Why are you ruling out the G200. Great airplane. SN 133 just went back to the bank and you can get it for a great deal - way under 20mil. Besides I need a job flying it again. It was a demo for a year and then we flew it for another 1 year. It has all the bells and whistles and maintenance was impeccable.

Excellent Gulfstream customer service.
Very nice Cabin for the cost.
Great range. 6 pax 6 hours flight time.
Great range for going coast to coast or to Hawaii or Europe.
Hugh baggage - You can bring the kitchen sink and then some.
Great TO and Lnd performance - Considering.
Good dependability of having a new gulfstream with years of all the bugs worked out.
Great airplane to charter. That sweet spot of cheaper then a G4 but almost the same range if half empty.

PM me if you want any more info on it.

 

There is no doubt it is a fine aircraft, and Gulfstream offers the best customer service in the industry...but when searching for the "right" aircraft, we have to take into account the exact type of flying we do...It is very easy to buy too much or too little airplane, or to fall in love with a certain airplane, and lose objectivity when looking at all the types of aircraft that may fit the mission.

Big cabin: yes, long range flier: yes, Great TO and Lnd Perf: Not really, considering the other super-midsize aircraft we compared it against and the airports we normally operate out of..

So, good airplane, just not for us.

 

Not "newish", but probably some older G-IV's around your price range.

Good luck.

 

I'd seriously look into the 300 and Falcon 50. I've dealt with 4 owners who sold out of their G200s, they didn't like it and the pilots didn't like it, fwiw. And while I love Gulfstreams like the IV, I'd think twice about buying a plane as large as a IV with its maintenance and fuel costs. The 50 has great performance in the mountains and good fuel burns but the 300 will probably do just fine and offer a larger cabin which in the end trumps everything.

Plus the 300 is a new design and could do excellent with charter if you ever opt for it because its a direct replacement for Flexjet. The 300 was also impossible to get your hands on 2 years ago, take a bet that if the economy booms eventually that it'd be the first plane people run too.

Where are you getting your data info? I wouldn't be concerned about payload at max fuel and so forth until you get some real data. Don't measure a plane based on one goes Mach .81 and the other .80, or how many pounds one can carry with full fuel. You've got to measure it against your mission profile.

...
You're not getting strung along by someone are you? I did a lot of research in the past on buying airplanes for people who just talked too much and then on the flip side I did a lot of demo work a super super midsize jet for a manufacturer and was surprised by how many weren't serious buyers. Even after signing papers, throwing money down and getting everyone around them giddy about their new plane they just ended up pulling the plug. And that was in the good times with people who "qualified" which for a super midize jet was someone making around $60 or $80M and up.

 

The Hawker 4000 is a great machine. Large cabin due to the composite structure (still has a metal wing though). Very fast in cruise, .84 and it has auto throttles, great nav/avonics package. It is a very automated airplane, lots of logic. There is easy access to baggage from both outside and inside the cabin. It has a lot of features that will enable ETOPS.

 

Thank you for all the suggestions.

We did an internal study of mid-size to super mid-size aircraft. The aircraft that we looked at most closely was the Challenger 300, Citation Sovereign, Hawker 4000, Falcon 50EX, G200/G250, and Hawker 900XP. We looked at both financial and flight performance. The aircraft that comes out on top for us (our mission and our resources) is the Challenger 300. That is not to say, of course, that it is better than any of these aircraft per se; it offers the best fit for what we do.

We have scheduled a demo flight in the aircraft on a real mission; it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

 

Challenger is a Lear 60 on steroids. Never designed as an international airplane:
Single Channel autopilot
Single (vs dual) GPS receiver standard
No IRS nav option
Minimal backup battery power, requires optional hyd driven gen for any emergency power endurance.
No smoke/firefighting capability in the cargo/baggage compartment.

No a single seat will recline unless you move it forward then recline.

It looks good on the ramp, passenger comfort terrible if it has the Ipeco seats (the older and majority do).
A good performer and not a bad plane from a domestic pilot point of view.
Lacks serious equipment for true international operations.
Support-Bombardier-enough said

 

just looking at some older archives and ran across your post about a possible challenger 300. Did you ever make a determination? We are working with an owner who is reviewing a similar decision.

thanks, Jeff

 

We flew on the Challenger several weeks ago, and we were satisfied. It was very comfortable and open in the cabin, and the cockpit was nicely laid out--no overhead panel/switches. Too bad it doesn't have autothrottle. Good sized cargo area completely accessible from the cabin. The passenger seats (except for the rear club seats on the right side due to emerg. exit) have a nice range of adjustability.

Now just looking for the right deal.

 

go for the 300 first its a great bird shortfields are easy and can do coast to coast .I came out of oceanreef florida and went all the way to salt lake and still landed with a ton of gas .the next best bird is the falcon 2000 it has a little more range .but it cost a lot more to buy. a 300 new is about 18-20 and a falcon 2000lx is about 32-35 mil. oh and as for the falcon 50 we were at the factory and the falcon people told us the stop making the 50 because of the 300 .the f 50 burns more fuel and cost more to fly. thats what they told us in little rock at falcon.