tuna hp

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.

NowCorporate

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.

tuna hp

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.

NowCorporate

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.

tuna hp

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).

NowCorporate

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...

USMCFLYR

FBW with a center stick isn't a slouch either
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!

USMCFLYR

NowCorporate

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

727C47

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)

tuna hp

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.