When talking about the difference between a Challenger 604 and the Falcon 900, I heard a pilot joke "I'd rather have two grown men than three little boys." Then he admited that the Falcon does more with less :rolleyes:

I think the analogy is lost in the homoerotic nature of the comment!:D

Citi did NOT get their 7x's

That day rate is a pipe dream.

There is not much 7X contract work avail.

You would be out of your f'n mind to spend 45K and expect to make it back.

Yes, the little contract work that is avail is Intl.

No, the airplane is not underpowered, it can go max weight to FL410 sometimes FL450 and .85 - compared to a DA900ex its a climber. The 731 was a great learjet 35 engine. It is junk on Falcons. They could not have made the 7X with 731s.

Yes, it is about 35-40% cheaper to run than a G550/Global - but it is smaller inside.

so 7X owners are selling them left and right? oh?....are ANY used 7X's for sale aside for ones listed for more than new prices (permanently for sale aircraft?)

Always solid info on these boards....;)

Just went through recurrent with a UK-based pilot flying the 7X. Had some very nice things to say about the airplane, but at the same time they've run into a few unusual circumstances with it that show the plane was designed by engineers and not "real pilots"...for instance, you cannot pushback the aircraft with all the avionics and such fired up. Pushing back requires disconnecting the nosewheel steering linkage..except when you do so it automatically shuts down the APU and dumps everything! :( not fun in a lot of European airports where pushbacks out of the stand are required...

Very true! - the nosewheel and the parking brake are the brains here, lol.

But - having been to just about every airport in Europe that a bizjet may go to (haha)....I have never once had to push back in Europe.

Only place I ever had to push back in a bizjet was in Singapore (WSSS)

Dassault could certainly use pilot feedback when designing things. The position of the brake pedals on the 7X is ridiculous.

It is great at high and hot airports never had a problem with SEQU AND ASE OR EGE they did a great job . the Gv is a great bird but burns more fuel the 7x wing make's this jet what it is . it's not the 900 its the 7x the 3 enigine jet burns as much fuel as a mid size 2 engine aircraft this make it a great bird

Isn't the SMS (or whatever Dassault is calling it these days) supposed to have a downsized 7X wing?

From everything I hear, in lieu of more power the 900EX could really benefit from not having the 50 wing...

Last I heard, Dassault was reevaluating the codename "SMS" project. They had gone as far as picking an engine for it (a new 10,000lb RR model) but then last year they decided that they were reevaluating everything.

That 10,000lb number really has me confused. Obviously that makes the next Falcon plane a twinjet, but even then that is a lot of thrust for any Super-midsize jet, and especially for a falcon which has usually been a lighter and more fuel-efficient plane than the competition. I mean the large cabin Falcon 2000 only has 2 x 7,000lb engines, and the big Gulfstream G250 only has 2 x 7,500lb engines.

And even more titillating is that the articles that talked about Dassault reviewing the SMS project including its chosen 10,000lb RR engines is that they said that Dassault was interested in MORE thrust.

This all seems to indicate that the "Falcon SMS" will be unlike anything currently on the market. Which makes sense, because when Dassault introduced the Falcon 50 there was nothing like it: now, super-midsize is probably the most overcrowded category available. Why would Dassault want to compete directly with Cessna (Citation X) AND Hawker (4000) AND Bombardier (Learjet 85 and C300) AND Gulfstream (G250). Seems like an overcrowded segment to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------

back to the topic of the Falcon 7X, does anyone have real world familiarity with it? I've read mixed things but concrete information seems so hard to get. On one hand, I've heard that finished 7Xs have been delivered way overweight and that its affecting range. On the other hand, I have read positive things about its efficiency at speed, with some operators cruising mostly at M.87 when they would cruise their G550s at M.85.

Anyone have any interesting comments on 7X real world performance?

Some may be coming out of completion heavier than anticipated as Dassault designed them with a 900/2000 type galley (nothing) Many are taking out crew rest and adding a real galley. Hence heavier, and heavier forward...so thats not good.

As far as performance, its a performer. It climbs great, is dead quiet, etc. Falcon finally went with a real wing.

Range wise 6000nm is hard. 5500 is more like it.

It will do a 5000-5500nm trip with approx 10K less fuel than a Global/G5. Some operators like that, even though it has a smaller cabin.

