Notar520AC From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1606 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11317 times:
Well, I like both, and I don't feel like digging through stuff right now, not that I could, because my room's a mess, but I do know from off the top of my head a new Falcon900C costs somewhere around $35 million. Gulfstream has a better range, I think and is more fuel effecient (correct me if I'm wrong) than the Falcon. You can visit their websites, http://www.falconjet.com and http://www.gulfstream.com for more information and specs. You can also write to their sales department for more in depth information. I've gotten a lot of the sales depts. of both.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11308 times:
It's very difficult to assign operating cost to aircraft such as these; there are so many variables that have a direct effect on the final costs. Factors such as annual flight hours have a large effect because there are certain indirect costs that you incur regardless of the time it is flown. Fuel cost is also a factor, but not a much of one as you might imagine. However, there are several fuel co-ops that most operators of this class of bizjet belong to get fuel volume discounts. They say that hindsight is 20/20 and that's really about the only way you can accurately arrive a true operating cost. Anything else is, at best, an educated guess. Granted, every manufacturer publishes figures, but there are so many caveats as to make them practically meaningless. Bottom line is this - if you have to ask, you can't afford one.
As for which one is better, that's a little like asking which is the better car - a Cadillac or a Lincoln? All of these airplanes will have competitive performance numbers. But it all really boils down to which one "floats your boat.” That fact that one or the other might have 300 NM more range or perhaps cruise .02M faster is, essentially, meaningless in the real world. If you needed an airplane in this category, you could safely choice any one of them and not get into very much trouble. (I’m also including the Global Express and Challenger 604 in this group.) “You pays your money and you takes your choice.”
Personally, my favorite would be the 900EX or the newly announced Falcon 7X (Essentially a competitor to the GV and Global Express.) Why? Just because I happen to like it the most. The Gulfstreams are real performers, but with all of that thrust they ought to be. The Falcons have virtually the same performance, but they achieve it with more “finesse”, if you will. Personally, for our operations I would much rather have the 3 engines. In my opinion, for extended over-water operations, three Garretts (or Honeywell, or Allied Signal or who ever they are this week) trump 2 Rolls Royces any day of the week. Oh well, I’ve got to go eat dinner.
GWB From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11279 times:
I flew 900 and GIV before my current ship. As jetguy says, they're pretty much the same though the 900 does offer better field performance and for sure many owners like the security of 3 engines. However, maintenance costs are higher on the 900. A used 900EX (they're not made new anymore) will set you back around 30m, a GIV SP around 22-25m and a GV around 30m.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11278 times:
I just got back from NBAA's IOC last month. Falconjet hosted a luncheon for everyone. Let me assure you that they are still building the 900EX. (At least they were sure trying to sell new ones.) Perhaps you were thinking of one of the earlier 900 variants? I also think that your numbers for used G-IVs and Vs might be a bit soft. The runway performance of the Falcon 50 and 900 are legendary - almost like having a turbojet-powered Super Cub. Oh well, perhaps someday...