Falcon 7X
08-08-2010, 12:55 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Not on this message board.
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by geosynchronous
Please compare another aircraft and supply supporting evidence if the G550 is not congruent with your expectations.
Research and data establishes the dichotomies of debates (perceived or not), not the interrogative of: "Clear?"
"You can say it is my opinion all you want, but it is a fact."
Subjective.
Research and data establishes the dichotomies of debates (perceived or not), not the interrogative of: "Clear?"
"You can say it is my opinion all you want, but it is a fact."
Subjective.
Ugh... I give up... do the research on your own... I have given countless examples of why that is not a TRUE comparison... you have failed to see them.
08-08-2010, 12:58 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by III Corps
Don't know about the three jets you are talking about but in essence you are talking about max performance and if the max perf numbers are just fiction, what else is just fiction?
On some of the old Boeings I flew, numbers were very important.
And are you bragging that you don't have a flt manual?
Just wondering. Most interesting.
On some of the old Boeings I flew, numbers were very important.
And are you bragging that you don't have a flt manual?
Just wondering. Most interesting.
We have flight planning services, ultra-nav, EFB-Prob, etc...and common sense. I know, whippersnappers who dont really know how the charts work..
We can quickly come up with a max (or slightly more conservative actually) numbers and go from there. No mistakes made, no lines drawn wrong. Ever watch the average pilot struggle through the useless exercise the sim centers drag ya through during recurrent? I'd say the spread of answers in the average recurrent is about 50% +/- what the real number is.
Anyone who thinks people sit there and whip out OEM graphs and rulers in their 7X, GLEX, or G550 has likely never flown one.
Tuna - where do you get your bizarre numbers? 20% more fuel? Its much higher than that, closer to 35%.
Geo - your mx numbers are way off. Wait until a 7X comes up on a C check - based on the multiple X factors A/B checks are coming in at it will be downright scary. Falcon has recently completely halted offering FalconCare on 7Xs until they can grasp what these costs are. Those that got in on FalconCare have added huge value to their planes on the market.
Now...get back to flightsim boys!
08-08-2010, 01:13 PM
#93
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Originally Posted by NowCorporate
Great - but were not talking about old Boeings here.
We have flight planning services, ultra-nav, EFB-Prob, etc...and common sense. I know, whippersnappers who dont really know how the charts work..
I would think an aviator with such experience and such credentials ("I've flown all three) would take the time to educate and inform rather than berate and insult. The contempt is palpable. And disgusting.
08-08-2010, 01:25 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Not on this message board.
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by tuna hp
Not true. Dassault is very much technically right. Extra wingspan is still more efficient than a winglet of the same length.
Extra wingspan > winglets is still definitely the case
I don't know why QuietSpike is so defensive, but I do agree with him as far as saying that Dassault isn't necessarily safer than Gulfstream. Maybe has something to do with the fact that he is named after a Gulfstream research program
.
Extra wingspan > winglets is still definitely the case
I don't know why QuietSpike is so defensive, but I do agree with him as far as saying that Dassault isn't necessarily safer than Gulfstream. Maybe has something to do with the fact that he is named after a Gulfstream research program
.Not eennntirely accurate--- the difference between extra wing (like the raked winglet of a 764, 773, 772LR) and a winglet are so minute, it is a draw.
Defensive? If that is they way it sounds when I post, then you are reading it differently then how I am "saying" it... I dont get defensive about facts!!
People have really strayed off topic with this--- the fact is 2 engines are better than 3 TODAY. There was a time in the history of aviation for 3 holers, and I loved them... L1011 is still one of my fav pax planes of all time! Falcon still makes 3 holers... so they are still going to try and sell the 3-eng-are-safer-than-2 idea! Why wouldnt they!?
Side note: Falcon (and others) also tried to say that gulfstream could never get any windows larger than the ones on the I, II, III, IV, V, 350, 450, 550... which is *exactly* why the 650 windows are 16 percent larger!! Out of spite!!
Busted with my name Tuna... but I dont work there anymore (laid off due to economy last year), so there is no loyalty here to any manufacturer... I just call it like I see it nowadays!
08-08-2010, 02:07 PM
#95
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by NowCorporate
Tuna - where do you get your bizarre numbers? 20% more fuel? Its much higher than that, closer to 35%.
08-08-2010, 06:59 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Rebuilding the career
Posts: 169
All of those previously mentioned biz jets have got too many engines to be efficient (says the Pilatus pilot
).
I do, however, miss the "three-holer" from my previous job - the one built by Boeing.
It is fun, though, to think that I now cruise for an hour (longer, actually) on the same fuel we used to plan for TAXI in the 727. Of course...during that entire hour, I keep chanting "turbines don't quit, turbines don't quit..." lol Apples and Oranges, I know - but fun to see the contrasts.
Sorry - just had to throw that in there. You may resume your regularly scheduled argument.
).I do, however, miss the "three-holer" from my previous job - the one built by Boeing.
It is fun, though, to think that I now cruise for an hour (longer, actually) on the same fuel we used to plan for TAXI in the 727. Of course...during that entire hour, I keep chanting "turbines don't quit, turbines don't quit..." lol Apples and Oranges, I know - but fun to see the contrasts.
Sorry - just had to throw that in there. You may resume your regularly scheduled argument.
Last edited by Likeabat; 08-08-2010 at 07:10 PM.
08-09-2010, 03:30 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by tuna hp
Conklin de Decker 2009 says 18.5% more fuel. And your 35% number is impossible. The G550 only carries 29% more fuel than the 7X, and it should go over 10% farther at M.85. It is truly scary that people's lives are in your hands when you have no idea about the characteristics of the planes you fly and you have such an unprofessional attitude towards safety.
Maybe you can design a 3 engine gulfstream on your fliightsim program and make up some great performance data to share on the internet. Wouldnt that be super cool?
08-09-2010, 06:49 AM
#99
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Originally Posted by NowCorporate
Maybe you can design a 3 engine gulfstream on your fliightsim program and make up some great performance data to share on the internet. Wouldnt that be super cool?
08-09-2010, 08:01 AM
#100
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by NowCorporate
Maybe you can design a 3 engine gulfstream on your fliightsim program and make up some great performance data to share on the internet. Wouldnt that be super cool?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
