dark, or cloudy, or both.

The Falcon people have been trying to develop their own brand of EVS and STILL can't make it do what the Gulfstream EVS has been doing for a couple of years now.

i wouldn't make a purchase based on such things.

Perhaps you wouldn't but four of our owners have. After the HOU accident they all decided that it was time. It's not a light-duty decision either at over $1M per installation. Clearly there is some value to it in their minds. Maybe it has to do with ... oh I don't know ...staying alive? If those guys in HOU had had it they might still be alive today because, quite simply, they would have been able to see that they were in the wrong place.

you won't find BIG round windows in the back of a falcon---that is what pax like.

Absolutely true! But again, some pax have a keen interest in aviation and they know a whole lot more about their plane than that the windows are big. Simply put, buying an airplane is a business decision. Falcons can do a few things that a Gulfstream cannot but a Gulfstream can do a GREAT MANY things that a Falcon cannot. If I'm making a business decision, mission profile is my top concern - can it do what I need it to do? Over 95% of the time a Gulfstream will at least do the same thing as a Falcon but with more room and more class. I don't care where you are - when a Gulfstream shows up you KNOW what has arrived.

TIS

 

[AA717driver]

Deleted due to irrelevance. Spend an hour taking the kids to school and the topic passes you by... TC

 

[TIS]

..LAX

Sure it's there but I'll tel you what, I don't know anyone who really wants to get on the 405 or Sepulveda at 1700 to get to their plane if they don't have to. I have several passengers that will only go to LAX if we're too heavy to go where we want out of SMO or if we're leaving too late/early to comply with Jane Fonda's curfew.

I'm sure there are more than a few others who take the same attitude.

TIS

 

[semperfido]

i can say first hand that we operate two g550 aircraft and they are the finest aircraft i have ever operated. and i have operated the g4 since it was introduced and have NEVER EVER been disappointed. all i can tell you is you won't be sorry with a gulfstream. can't say that with the competition. and i worked for a Co that dumped two 1 yr old DA900s for 2 new G4s (thank you gulfstream).

so senor citizen - you got the numbers... what's it gonna be?

 

[Senior_Citizen]

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?

Is not as simple, we need to know the dark side of each option, the salesman usually don't help on that.

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

We know that incident, our opinion is that the plane's flying cualities wasn't a decisive factor, I lived a verry similar experience on a DC-10, no fatalities but many injuried, the same could be ocurred on a Gulf in the same conditions.The fact is that on Gulfs has died more people, but the plane evolution is impressive, also we flown on the G450 demostrator and its Quality eclipses all previous Gulfs, so we don't consider the Gulfs more dangerous or safer than the Falcons.

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.

Sorry sir, yes I'm not an fluent english spoken (I'm not a native), also I'm not a professional pilot, Ok sir, but I'm a Systems engineer with an Doctorate on Hardware R&D, but the best part is that I'm the best friend (and partner on some business) of the guy who want to purchase the jet.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Thanks to every one, now I'll print all the post. We will meet with some advisors and the sales representatives and the next week we would have the plane selected.

We would need a new F.O. for this plane, so I'll post here our requeriments and offerings to every one interested.

Thanks for your time guys.

 

[semperfido]

It's only a toy if you don't have a use for it in your mission profile. Have you ever had to miss on an ILS because there was nothing there at 200'? TIS

come back after you have actually used the equipment ...it is still evolving and so far i haven't seen it prove itself.

 

[TIS]

come back after you have actually used the equipment ...it is still evolving and so far i haven't seen it prove itself.

I have. What's your point?

Do you need it most of the time? No.

Is it nice arriving/departing EGE at night? Night? What night?

I didn't say it should make the decision but I do certainly assert that the fact that it allows you to see what you otherwise could not in a number of circumstances is not a passing fancy. This IS where things are headed!

Gulfstream's EVS is already working and Dassault's is NOT. That's an advantage in the purchase decision process.

TIS

 

[TIS]

Is not as simple, we need to know the dark side of each option, the salesman usually don't help on that.

Okay, then listen to what you're being told. There are no dark sides to the Gulfstream. It is a ZERO compromise aircraft. About the only thing a Falcon can do better is get in and out of short runways and the GV/500/550 pretty much nullifies that advantage.

Think about it. Just one engine on a GV has more power than all three combined on a Falcon. Keep in mind too that parts for a Falcon are only ioncreasing in price with the current state of the Euro/Dollar ratio.

TIS

 

[semperfido]

i'm glad we have it. it is a neat toy. i like it, but it has yet to really enhance anything. and yes i have been trained in the proper use of both hud and evs. i need more proof in actual applications and i have been using it for over a year and the hud for 4 yrs. other i know in other depts have similar experiences. it still has a long way to go in my opinion.

 

[Flyinjunk]

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



De gustibus non est disputandum


GV







~

Is that anything like Eplurbus uninum????
Novo Seculorom

 

[2000flyer]

I'm surprised the thread lasted as long as it did before the proverbial "Mine is better than yours" argument that always ensues.

