Notices
Corporate Corporate operators

G200 vs. CL300

Old 12-03-2010, 10:52 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,233
Default G200 vs. CL300

Gents,

I have a friend flying in Russia. Their small department has Hawker-125, but the owner is thinking to upgrade the operation.
He is looking at G200 and CL300 from the financial standpoint.
And being a nice guy he is asking his pilots for their opinions as well.

What do you think about both aircraft?
Flying, corks, comfort, dispatch reliability - anything will be appreciated.

Handling in ice?

Thanks a million!
Lifeisgood is offline  
Old 12-03-2010, 04:00 PM
  #2  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 16
Default

I flew the G200 once and I worked at a department that had them... they have really high ref speeds, they have boots instead of heated edges and eat up a lot of runway in a contaminated situation. If I had the choice of boots or heated leading edges over in Russia I'd probably shy away from the boots. It definitely didn't have the dispatch reliability of the standard Gulfstreams. Again, I'm not typed... the avionics were nice but it wasn't my favorite aircraft.
dualrated19 is offline  
Old 12-03-2010, 04:39 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,835
Default

I work at a place that use to fly the -125s and currently fly a Challenger model and they can't say enough GOOD things about the Hawker!

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 12-03-2010, 05:49 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
UCLAbruins's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: F/O- G-V/550
Posts: 1,163
Default

there's a really good article on the October issue of Profesional pilot magazine, "Bombardier hit a home run with the CL300". Both passengers and pilots love it.

I know a flight attendant that used to work for Flexjet. She said the -300s are now doing more crossings than the -604s. She said owners prefer the CL300 vs the CL604 for the long legs.


I'm probably the biggest CL300 fan outhere. She's a sexy beast and does the job
UCLAbruins is offline  
Old 12-03-2010, 06:01 PM
  #5  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 20
Default

CL300, or better yet FA2000 if you can afford
Krusty is offline  
Old 12-03-2010, 06:20 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
QuietSpike's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Not on this message board.
Posts: 159
Default

Originally Posted by dualrated19 View Post
I flew the G200 once and I worked at a department that had them... they have really high ref speeds, they have boots instead of heated edges and eat up a lot of runway in a contaminated situation. If I had the choice of boots or heated leading edges over in Russia I'd probably shy away from the boots. It definitely didn't have the dispatch reliability of the standard Gulfstreams. Again, I'm not typed... the avionics were nice but it wasn't my favorite aircraft.

LoL... What?

Having heated edges over boots is pure ego.

First, you *rarely* need the boots... and second, they rob 100% of ZERO engine power! So while most lose a significant percentage of thrust in the climb, the G200 keeps rocketing upwards with no thrust loss.


The cabin is larger on the G200. The cargo is larger on the G200. The range is longer on the G200. The cruise speeds are the same. The avionics are very comparable. The direct operating costs are comparable... and the G200 right now would be much cheaper to buy with the G250 coming out than the CL300. Not to mention, the product support with Gulfstream is light years ahead of Bomardier.

Having said all of that... If given the choice, I, too, would choose the CL300. It is a better pilot's airplane, it looks better (pure ego/preference)... it is, in my opinion, a more "capable" airplane. However, I feel when the G250 is delivered, the CL300 will be obsolete.
QuietSpike is offline  
Old 12-03-2010, 06:55 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 423
Default

Originally Posted by QuietSpike View Post
LoL... What?

Having heated edges over boots is pure ego.

First, you *rarely* need the boots... and second, they rob 100% of ZERO engine power! So while most lose a significant percentage of thrust in the climb, the G200 keeps rocketing upwards with no thrust loss.


The cabin is larger on the G200. The cargo is larger on the G200. The range is longer on the G200. The cruise speeds are the same. The avionics are very comparable. The direct operating costs are comparable... and the G200 right now would be much cheaper to buy with the G250 coming out than the CL300. Not to mention, the product support with Gulfstream is light years ahead of Bomardier.

Having said all of that... If given the choice, I, too, would choose the CL300. It is a better pilot's airplane, it looks better (pure ego/preference)... it is, in my opinion, a more "capable" airplane. However, I feel when the G250 is delivered, the CL300 will be obsolete.

Having plenty of time in a G200, it dosen't rocket anywhere....except far down a long long runway when its attempting to takeoff with that bizarre wing it has...

and yes - they are cheap...but thats always for a reason, right?
NowCorporate is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 05:09 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,233
Default

Thank you very much!

One of the pilots over there is under impression that the CL300 doesn't have any wing anti-ice protection at all (?) He heard that the wing is built the way that the ice accumulation is minimal - is that true?

Thx

Last edited by Lifeisgood; 12-04-2010 at 06:10 AM.
Lifeisgood is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:46 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
QuietSpike's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Not on this message board.
Posts: 159
Default

Originally Posted by NowCorporate View Post
Having plenty of time in a G200, it dosen't rocket anywhere....except far down a long long runway when its attempting to takeoff with that bizarre wing it has...

and yes - they are cheap...but thats always for a reason, right?

LoL... again... what??

I took a G200 from Geneva, Switzerland, climbing at 300/.80 to FL390 in 13 minutes... that is a rocket.

Your take-off distances for a normal 2-3 hour leg are in the 3800-4300' ballpark with typical loads.

Out of Aspen on a clear day, you can make it to the east coast doing .80 cruise with zero problems.

You are in cruise power range in the climb out until about 20k feet, otherwise you would be doing 5-7 thousand feet per minute.



What 200 are you flying?



And the reason they are cheap right now is because of the G250... and the market sucks (not sure if you noticed). You think they would still ask 20 million for a CL300 if the CL350 came out?
QuietSpike is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:40 AM
  #10  
The NeverEnding Story
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,475
Default

Full-fuel useful load is much better in the CL300 than the G200.

As to performance...Bombardier advertises 3100nm @ 0.80M with eight passengers while Gulfstream says the G200 will go 3400nm @ 0.75M with four passengers...or 3050nm @ 0.80M with again, just four passengers. Takeoff distance @ MTOW & ISA for the G200 is 6080ft, while the CL30 is 4810ft.

Conferring with pilots who have flown both airframes, they always prefer the CL300 while their pax tend to prefer the cabin of the G200.

As to pricing...sure seems Falcon 2000s of similar age have held their values MUCH better than the G200 in a down market, even with the successor 2000EX/LX variants.
BoilerUP is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CitationCapt
Corporate
2
05-20-2010 07:12 PM
MoonFallsDown
Corporate
3
10-21-2009 03:55 AM
ProceedOnCourse
Hiring News
0
08-17-2009 08:07 PM
ce650
Corporate
6
07-25-2009 04:26 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices