Originally Posted by
geosynchronous
Et al,
I am not partial to, nor am I experienced in any one of the aforementioned aircraft, they are all fantastic machines.
All in hindsight, doesn't that third engine give you a little more confidence when going across the pond? Electrics, pressurization, hydraulics, etc. (possibly) without having to descend to the lower FL's to start an APU and possibly have a speed limit? Dasault does have a niche...
Originally Posted by PW305
Not to mention you don't have to comply with restrictive ETOPS maintenance and dispatch practices for those long-haul remote flights in the Falcon, right?
The Dassaults are also very interesting to me. Its pretty interesting that they're the only trijets still in production, and yet they are so popular, so I always try to read about them.
In response to these questions, my understanding is that the Dassault isn't necessarily safer overall than the Gulfstream. There are safety performance tradeoffs. The Gulfs can run all their systems off one engine, and then they can run almost everything off the APU. And then even without the APU, there are the multiple redundant hydraulic accumulators, ram air turbines, batteries, etc, to be able to run enough systems to land the thing. Plus the Gulfstream is the bigger plane with better thrust (with all engines) so it should be able to power through weather better.
As far as ETOPS: yes for the planes that are operated as charter, but I don't think that private operators have to comply with ETOPS. They can do whatever they want.