 

[GVFlyer]

Is not as simple, we need to know the dark side of each option, the salesman usually don't help on that.

Listen to the pilots posting here, there is no "dark side " to the Gulfstream.

We know that incident, our opinion is that the plane's flying cualities wasn't a decisive factor, I lived a verry similar experience on a DC-10, no fatalities but many injuried, the same could be ocurred on a Gulf in the same conditions.The fact is that on Gulfs has died more people, but the plane evolution is impressive, also we flown on the G450 demostrator and its Quality eclipses all previous Gulfs, so we don't consider the Gulfs more dangerous or safer than the Falcons.

Neither mishap could occur on a Gulfstream - it's control laws and control harmony are such that an artificial feel system such as the Arthur Q system on the Falcon is not required. If I apply too much pressure on the yoke it tells the autopilot that I want to fly the jet and it will simply disengage.

No one has ever perished in a GV/G500/G550. In the history of the G-IV/G300/G350/G400/G450 only a flight crew of three and one passenger have met their demise in the jet. This occurred in an inexplicable accident at Palwaukee in October 1996. There were no mechanical faults in the mishap G-IV.

I'm a Systems engineer with an Doctorate on Hardware R&D

I'm an engineering test pilot and many of the pilots offering you recommendations here are highly qualified professionals. You would serve yourself well to listen to them.

GV








~

 

[2000flyer]

A quick search of the NTSB database to 1/1/80 shows five accidents with fatalities on G3/GIV aircraft. The PWK cause was "pilot not maintaining directional control." During that same period, only one accident had a fatality on DA900/900EX/2000 aircraft. It is the Greek accident you talk about. That one, as well, was pilot error as they should have known that putting pressure on the yoke will cause the trim to change. The pilot was trying to "assist" the AP and when he "let go" of the yoke it ended up in a negative G maneuver that tossed the passengers around.

The NTSB also lists several incidents of mechanical failure on both aircraft types (Gulfstream/Dassault).

Therefore, I don't think your blanket statement on the Falcon fatality was a mechanical failure (or design failure) as it was the pilot who induced the deviation.

Respectfully,
2000Flyer

 

[Flyinjunk]

I'm surprised the thread lasted as long as it did before the proverbial "Mine is better than yours" argument that always ensues.

Well..............................ummmmm .......IT IS !

 

[G100driver]

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
~

GV for the most part your posts have been relivant filled with useful information. This is the 1st time that you have ever stated complete BS on this board. The Arthur had nothing to do with the accident. The pilot, a former Boeing, guy was confused on which airplane he was flying. He was holding down on the pitch sync button while applying forward pressure on the yoke. He though he as disengaging the AP with in reality he was fighting it. When he let go of the yoke the airplane took him and his pax for a ride.

Nothing to do with Aurther. BTW, since did Gulfstream resort to lowbrow tactics to sell their airplanes. I figured that they never needed to ... hmmm is gulfstream starting to run scared?

 

[bigD]

Well I think GVFlyer's point is that if the Boeing pilot had been fighting the AP like that in a GV or such, it would have disengaged, and the accident wouldn't have occured.

 

[bigD]

Not that I'm defending the Gulfstream. I still think it looks like a flying phallus.

 

[GEXDriver]

A quick search of the NTSB database to 1/1/80 shows five accidents with fatalities on G3/GIV aircraft. The PWK cause was "pilot not maintaining directional control." During that same period, only one accident had a fatality on DA900/900EX/2000 aircraft.

GV didn't say anything about G-III accidents. As far as I know, the last G-III was made 20 years ago and there has been only one G-IV fatality accident ever.

It is the Greek accident you talk about. That one, as well, was pilot error as they should have known that putting pressure on the yoke will cause the trim to change. The pilot was trying to "assist" the AP and when he "let go" of the yoke it ended up in a negative G maneuver that tossed the passengers around.
Therefore, I don't think your blanket statement on the Falcon fatality was a mechanical failure (or design failure) as it was the pilot who induced the deviation.

GV for the most part your posts have been relivant filled with useful information. This is the 1st time that you have ever stated complete BS on this board. The Arthur had nothing to do with the accident. The pilot, a former Boeing, guy was confused on which airplane he was flying. He was holding down on the pitch sync button while applying forward pressure on the yoke. He though he as disengaging the AP with in reality he was fighting it. When he let go of the yoke the airplane took him and his pax for a ride.

I think GV's point was that if the Greek pilot or the Amway pilot had tried to overcome the autopilot on the Gulfstream it would have just disengaged rather than sending the aircraft through violent pitch oscillations.

 

[AA717driver]

I still think it looks like a flying phallus.

Yes, it's designed that way. Now EVERYONE knows we "G-unit" pilots are "packin' large". (cue the '50 Cent' track) TC