Used Gulfstream 150/200 or Citation Sovereign

The 150 is significantly different from the 200. The 200 is beefy.

The 150 is just an upgraded 100, which is nothing more then a IA-1125 Astra which is really nothing more then a low wing Westwind II. IAH made a pretty good plane.

A Citation anything are great planes. (well, almost...I am looking at you, Citation 3)
Parts are cheaper and plentiful in the Cessna world. Cessna has a better reputation for support then Gulfstream. I regularly fly a CE-560 and a G4

But having never flown the 680 and not having more then 14 hours in the Astra after my guy sold it thats all I got.

How are they on price?
 
I'm assuming you're looking in the $7m-$9m range. Besides acquisition price on the used market, those three are pretty different from each other. What's the mission?
 
Parts for the 200 and 150 always seemed to be an issue, availability and cost were a bummer. Lead times of 90 days aren't unheard of if you can't get them to take a part off an aircraft undergoing completion. And they are very proud of their parts ($$$).
 
Last edited:
Given a choice of the three I'd probably go with the 200. Runway performance isn't great but at least you can stand up in the cabin. Just make sure to use hi-flow on the APU so you don't get attacked by anyone else on the ramp. And you can get silver boots for the wings, HAHA. The weak point on the 200 and 150 has always been the flap/slat system, don't let people without the proper equipment and experience anywhere near the FSQCU. An early S/N G-IV has higher operating costs but in my opinion is a better option.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input - the mission is a split between owner trips and charter work so its variable to say the least!
The owner likes to ski, so something that will do well in the high elevations is a consideration.
I personally favor the C680 - however it was mentioned to me that we might take a look at the G150 or even the G200.
The price difference is significant with early 2000 models of the 200 going in the low 5's and the late model 150's are in the high 6's. The average asking on the used 680 is around $7m, but an early S/N could be had for under $6m.

The parts availability issue with Gulfstream is something I've heard of and frankly that won't work here. It would seem to me that the Sovereign will stand up to 500 hours a year of flying whereas the Gulfstream will struggle with reliability.
I have a little experience of the Cessna product, but none with Gulfstream hence my reason for asking.

I think we will stick with the C680 - seems to have the best reputation and support, as well as decent performance.

Bp244
 
Baronpilot244 said:
Thanks for the input - the mission is a split between owner trips and charter work so its variable to say the least!
The owner likes to ski, so something that will do well in the high elevations is a consideration.
I personally favor the C680 - however it was mentioned to me that we might take a look at the G150 or even the G200.
The price difference is significant with early 2000 models of the 200 going in the low 5's and the late model 150's are in the high 6's. The average asking on the used 680 is around $7m, but an early S/N could be had for under $6m.

The parts availability issue with Gulfstream is something I've heard of and frankly that won't work here. It would seem to me that the Sovereign will stand up to 500 hours a year of flying whereas the Gulfstream will struggle with reliability.
I have a little experience of the Cessna product, but none with Gulfstream hence my reason for asking.

I think we will stick with the C680 - seems to have the best reputation and support, as well as decent performance.

Bp244
Click to expand...
I never meant to imply the 150 or 200 aren't reliable, in the five years I spent taking care of both types I can only recall cancelling one flight due to a MX issue. The problem was the cost of the parts required to fix it, on that particular day a 200s Stab Actuator decided to eat its gearbox with no prior warning. I don't remember the exact cost of the replacement but I do remember thinking we were getting screwed.
 
knot4u said:
I never meant to imply the 150 or 200 aren't reliable, in the five years I spent taking care of both types I can only recall cancelling one flight due to a MX issue. The problem was the cost of the parts required to fix it, on that particular day a 200s Stab Actuator decided to eat its gearbox with no prior warning. I don't remember the exact cost of the replacement but I do remember thinking we were getting screwed.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate the info - even though I'm leaning towards the 680, the 200 cabin is very attractive as well as its range. Interestingly it has lower fuel burns overall than the Cessna too. We're looking at early 2016 to make the change so at least we have plenty of time to suss out the market.

Bp244
 
Baronpilot244 said:
Thanks, I appreciate the info - even though I'm leaning towards the 680, the 200 cabin is very attractive as well as its range. Interestingly it has lower fuel burns overall than the Cessna too. We're looking at early 2016 to make the change so at least we have plenty of time to suss out the market.

Bp244
Click to expand...
If you can live with a small wing married to a large fuselage and big engines the 200 is a good choice. Make sure your prebuy inspection is performed by someone experienced and not biased. I'll admit to being slightly biased regarding the 200 and 150 as I was forced to be an early adapter. A G-IV or G-V is still a better option IMHO.
 
The fuel distrubution on the 150 and 200 is so simple that it borders on perfection. "We don't need any stinking pumps, gravity will provide everything."
 
I have no experience with the G150 or 200, but I currently fly a 680. We have been very happy with it, especially the performance in the heat and short runway numbers. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to send me a message.
 
I'm currently in the 200 and its a great bird. We operate every week in/out of aspen with no problems. We can go into 4,000 foot strips in the caribbean with proper planning no problem. The wing could be better, but we can still do 3200nm on one tank of gas so its nothing to scoff at. Plus, standing upright in the cabin is quite nice too!
 
Boskru said:
I'm currently in the 200 and its a great bird. We operate every week in/out of aspen with no problems. We can go into 4,000 foot strips in the caribbean with proper planning no problem. The wing could be better, but we can still do 3200nm on one tank of gas so its nothing to scoff at. Plus, standing upright in the cabin is quite nice too!
Click to expand...
The boots on the 200/150 slats/horizontal can be problematic, seems silly to have balloons on a multi-million dollar jet. The starter/generators are another weak point. 5 years removed from both airframes it's easy for me to point and laugh, at the time I was a proponent of both airframes. Regardless of the cost, a solid G-IV is a better airplane.
 
Yeah, I'm sure a G-IV is nice, but not really what the OP was asking. I'm still a huge fan of the G-200. Only early models (pre S/N:56ish) had the generator issues, but once the current generators were added, you have great reliability and increase available amperage. Yes, heated wings/stabs would be nice though, but still, not really a limiting factor for most planes.
 
A G-IV would be nice! However that's really too much airplane for what we need.
I really appreciate the input, however, it seems we're narrowing in on these two airframes and basically have to make a decision which way we want to go. I like the cabin offered by the 200 and it seems the baggage capability is stupendous!
On the other hand the runway numbers of the C680 are hard to ignore.

We plan to make our minds up over the balance of this year and by Xmas the boss tells me we will decide one way or the other.
Either way - I think both airplanes are great (bear in mind this is from someone coming form the Beechjunk so anything bigger is going to be nice!) and getting my hands on either one is going to be pretty cool!

Bp244
 
Been flying the 680 for almost 2 years now. Granted it's the only biz jet I've flown but it will do about anything you ask it to do. We routinely take it into a 3,800ft field with no issues at all. (Normally only use about half of it).

Reliability has been 100% since I've flown it. Super easy to fly from a pilots stand point. Can put flaps in at 250 and 18k so it's neve a problem getting down. Only draw back is the non flat floor cabin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top