Originally Posted by
geosynchronous
All in hindsight, <b>doesn't that third engine give you a little more confidence when going across the pond?</b> 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...
All a myth... all unsupported... all of Dasso's marketing propaganda... and you bought it all apparently...
With today's technology and reliability-- not to mention the power of modern twin engine long range bizjets and airliners, the three-hole thing is a MYTH.
For example-- A G150 can fly just as far on one engine as they can on two... with 2 TFE731-40AR's. The competitor from Falcon? The Falcon 50, which is no longer made...
You think a falcon 900 with one engine out can stay "in the flight levels and not descend"? Especially in higher ISA temps over the atlantic? Even a 7x would not be able to just keep cruising along like nothing happened with one engine out. You would have to descend in any scenario. If it is a twin, you would definitely crank the APU up-- at a staggering 100-200 lbs an hour (sarcastic)
-- and with little to no effect on speed limit (on any of the twins I have flown).
Dasso used to also claim that winglets were "a product of poor aerodynamic design" when comparing their models to Gulfstreams... now every falcon has a retro-fit kit for winglets (including now the 50), and every new model has winglets... Just as with their winglet myth, the 3-hole myth is kaboomed outta here.
ETOPS for private aircraft in the US is not enforced, however Gulfstream ensures that it's product line can meet or exceed the specifications in ETOPS. I am sure other manufacturers do as well (if not all of them), that is just the one I know about.