Sovereign vs G200 vs Challenger 300 vs G150

[ag2pilot]

Hello,

Any thoughts about these airplanes.

Thanks.

 

[g4800xp]

Citation, you can not knock them, great at what they were designed for, G150, good perf, tiny cabin, coast to coast, no thanks
G200 becoming a good airplane, (note becoming) getting better.
CL30 spectacular performance, large cabin, sips fuel, not a great galley. just my 2cents

 

[wolfpackpilot]

Any thoughts about these airplanes.

Sovereign vs G200 vs Challenger 300 vs G150

translation:

Chevrolet 1500 crew cab vs Saab SUV vs Honda Odyssey vs Mini Cooper (P.O.S.)

 

[ag2pilot]

Thanks
Was the tiny cabin refering to the G150 or G100? Anybody flying the 150?

Ive heard some negative comments about the G200 from pilots who fly them, mainly pertaining to behavior on the runway, and not very good x-wind capabilities.

 

[CL600Pilot]

I recently had the opportunity to fly a Sov. sim - seemed to be a pretty decent airplane but the cockpit is TINY - seems like there is more room in Ultra. My body started aching just thinking about sitting in that thing across the country.

CL

 

[400A]

Thanks
Was the tiny cabin refering to the G150 or G100? Anybody flying the 150?

.

Both, they made it fatter, but still not much on seating.

 

[g4800xp]

I would prefer my G4 anyday, I love it. I would say you make a good auto comparison, but my CL30/Honda Odyssey climbs direct to 430 at mgtow at .80 and at 1.5 hours into trip fl450 on 1500# hour. I have spoke with crews flying over seven hours, try BFI-BIKF. It is no Glf, but it is not supposed to be. I have to think it is superior by far to the other types mentioned.

Sovereign vs G200 vs Challenger 300 vs G150

translation:

Chevrolet 1500 crew cab vs Saab SUV vs Honda Odyssey vs Mini Cooper (P.O.S.)

 

[Tgaug6300]

The 680 is a wonderful airplane to fly. None of the other planes mentioned have the approach speeds, nor the short field capability of the 680. I have to admit, I am a little bias though.

 

[need2fly]

I would prefer my G4 anyday, I love it. I would say you make a good auto comparison, but my CL30/Honda Odyssey climbs direct to 430 at mgtow at .80 and at 1.5 hours into trip fl450 on 1500# hour. I have spoke with crews flying over seven hours, try BFI-BIKF. It is no Glf, but it is not supposed to be. I have to think it is superior by far to the other types mentioned.

Not really part of this discussion. Asked about some specific airframes and you pipe in with some other airframe not even part of the discussion. I think the 777 is superior, but not relavant to this thread.

 

[ag2pilot]

need2fly,

I see you've got G200 listed under a/c flown. What is your opinion of them?

 

[petitepilot]

The G200 is my first corporate jet and I only have 80 hours in it, but here is my 2 cents.

If you are based at an airport with only 5,000 ft. runway, like I am, you're going to be limited to approx. 1,300 NM range if you want to carry any pay load, thats about 30,000 lbs t/o weight @ 25 C (35,450 lbs max). With its relatively small wing, this airplane eats runway.

If runway is not a factor and 2nd segment climb is not overly limiting, this little plane, in my opinion, can go quite far. The other week I flew from south Florida to the SFO area with 6 adults, 3 babies and all the strollers and baggage they brought. We took off with 13,000 lbs of fuel (yes, max t/o weight) and landed 6 hours later with 1,700 lbs. Initial altitude was FL 360 with step climbs to FL430. Average speed was Mach .79.

As a 6'2", 240 lbs guy the flight deck is in no way roomy but works, even on long flights.

When hand flown the G200 is a little pitch sensitive but an honest airplane (much like the CL-65 (CRJ)) and behave fine in x-wind landings.

I would think with its good runway performance, the CL 300 would be the best of the four planes you listed.

 

[GVFlyer]

Current Gulfstream G200 dispatch reliability for the 12 month period ending November 2006 is 99.65%.


Here's a comparo between the G200, the Challenger CL300 and the Cessna Sovereign.


Cabin: 24'5"L x 6'3"H x 7'2"W / 23'7"L x 6'1"H x 7'2"W / 25'3"L x 5'8"H x 5'6"W

Baggage Volume:150 cu. ft. / 106 cu. ft. / 135 cu. ft. (includes 35 cu. ft. internal storage)

Normal Cruise: M0.80 / M0.80 / M0.72

Long Range Cruise: M0.75 / M0.75 / M0.67

Mmo: M0.85 / M0.83 / M 0.80

Range @ Norm. Cruise: 3,050 nm / 3,250 nm / 2,881 nm

Range @ LRC: 3,400 nm / 3,317nm / 2,894 nm

T/O Dist. (SL, ISA, MGTOW): 6,080 ft. / 4,810 ft. / 3,640 ft.

