Originally Posted by
Ziggy
Quimby: True, with OEI ops it still has more power than the two engine competitors. But overall I was expecting more, at least below the 3.0:1 ratio. The G550 comes in around 2.78:1 and it needs that power especially for OEI ops. But our pilots still comment on how it's a rocket ship. I operate out of the rockies so ASE, EGE, JAC are our backyard. I just hate telling owners/clients to leave people/bags behind or we need a fuel stop.
Eh, I'm pretty sure that the 7X has better runway performance than any of its long range competitors.
First consider that its 3 engines instead of 2, so as far as determining takeoff requirements, you only lose 1/3 of power instead of 1/2. Also, I'm pretty sure that twinjets have to take off over an assumed 50 ft obstacle whereas for some reason trijet regulations state the it only has to get off the runway.
Secondly, the Falcons have more aggressive high lift devices than the gulfstreams. Gulfstream brags about not having forward high lift devices? Why? It seems to me there's a reason why they're common... allow you to better optimize the wing for both high altitude cruise and takeoff...
So it makes sense to me that they would be competitive as far as runway requirements, even with lower power to weight ratio. In fact, considering that to get X total thrust out of 3 engines is less efficient than getting the same X thrust out of 2 engines, the plane better have lower power to weight ratio or it would have much worse fuel consumption to weight ratio.