Falcon 7X
08-07-2010 | 06:40 AM
#72
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
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.
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.
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.
08-07-2010 | 07:29 AM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
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 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.
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 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.
08-07-2010 | 08:23 AM
#74
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
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.)
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.)
08-07-2010 | 01:16 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
From: Not on this message board.
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.
08-07-2010 | 01:25 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
From: Not on this message board.
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.)
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.)
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?!
08-07-2010 | 01:30 PM
#77
No one's home
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
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)
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.
08-07-2010 | 03:48 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 398
Likes: 1
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)
Don't you get a set of books at recurrent on those birds or is CAE/FSI cheapin' out on ya?
08-07-2010 | 04:08 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
From: Corporate Captain
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...
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...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