I had read that they were having trouble with the weight outside of the completion. The thing is supposed to have BOW of 34,300lbs but I can specifically remember an article about flying the second production model where it said its BOW was 37,800lbs. I'm sure they've improved since then but to what degree? What you're talking about with the galley is also interesting.

Hmm. Seems like it would have trouble flying Paris to LA westbound (the flight that it was supposedly designed for). Plus, with the enlarged galley you're talking about, now you have to seat a crewmember in the passenger cabin for flights where you need 3 pilots and a stewardess? And then without the crew rest you can't fly more than 10 hours under part 135, right?

Also, is your 10k fuel example apples to apples? The G550 only holds 10k more fuel than the 7X, so that would mean that it burned all its fuel on this 5000-5500nm trip... doubtful unless it was flying faster than the 7X.

I'm sure that the 7X is a great performer, but it seems like it could have benefited from better planning and some more development time. My understanding is that it was originally conceived to be able to do 5,700nm at M.80 and 5,300nm at M.85, but that those goals were changed to be able to connect more city pairs (Paris to LA is always mentioned), and they already had their wing so to do that they increased the fuel tanks and slapped on undersized winglets (by that I mean that they were limited by what the wing could stand and not by what would have maximized performance). I remember reading a reputable flying magazine that related an interesting bit of information from Dassault: the 7X winglets only increase the plane's range by 2%. That seems terrible when I see bolt on aftermarket winglet kits for some jets (including other Dassaults) improve performance much more than that.

well....I guess you shouldn't buy one? G550's and Globals can go further, and they are several million cheaper than a 7X today.

It will do 5300nm at .85.

As far as apples to apples, not sure what you mean. All I know is that I have flown the same 5500nm trip at the same speed in both a Global and a 7X and the Global burned 10K more lbs of fuel (approx 28.5 vs 38.5) for the same flight time. Thats all I can say. Its smaller, yes..but its very efficient, and does not lack power like a 731 Falcon (900ex etc)

I know nothing of 135 rules, I dont fly 135. If you want a rest area, it has an approved one. You just wont get much galley. The vast majority of 7X's are not going to charter operations, they are going to Part 91 2-3 pax long range operations with a lot of meal service - so people are going with real galleys (chillers etc), from what I have seen

Paris - LA? - whats the issue there? That's less than 5000nm. Doing it today would be 10+45 at .85 - anything under 12hrs is a no-brainer (you may have to go .82) Its getting to 6000nm that's tricky. I think they advertise approx 5900 and IMO thats also iffy. I know people who have done it. I just stop.

I'm not promoting the thing, its just a paycheck and I'm just a pilot.....just relaying some operating experience. I'm sure the flying magazines or the Dassault engineers can give you more accurate information or give you a full picture of their "development time" and wing design.

;)

Alright thanks for the info. Do you happen to know the BOW on your finished plane?

Geez, do you fly 12+ hour missions without a relief pilot? I thought that was against standard insurance policies, even if part 91 doesn't regulate that itself.

I don't think I ever said fly 12hrs without a relief pilot? We always take one on long trips. We usually have 1-2 pax only and a pilot "rests" in back. Many who have ditched the rest area have used a curtain design to corner off a rear seat. IMO it sucks, but again, Im just a pilot..I have used OEM rest areas and have "rested" in back - neither does a bit of good if you ask me...3 tired pilots instead of 2.

I never saw anything in insurance policies about relief pilots? thats a new one to me!

I dont know the BOW - its similar to all 7Xs out there. Our requirement was to come out being able to do full fuel, 6 pax + 4 crew, and we can.

All right well I could figure it out if u know your take off weight with that passenger load...

The plane has max fuel of 32,000lbs and MTOW of 69,000lbs... So i believe that BOW is supposed to include 3 crew. Assume 1400 lbs for the other 7 people and you're at 35,600lbs. For example.

By the way, I'm not trying to insult you at all ha I'm just fascinated by these planes and i find it really hard to get objective information. Most of the info freely available is manufacturers marketing material. Objective reports are usually private and cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. So I really appreciate the impressions that you post on this board. Dassault just delivered only it's 75th 7X, so there are only a couple hundred of you in the entire world (7X pilots).

Oh no, I understand what you are asking. No offense taken.

Its a very nice flying airplane, nicer than any Falcon/Global/Gulfstream I have ever flown.

