Reliability Gulf - Dassault ?

[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)

 

[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