Ldg. Dist.(SL, ISA, MLW): 3,280 ft. / 2,610 ft. / 3,144 ft.

Initial Alt.: FL390 / FL410 / FL410

Max Alt.: FL450 / FL450 / FL470

DOC: $1,949 hr. / $1,891 / $2,032

Price: $20.65 million / $19.21 million / $15.48 million


If you're flying out of a short field and you can stand the Sovereign's current entry-into-service problems and glacial speeds, the Cessna is a pretty easy choice.

Deciding between the Gulfstream G200 and the Challenger CL300 is not so easy, but I would include Gulfstream's number one rated service support with Airborne Product Support into my deliberations.

The G150 cannot be fairly compared with the other three jets at it's $13.50 million price point.

G150 Specifications.

Cabin: 17'8"L x 5'9"H x 5'9"W

Baggage Volume: 80 cu. ft.

Normal Cruise: M0.80

Long Range Cruise:M0.75

Mmo: M0.85

Range @ Norm. Cruise: 2,600 nm

Range @ LRC: 2,950 nm

T/O Dist. (SL, ISA, MGTOW): 5,000 ft.

Ldg. Dist.(SL, ISA, MLW): 2,880 ft.

Initial Alt.: FL410

Max Alt.: FL450

DOC: $1,492 hr.

Price: $13.50 million


All of the G100/G150 pilots that I've talked to like the airplanes and are pretty quick to defend them if I make the mistake of saying they're not real Gulfstreams.




GV

 

[ag2pilot]

Thanks GV and petite pilot... lots of info.

I realize the price diff with the 150, but its on the radar for us. I have never spoken to anyone flying the g200 that really brags on it, and never to anyone in the 150 at all.

Thanks again.

 

[petitepilot]

Baggage volume on my G200 is 125 cu. ft, 1980 lbs max. Maybe the interior can be customized to add baggage space.

 

[ghostrider64]

First off there is no perfect airplane...They all have advantages.

I had a G4 crew sit in my 200 and they mentioned the cockpit being larger in the 200. I cant say because I've never been in the G4 cockpit.

I did a trip from KFRG to KSMO that was scheduled in a Falcon 2000 but they couldn't do the trip non stop against nasty winds that we had.

Xwinds are not a problem. Of course that might be because I spent the past 2 years driving X's around where you had to be careful.

I love the baggage compartment. Hell we flew a xmas tree last week...Big is definitely better.

Our galley sucks because we don't have any way to heat food in our planes. This sux on 7 hour legs.

The avionics are a little screwy but you get use to them just like all avionics.

Step climbs will be in your future.

Your pax will love the cabin.

 

[jonjuan]

Baggage volume on my G200 is 125 cu. ft, 1980 lbs max. Maybe the interior can be customized to add baggage space.

The 300 and Galaxy 200 are galaxies apart. When you start to peel the onion, which GVFlyer sometimes doesn't like to do, the 6'3" height of the G200 is from a dropped aisle which slopes up toward the aft. A dropped aisle in a $20MM aircraft??? The LRC in the 300 is .78, not .75. It's wing is much more efficient than that of the G200. A balanced field length difference of 1,270 feet (that's 20%). Landing distance difference of 610 feet (20%). Direct to 43,000 at MTOW in the 300 versus a step climb-ouch. Boots on a wing? The baggage? External on the G200. Accessible in flight on the 300.
Add all of that to an expected residual value difference of anywhere between 15 and 20% higher for the 300 after 6 years and the difference is VERY easy. GD ought to be embarrassed by their very ugly step-baby.

 

[NJAFracPilot]

The Citation X costs over $20 million and has a step-down aisle.

Our crews like the G200. It'll fly legs my Falcon 2000 won't.

The CL300 will not go directly to FL430 at gross and LRC is M.75 not M.78.








`

 

[ghostrider64]

BTW the 200 cruises easily between .80-.82

 

[LJ45]

what about the dated avionics in the 200? Can you carry any payload with full fuel yet in the 200? What about the flap slat failure issues?

 

[SkyGirl]

Add all of that to an expected residual value difference of anywhere between 15 and 20% higher for the 300 after 6 years and the difference is VERY easy.

Who told you that? A salesman? I guess somebody's got to believe them.



_SkyGirL_

 

[FraxJockey]

?

The CL300 will not go directly to FL430 at gross and LRC is M.75 not M.78.

`

According to the QRH it can go to F430 at MTGW up to ISA+10. Been there done that MANY times.

According to the Cruise Flight Manual LRC @ ISA @38000# & F430 yields .797Mach.

 

[GEXDriver]

The 300 and Galaxy 200 are galaxies apart.

I agree, the famed Bombardier support we've enjoyed on our Global would be enough to keep me away from a Challenger CL300.

 

[SeaSpray]

According to the QRH it can go to F430 at MTGW up to ISA+10. Been there done that MANY times.