Its downfalls are that it may be a little too tech "glitchy" to guys not used to error messages, and, like most planes - it may fall a little short of the range they advertise...then again, I'm just not one to arrive minimum fuel 6000 miles away from home...

Its operating costs are very low for what it does. If, however, you wanted the furthest flying plane, you might want to look at a G550 and add a 40% a year to your fuel budget....or wait until the FBW Global comes out with longer range than the G650...it never ends. I just fly what they buy and dont complain! - :)

But all in all, it is a blast to fly. FBW with sidesticks makes it incredibly nimble. Id love to have a few hours w/o pax someplace where you can really play around...:D

FBW with a center stick isn't a slouch either :D
Wouldn't get you get all lonely up there by yourself Now?
I love the statement that you just FLY what they BUY!
Lucky you that you work for such a great company! :cool:

USMCFLYR

I saw your pics! - hope you are having fun!

does it fly nicer than the XL? (just kidding,and i'm not dissing that straight wing,usually 1 hour legged ship,that at certain angles reminds me of a Korean war era fighter)

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.

I will take the pepsi challenge on runway numbers with a 550 and a 7x...

Losing only 1/3 of the power on a 3 engine plane and 1/2 the power on a 2 engine plane is not accurate. 2 engine aircraft have much more power out of each engine, thus the need for only 2. I think you'd be surprised to see actual numbers with your statement! :) Falcon 7x engine makes 6100 lbs thrust x3= 18300... x2=12200. G550 engines make 15385 each, x2=30,770. Single engine, the 550 makes more than the 7x (bigger plane, but you see the difference is about nil). Dont buy into falcon's "3 engines are safer" BS that they have been trying for years! They make a great plane, dont get me wrong! However they used to raz gulfstreams by saying "winglets are a product of poor aerodynamic design"... Now all new falcons have winglets ;)

The 550 wing is *incredibly* efficient. Able to cruise up to .89, with a normal cruise of .85 (everyday), and a typical ref speed in the very low 100's-- all with no leading edge devices. The less moving parts, the less ****** breaks! :)

-spike

While I agree with you that the "safety of three" can be bogus, depening on the airplane comparison, I can't follow your logic on amount of thrust lost in the event of an engine failure. On a three engine airplane if you lose one engine you have indeed lost one third of your thrust and on a two engine plane if you lose an engine you have lost one half of your thrust.
The question is how much PERFORMANCE has been lost by the engine failure! In your example I would agree that the GV would have the better engine out performance by far.
Although I have no data, I'm not so sure with other comparisons. B-727 vs DC-9 engine out performance comes to mind.
CG

You're failing to consider why the Gulfstream has so much more thrust than the Falcon - it weighs a LOT more so it needs the thrust!

Comparing as close to apples-apples as you can between Falcon & Gulfstream products when considering range (900EX vs. G450), the 900EX has a MTOW of 48,300lb and a OEI climb gradient of 340ft/nm. The G450 has a 73,900lb MTOW and OEI climb gradient of 285ft/nm.

Now look at the G550 vs. the 7X. G550 is 91,000lb MTOW with OEI gradient of 242 ft/nm, whereas the 7X is 69,000lb MTOW with OEI gradient of 280ft/nm. That's not really fair because the G550 has about 1000nm more range, so let's compare the G500 which has range similar to the 7X. The G500 has only 85,000lb MTOW with the same engine thrust as the G550, so its OEI gradient is 301ft/nm.

The 7X is a good performer...great runway numbers, MMO of .90, cruise at .85, LRC around .82, and refs below 110kts at light weights...

However, it really isn't in competition with a G550 or a GLEX/XRS etc. It wont fly the same distances and its simply smaller. I dont think its even marketed toward these planes? Most 7X owners are loyal Falcon buyers who like the operating cost of the 7X. Interestingly enough a 7X will currently cost you a few million more than either a GLEX or a G550.

It usually comes down to what the owner wants and the mission. Want the furthest range all the time? get a 550...want the most comfortable? get a GLEX....want the most efficient....get a Falcon.

and FWIW - all have been equally reliable and well supported from my experience, no matter what the various fanboy weirdos say...;)

Good info. My only point was its not the percentage of thrust loss, its the loss of PERFORMANCE that matters.
Having Piper Apache 150 flashback right now;)
CG

True G550 still has more power with OEI than the 7x. But might I add that you need to convert your numbers into power loading. Single engine the G550 comes in around 5.9:1 vs the 7x's 5.65:1 (Using your data). The only time I would really wish I had 3 engines would be on long flights over harsh territory, and enabling me to flight more direct routes.

