Falcon 50 vs Citation X

[Arvin]

Anyone flown both and have comparison notes?

 

[BoilerUP]

Haven't flown either, but have done a fairly in-depth comparison between the two.

The X will fly farther going faster & higher than a straight Falcon 50. As an example, if flown 0.82-0.85M the X will burn 12-15% less gas than the Falcon at 0.80M.

The Falcon has a bigger cabin, more baggage, three engines, and uses less runway while having superior climb performance.

 

[guido411]

Haven't flown either, but have done a fairly in-depth comparison between the two.

The X will fly farther going faster & higher than a straight Falcon 50. As an example, if flown 0.82-0.85M the X will burn 12-15% less gas than the Falcon at 0.80M.

The Falcon has a bigger cabin, more baggage, three engines, and uses less runway while having superior climb performance.

I don't have a horse in this race but curious to the X drivers that respond, how often are X guys flying at 0.82-0.85? How does the fuel burn compare to the Falcon when both are at HSC?

 

[BoilerUP]

I don't have a horse in this race but curious to the X drivers that respond, how often are X guys flying at 0.82-0.85?

From what I gather, next to never unless trying to make range...but you've got the flexibility to put the hammer down and do 0.90+ or pull it back to a speed still faster than normal cruise in many and HSC in some airframes while burning less fuel.

Seems like many operators I've talked to have an operational "sweet spot" around 0.87M, burning somewhere in the ballpark of 1800pph.

How does the fuel burn compare to the Falcon when both are at HSC?

That's a good question, something I'd be curious to know as well.

 

[SNAFU22]

0.86M to 0.88M is normal above FL400 with burns around 920 p/side. Typically we only see 0.90+ around FL380.

Cheers!

 

[cessnaxdriver]

0.86M to 0.88M is normal above FL400 with burns around 920 p/side. Typically we only see 0.90+ around FL380.

Cheers!

I agree with Snafu, I usually run .85 across the Pond and .90 + around the USA. Never flew the Falcon so can't compare

 

[cherry20's]

0.86M to 0.88M is normal above FL400 with burns around 920 p/side. Typically we only see 0.90+ around FL380.

Cheers!

I never see less than .88-.89 at FL400, maybe above 450... Usuaully cruising (max cruise) at .90 FL400-450. Gotta picture at 49k still doing .86!

Hey Arvin, How's the new(ish) job going man? I got lots of numbers on the X if you need some specifics... Why you comparing anyway? Just helping out some friends or something?

Hope all is well man!

 

[cherry20's]

I don't have a horse in this race but curious to the X drivers that respond, how often are X guys flying at 0.82-0.85? How does the fuel burn compare to the Falcon when both are at HSC?

Never fly that slow except when ATC slows us down behind the airliners! Go to Hawaii still doing .88-.90 on the days I've done it... 1800-2000 PPH is normal at max speed cruise, depending on altitude.

What does the Falcon 50 do?

 

[BoilerUP]

Never fly that slow except when ATC slows us down behind the airliners!

91, 91K or 135?

 

[cherry20's]

91, 91K or 135?

91k and 135, why? Its more efficient to fly the X fast if thats what your getting at.

 

[BoilerUP]

91k and 135, why? Its more efficient to fly the X fast if thats what your getting at.

I've been told by multiple Part 91 operators that they fly the X somewhat slower than fractionals do; just interested to see if that was accurate or not.

 

[cherry20's]

They aren't doing themselves, or the owners, any favors by flying the X slow... Maybe immediate savings in some fuel, but in the long run it will be much more expensive to fly it slow, ie engine overhaul, hourly required mx, ect. Don't have a clue what 91 operators do though...

 

[Smash312]

I agree with Snafu, I usually run .85 across the Pond and .90 + around the USA. Never flew the Falcon so can't compare

Errr.... mind my ignorance, but does the X have the range to get 'across the pond'? I'm talking the Atlantic..... Say, JFK-LHR....?

 

[jetlag7]

Errr.... mind my ignorance, but does the X have the range to get 'across the pond'? I'm talking the Atlantic..... Say, JFK-LHR....?

Yes -- haven't you been paying attention to this thread? It has the range for Europe and Hawaii.

 

[BoilerUP]

Errr.... mind my ignorance, but does the X have the range to get 'across the pond'? I'm talking the Atlantic..... Say, JFK-LHR....?

No, the X cannot do a crossing from NYC to London.

Book range is 3070nm @ 0.82M LRC with max fuel, 1200lb payload and a 200nm NBAA alternate.

Bangor-Luton would require a tailwind, but from Gander it can reach a good chunk of western Europe.

 

[cessnaxdriver]

Errr.... mind my ignorance, but does the X have the range to get 'across the pond'? I'm talking the Atlantic..... Say, JFK-LHR....?

Nope. we stop in St. John's or Gander. We take our X across once a month.

 

[Kingairrick]

FWIW @410 and .82, the 50 burns around 1800lbs..

 

[LongBoarder]

At .82 you will go deaf within the year in a Falcon 50... Very loud at .80 and above.

.78 and you are looking at 1600#

LB

 

[BoilerUP]

Rick & LongBoarder:

Are those numbers for a straight 50, or an EX?

 

[K.V.]

A little off topic, but I was in LFPB a couple of weeks ago and saw a X with winglets. How common is that? Is that how they're coming out of the box now?