You've been directly to FL430 in a 39,000 pound Challenger 300 at ISA +10?

Bull!

SS

 

[FraxJockey]

You've been directly to FL430 in a 39,000 pound Challenger 300 at ISA +10?

Bull!

SS

I've been to F430 from a MTGW takeoff. I didn't say it was ISA+10. But it can and WILL do it. But heck I only flew it 2 years and have over 1000hrs. on it....what do I know. Plus the only way it would weigh 39K at F430 is if it was teleported there seeing how the MGTOW is 39K.

Frax

 

[400A]

Who told you that? A salesman? I guess somebody's got to believe them.



_SkyGirL_

Salesman does not have to tell you that. A quick search of the internet will show you that.

One website shows 0f 145 G-200's, 9 are for sale. Of 122 CL-300's 0 were for sale. I did however find one aircraft available from toy store. I am sure those numbers are not exact, but is a fair reflection.

I have friends flying both aircraft. The friend flying the 300 loves it, while the one flying the G-200 has his tech rep on speed dial.

 

[GVFlyer]

You've been directly to FL430 in a 39,000 pound Challenger 300 at ISA +10?

Bull!

SS

Good call, SeaSpray! Even if that is in FraxJockey’s QRH, Bombardier has always been wildly optimistic about cruise data.

Take-off and landing data is the only FAA certificated data in the Aircraft Flight Manual. Cruise data need only be representative of a “test article in the developmental test program”. Bombardier is notorious for collecting this data in uncompleted “green” aircraft without interiors.

As a matter of fact, when Gulfstream leased a Global Express for flight test and competitive analysis we found the Global cruise manual overstated actual range by as much as 11%!

I always wanted to run an ad in B&CA or AIN that was simply two blank pages facing each other. On the bottom of one it would say, “Promises Bombardier has kept”. On the bottom of the facing blank page it would state, “Promises Gulfstream has broken”.

In any event, Gulfstream Sales Engineering / Technical Marketing and Fall 2006 Conklin & deDecker agree with you that a Challenger CL300 taking off at it’s 39,000 lb MGTOW (as all initial climb data is stated) at SL on a Standard Day is only going to make it to FL410.

Here’s the Bombardier spec sheet that states the CL300’s initial cruise altitude at MGTOW is FL410.

http://www.spal.com.hk/fact_book/challenger_300_factsheet.pdf



GV

 

[FraxJockey]

Just the facts

I am just stating what I have seen with my own two eyes. It may have been at ISA or Isa-5 but it was at MGTOW and it was F430. It WILL do F410 at any temp (done it at ISA+15) @Mgtow. Regardless of how the OTHER Bombardier products perform, the CL30 meets and most of the time exceeds the book numbers, just ask any CL30 pilot. Regardless of what altitude you go to, the short field performance numbers and high, hot, and heavy numbers are among the best for any aircraft in its class.

 

[fatburger]

I'm going with frax's opinion. Seeing it rather than reading it decide it for me. Proof is in the pudding.

-fatburger-

 

[jonjuan]

Good call, SeaSpray! Even if that is in FraxJockey’s QRH, Bombardier has always been wildly optimistic about cruise data.

Take-off and landing data is the only FAA certificated data in the Aircraft Flight Manual. Cruise data need only be representative of a “test article in the developmental test program”. Bombardier is notorious for collecting this data in uncompleted “green” aircraft without interiors.

As a matter of fact, when Gulfstream leased a Global Express for flight test and competitive analysis we found the Global cruise manual overstated actual range by as much as 11%!

I always wanted to run an ad in B&CA or AIN that was simply two blank pages facing each other. On the bottom of one it would say, “Promises Bombardier has kept”. On the bottom of the facing blank page it would state, “Promises Gulfstream has broken”.

In any event, Gulfstream Sales Engineering / Technical Marketing and Fall 2006 Conklin & deDecker agree with you that a Challenger CL300 taking off at it’s 39,000 lb MGTOW (as all initial climb data is stated) at SL on a Standard Day is only going to make it to FL410.

Here’s the Bombardier spec sheet that states the CL300’s initial cruise altitude at MGTOW is FL410.

http://www.spal.com.hk/fact_book/challenger_300_factsheet.pdf



GV

GV-We trust you on the Global, however, that's not what we're talking about here. The 300's performance, however, is better than advertised. LRC is .78, not .75. I'd love to hear about the Gulfstream G200 test pilots report of their full evaluation of the CL300. I am sure you'd hear a "holy sh1t!" or two. Your AIN ad would start to get filled on both pages. Your defending the performance of the G200 is a bit amusing. Don't worry, however, she's not a Gulfstream.

 

[jonjuan]

I have friends flying both aircraft. The friend flying the 300 loves it, while the one flying the G-200 has his tech rep on speed dial.

Not true. According to GV, Gulfstream keeps its promises.