To add to NowCorporate's post regarding ground servicing, the 7X has a different tow head then the other Falcons (50/900/2000) and a lot of FBOs haven't purchased them yet being that the possibility of getting an aircraft in is slim. I know my Southern California FBO gets about 1 7X a month and as I've been told by the pilots that fly in we're the only other besides LAX & SAN that have a compatible tow head.

I also personally topped off a 7X (~30,000#s) a few months back for their non-stop trans-atlantic flight. What a beautiful bird!

They carry a tow bar head stowed in the baggage area. You can also use an electric tug.

But its always easier to tell line service you dont have one so they leave you be..

;)

I've done the math before. Falcon 7X has better engine out thrust to MTOW ratio than the G550. Its 6,400 lb thrust per engine, btw, for the 7X. I agree with you that the Falcon's 3 engines aren't necessarily safer, but this isn't an opinion-based question. Some people should be able to contribute the takeoff requirements for each of the jets from their pilot manuals. I'm pretty sure that for a given range that the 7X can get to, it should be able to take off with less runway, with its advantage increasing as the runway gets higher and/or hotter.

I think that engine availability has always been a large factor in Dassault's decision to build trijets. They don't necessarily believe that trijets are always better. They have chosen to build these planes with size and performance where there weren't good business twin jet engine solutions. Once I did a little math comparing the G650 MTOW to thrust ratio with the Falcon 7X. Based on that comparison, if the Falcon 7X were to be a twin jet, it would use 11,500 lb thrust engines. These don't really exist, they're above any other business jet except for the Gulfstreams and Bombardiers based off the Rolls Royce commercial engines. Dassault probably figures that it makes more sense in this case to use 3 popular PW+C business jet engines that produce the required thrust than it does to use 2 much higher thrust engines from commercial airliner programs.

Some basic math, please correct me if it makes no sense:

Gulfstream G550 MTOW / Engine Out Thrust:

91,000 / 15,835 = 5.75 weight / thrust

Dassault Falcon 7X MTOW / Engine Out Thrust:

69,000 / 12,800 = 5.39 weight / thrust

And yes, I have heard that the Falcon 7X sells at similar-to-higher prices than the larger and longer range G550. I assumed that it had a lot to do with better runway performance, along with slightly lower operating costs.

The high prices on the 7X have nothing to do with runway numbers......its because of its operating costs and (more so) the fact that Dassault wouldn't lower the price in the recession, thus preserving initial buyers investment. This is normal for Dassault and certainly plays a part in why individual owners are so loyal to Falcons.

Glex, 550, 7X, etc..all these planes perform well on shorter runways. I have flown them all and every one is more than capable of short field, high altitude ops etc....as are most modern business jets.

Rich people care about their investments - and this can drive their decisions once the basics are met (comfort, range etc)....never seen it have anything to do with fpm/thrust ratio with one engine out and other useless hypothetical internet scenarios played out by cessna pilots.

:)

I think that rings the bell for today.

I think you're wrong, but if you've flown all these planes shouldn't you be able to post up some numbers from their pilot manuals? Aren't there runway requirement tables in there? If the Falcon 7X can fly farther out of the 4000' airstrips and 5000' elevation runways of the world, then thats a huge factor to some.

The reason that I was talking about engine out thrust to weight ratios is that runway requirements are calculated with an engine out, so it should be a determining factor. Ceteris paribus, the plane with the higher engine out thrust to weight ratio should be able to get out with less runway or more fuel. But forget that, please look in the pilot manuals I'm very curious to know how they compare.

Its hard to get data on these planes on the internet. I've always been very interested in why Dassault would make (and why people would buy) their trijets. I don't know if its because of the trijets or some other characteristic of Dassault planes, but I read a lot of praise about the Falcon 50 and Falcon 900 runway performance compared to the GIIIs and GIVs of their time. Yeah the GV has a much better wing than the GIV, but the improvement from the 900 to the 7X should be huge, too. Its also a brand new wing while the wing on the 900 was straight off of the much smaller 50.

