Which jet would work?

[Huggyu2]

For those of you "in the know", what jet would be able to fit the following criteria:
- fly non stop from Northern CA to the east coast;
- fly non stop from the east coast to London
- operate out of a 4000' long runway (does this eliminate everyone?)
- what happens if the runway length were 6000' instead? 7000'?

Gulfstream, Challenger, Falcon? Something else?

 

[citdrver]

With the 4,000 ft. runway..I'd call the frenchman at Dassault, Falcons are your best bet for good range combined with good takeoff and landing numbers.

 

[Lead Sled]

For those of you "in the know", what jet would be able to fit the following criteria:
- fly non stop from Northern CA to the east coast;
- fly non stop from the east coast to London
- operate out of a 4000' long runway (does this eliminate everyone?)
- what happens if the runway length were 6000' instead? 7000'?

Gulfstream, Challenger, Falcon? Something else?

How many people are you thinking about hauling?

 

[bigepilot]

I know it won't have the same prestige and speed but apparently the CE-680 (Sovereign) has numbers better than what Cessna claimed it would do. 2800 nautical on the range (coast to coast any day of the year) and down right ridiculous ref speeds and landing numbers. Maybe someone from citation shares could elaborate. I know a few corporate shops run them already.

 

[semperfido]

- fly non stop from Northern CA to the east coast;
- fly non stop from the east coast to London

what about the return?

what is the budget? 10M? 15M? 20M? 25M? more? and yes a 6000' rwy would give you more options on a day to day operation. wet rwy, ifr approaches are just a couple considerations that could impede a 4000' operation. and remember they always end up wanting to do more than they originally intended.

 

[bigD]

WSCoD!

 

[rice]

Here ya go

DA-900B, 400' field elev. 29.92, 15c, 4000' RW, no wind, no slope
Basic BOW 25500
MATOW 39780
BFL 4000'
Gross Climb 9.3%
V1 105
V2/Vr 121
Vfr 146
Vfs 174
Vref@42k 132 LD/LFL 3550/5930

 

[jet-blast]

falcon will do it...

The Falcon Tri-jets are the planes for this mission. Performance #'s even gets better with the EX models.

 

[limodriver1]

I would look into CL-30 (BD100)

I would look into challenger 300! Many times the required landing distance can come in to play also! Challenger 300 has awesome performance! It is also under 20 mil$

 

[G100driver]

I would look into challenger 300! Many times the required landing distance can come in to play also! Challenger 300 has awesome performance! It is also under 20 mil$

Does this have an IRS yet?

 

[Shag McNasty]

What does an IRS have to do with performance?

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

Falcon 50EX

That will do the job without any trouble and it will be nice to have 3 engines when crossing the pond. The acquisition price will be less than some other 2 engine jets that would justify the extra fuel burn, safety, etc. There are a number of Falcon 50EXs out there.

If you didn't need to cross the pond much, then you could consider a smaller jet. The Hawker HP or 1000 could fit the bill. A stand-up cabin is nice; the boss will appreciate that. How much is in you budget? G3 or G4!

Enjoy the jumbo prawns!

 

[Heavy Set]

I agree with Jeff. I would look at either a used Falcon 50EX (three engines are nice and keep the boss less nervous on the ocean crossings) or the Challenger 300. I know of one CL300 that is used for flights to Asia through Alaska and frequent trips to Europe. It is a proven aircraft like the 50EX.

Let us know what you choose...

 

[G100driver]

What does an IRS have to do with performance?

Nothing. Just I wonder why. When we looked at one they were a little short on equiptment I thought.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Anyone that has mentioned that DA-50 is who you should listen to. Especially the EX. In July if the boss wants to hit ASE or EGE for a quick 18 holes once airborne to the West coast, no problem. That 50 will go in and out of there all day long. You say the plane is full of 250lb pax and all their luggage and golf clubs and they want to go to TEB? No problem. You are still not even close to MGTOW and that big 'ol fat slat is hanging out there getting you airborne in 30c temps with room to spare. Reccommend the 50EX and you'll be a hero.

 

[Kingairrick]

Straight 50 (not EX):
Field elev: 1000ft
Temp: 25 C
Runway 4000'
MATOW: 34280 = 12000 lb useful load
You're landing in TEB with 4 pax, bags, and 3000 lbs in the tanks...

 

[Huggyu2]

Folks,
The replies are appreciated, and I'm not just trying to post a B.S. posting. Budget is somewhat unlimited in that even a top-of-the-line Gulfstream-type jet would be considered. Number of folks/pax: usually 4 or less. If you've actually got time in a "contender", speak up.
Thanks.

 

[Lead Sled]

Folks,
The replies are appreciated, and I'm not just trying to post a B.S. posting. Budget is somewhat unlimited in that even a top-of-the-line Gulfstream-type jet would be considered. Number of folks/pax: usually 4 or less. If you've actually got time in a "contender", speak up.
Thanks.

4 pax or less with budget constraints and a 5,000 or 6,000 foot runway then it would be tough to beat an Astra SPX/G100. I've flown many trips from the Seattle/Portland area to London with one stop with 4 passengers. It's not the roomiest of cabins, but with 4 it's doable. It will non-stop coast to coast either direction day-in, day-out with 4 or 5 pax and do it with plenty of fuel reserves. If your budget will allow more then the larger Gulfsteams, Falcons, Challengers, etc will, of course, all do it. It really boils down to how much of their money are they willing to spend.

'Sled

 

[semperfido]

Folks,
Budget is somewhat unlimited in that even a top-of-the-line Gulfstream-type jet would be considered. Number of folks/pax: usually 4 or less..

if you have a choice, or say in the matter ( and your post inferred you do), then i would forget the day to day operation out of a 4000' airport. a 6000' runway will give you many more options in the future as well as increase your safety margins every time you takeoff or land.

number of pax is somewhat irelevant as many large corp acft carry 1 -4 people on a typical trip. it is nice to have the extra seats just in case they want to bring friends and/or family. if you are going across the country or ponds you want them to be comfortable. you need a wide body, stand-up cabin for that ( preferrably one with big oval windows ). that narrows your choice to only a few manufacturers.

show me the money

 

[Kingairrick]

OK, Falcon 900EX:
33Million (nicely equipped)
Field elev: 1000'
Temp: 25C
MATOW: 39950=13000lb useful load
You're landing in TEB with 4 pax, bags, well rested, with 3000lbs in the tanks.

http://www.falconjet.com/aircraft/900ex/

You also have the ability to go to Aspen anytime, and cross any ocean at will. Get the forward crew lav option. It comes in handy when you have full seats and late at night.