I dont want to ruin your little internet study of these 3 planes...but what the hell are you talking about? "very interested in why people buy Falcon trijets?"...because they are wealthy and like to make smart investments. Falcons hold value, they are very quiet inside, and they make for efficient budgets. No more, no less.

Tell me anyone who bases one of the planes out of a 4000ft strip at 5000ft elevation? - and who loads them up maximize every foot of runway and every drop of gas? who? - internet weirdos who likely fly a cessna or a cirrus.

I have flown all 3 of the planes you are dutifully analyzing, and I am current in 2 of them - yet I dont have a copy of the flight manual for any. We know what the planes can do, know when we have to take a closer look, and ya know what?...if its that close where you are analyzing lines on an OEM graph - you likely shouldn't even be going (in the real world that is)

Anyone can follow the lines on a page, but a little common sense and experience goes much further...

"Ceteris paribus"...really?..please, carry on with the wing analysis.

:)

I don't understand what you're saying, 'performance tradeoffs don't matter between these planes'? Or are you saying that there are no performance tradeoffs between the planes?

And I don't know about the owners of your plane, but you're crazy if you don't think that runway performance could be a major factor in sales. If one plane has just substantially better runway performance, and if it means that over the owner's use, he's going to need fewer refueling stops, is going to be able to get in with closer airports a few times, etc, then thats a major factor. Especially if the customer is from a mining company, or an agricultural company, something like that, where they can anticipate needing to get out of relatively challenging runways. Or if their home base is a challenging runway. Aren't you the pilot here? It doesn't need to be 4,000' long at 5,000' altitude to mean that the plane couldn't get out at MTOW. There are lots of urban airports in the US and Europe where its the closest airport to the city center but has runways in the 5,000' to 6,000' range, which means that some planes could not get out at MTOW.

I'm sure you know a lot about these planes and I don't know why you're getting so defensive. Clearly there are differences between these planes. I was just hoping that you'd write about them.

(and yes, I understand what you have already said: that Dassaults have held their value and have lower operating costs. Really I think that they're the same thing: when fuel prices shot up, Dassaults kept their value while everything else plummeted because Dassaults were the fuel efficient alternative. But back when jet fuel was $1/gallon, total fuel cost was lower compared to maintenance and Dassaults ended up having about equal operating costs.)

Just curious.... you get more direct routes with 3 engines?

Never heard that before...

2 engines is *always* better than 3 when talking performance. Any falcon salesman that tells you differently is just trying to sell a plane! People that say "yeah, but you lose only 1/3 of your thrust-- yeah, but 2 engines have to still carry the plane... and with a 2 engine, one engine still has to carry the plane! You cant have a 2 engine plane that wont climb on one engine! :)

Falcon makes a great plane! But they have talked so much about 3 engines being "safer" than 2, etc... it is time to give it up! :)

I remember when the 777-200LR was unveiled, and an Airbus rep saying to me that overnight their A340-600 was rendered obsolete.... A 2 engine airplane doing more than what a 4 engine airplane is capable of... lower cost, similar payload, and just as safe.

Tuna,

Think you are missing NowCorp's point---

He is not saying take off performance doesnt matter, or that there are no performance trade-offs... he is just saying that the GLEX, G550, and 7x (which the 7x doesn't really compete with these as far as range, etc) all have SIMILAR numbers enough to where it is negligible... all similar cruise speeds, all similar runway numbers in the same conditions, all similar max altitude... etc.

What NowCorp also said was we *never* deal with "what is our FPM when we take off?" And this is TRUE... when you read an article and it says "max FPM=3000"... doesnt mean we never climb more than that! I routinely see 6000-7000 fpm when we are light out of our Gulfstream, and I *know* the max FPM advertised in Flying magazine would be way less than that! We look at balanced field length and climb gradients--- if we can take off on a runway and climb out of the area single engine safely, then we GOOOO!



It does say something for the G550 wing when it can take off out of aspen and meet the climb gradient on the departure single engine and the 7x cannot... all with no leading edge devices! Any 7x drivers want to jump in here?! :):)

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.

When it comes to a go/no go decision you better believe I'm analyzing the charts. If I tell the boss we can't leave I want it to based on numbers, not guesswork.

Don't you get a set of books at recurrent on those birds or is CAE/FSI cheapin' out on ya?

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...

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?