2400 nm range

[LegacyDriver]

KHXD to KMSP, btw. Sorry. Typo.

 

[LegacyDriver]

I hope I didn't screw up any of the numbers transferring them over. Tedious work! LOL


FLIGHTPLAN N7XXXX KHXD TO KMSP E135 M74 /F IFR 03/14/11 ~~ 00
COMPUTED 0254Z FOR ETD 0300Z PROGS 131800Z

WGT IN LBS

TAKEOFF 038913
LAND 033100
PLD 001600
OPNLWT 029700

FUEL / TIME / DIST

KMSP 005613 02:42 1003
RESV 002000 1 : 05
ALTN 000000
HOLD 000000
REQD 007613 03:47
TAXI 000200
XTRA 000000 00 : 00
TOTL 7813 03:47

KHXD DCT IRQ J99 IIU J89 BAE EAU8 KMSP

WIND M043 MXSH 5/BVT AVG WIND 276/065
TAS 423 FL 380 VXV 400


CLIMB SCHED:270/M65
CRUISE SCHED:M74
DESCENT SCHED:M78/300



After running these #s the wind changed and fuel burn went down to 5342 lbs. Mach 0.76 adds 200 lbs. to the burn.

I hope this is what you were looking for. I did not plug in an actual alternate. You asked for one 100 NM away. Guess I'm too tired to think of one at the moment.

Edit In:

KBRD is 99 NM away. No idea lengths etc. just used it for distance. Need 900 lbs to get there. Forty-five minutes Reserve at KBRD is showing up as 1400 lbs which I'm not sure I trust.


KMSP 005342 2:42 1003
ALT KBRD 000900 00 : 22 0099
RSV 0001400 00 : 46


It is tight if you have to miss and go to the ALT. Depends on a lot of factors. Doable yes. Just depends on how close one wishes to shave it. I personally prefer to shoot for 2000 lbs. reserve at the alternate.


Eighty percent landing #s coming later.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Our lowly Falcon will do that trip 25 mins faster at slow cruise of .83, climb at 320, cruise at FL 430....oh.....and burn less gas......and has an extra engine.

Cabin altitude will also be 3900ft.

Push it up to .89 and get there 34mins faster.

270/.74??? and use all that fuel? Why?

 

[LegacyDriver]

Our lowly Falcon will...

And I'm supposed to take your word for it right?

Not that it matters.

 

[gern_blanston]

Our lowly Falcon will do that trip 25 mins faster at slow cruise of .83, climb at 320, cruise at FL 430....oh.....and burn less gas......and has an extra engine.

Cabin altitude will also be 3900ft.

Push it up to .89 and get there 34mins faster.

270/.74??? and use all that fuel? Why?

I love it

 

[Gulfstream 200]

And I'm supposed to take your word for it right?

Not that it matters.

I would hope so?...for I have never lied to my favorite 3rd world pilot!


Or maybe just trust Arinc?...


FORMAT: GS KHXD TO KMSP FA7X M82 /F IFR 03/14/11
COMPUTED 0430Z FOR ETD 1200Z PROGS 140000Z NnotaPOSemb WGTS IN LBS

FUEL TIME DIST ARRIVE TAKEOFF LAND AV PLD OPNLWT
DEST KMSP 005524 02:29 1003 1429Z 43281 37957 000000 036542
ALTN 000000 0000 0000 0000Z
HOLD 000000 0000
RESV 001415 00:45 BIASES:
REQD 006939 03:14 CLB:200 LBS / MIN / %
XTRA 000000 0000 CRZ: / %
TOTL 006939 03:14 DSC:50 LBS / 5 MIN / %

DEP ATIS

DEP ALT SETTINGS:
FLD ELV______ P ALT______ CP ALT______ ADC3______ STBY______


CLEARANCE_________

KHXD DCT IRQ J99 IIU J89 BAE EAU8 KMSP

WIND M028 MXSH 4/IRQ
TAS 467 FL 430 VXV 470



and because G200 is kind, I will save you the painful South American math and give you the rough French numbers:

50KTS more TAS
5-10K ft higher with a far lower cabin (1000ft at FL270, 3900ft at FL410, 6000ft at FL510)
15mins faster
LESS FUEL
ONE EXTRA ENGINE...oh hell, why not?


Also - if we really wanted to get wild and crazy we could carry 26,000lbs of fuel out off Runway 21....and arrive at MSP with 7.5 hrs reserve.

I ran these quick for you, so I didn't make up any alternates, pick anywhere in the USA - it will make it there.

OR...if we were feeling really Brazilian slow we could go LRC and do it in Legacy Mode:


FORMAT: GS KHXD TO KMSP FA7X LRC /F IFR 03/14/11
COMPUTED 0436Z FOR ETD 1200Z PROGS 140000Z Nembisjunk WGTS IN LBS

FUEL TIME DIST ARRIVE TAKEOFF LAND AV PLD OPNLWT

DEST KMSP 005186 02:34 1003 1434Z 42754 37768 000000 036542
ALTN 000000 0000 0000 0000Z
HOLD 000000 0000
RESV 001226 00:45 BIASES:
REQD 006412 03:19 CLB:200 LBS / MIN / %
XTRA 000000 0000 CRZ: / %
TOTL 006412 03:19 DSC:50 LBS / 5 MIN / %

DEP ATIS

DEP ALT SETTINGS:
FLD ELV______ P ALT______ CP ALT______ ADC3______ STBY______


CLEARANCE

KHXD DCT IRQ J99 IIU J89 BAE EAU8 KMSP

WIND M028 MXSH 4/MACES
TAS 450 FL 470



Summary:

Even at LRC of 450TAS (which we never fly) you will get there 10 mins faster and burn 500lbs less fuel in the lowly Falcon that cant perform anywhere near to what the Legacy can....and hell, we dont even have the special high and hot Goodyears on the ole French junk this time of year!...cant wait till summer!


But I know I know...none of this matters.

 

[spxdriver]

Disregard, wrong flight plan posted.

 

[spxdriver]

Generic Legacy flight plan, showing higher fuel burn and several minutes longer enroute.
Computed at .74 as well, and roughly the same wind component.


FLT PLAN: 5807 KHXD/KMSP MACH:M74 A/C: N3XXXX /E135BJ RC 258079
ETD: 14/04.00Z
ORG KHXD DEST KMSP


FUEL TIME CORR TOGWT LDGWT AVG W/C
DEST KMSP 006124 02.51 ------ 038140 032016 M040
RESV 001598 00.45 ------
ALTN 000000 00.00 ------ ALTN NIL DIST 0000 W/C P000
HOLD 000000 00.00 ------
REQD 007722 03.36 ------ BOW 029418 PAYLOAD 001000
EXTRA 000000 00.00 ------
TAXI 000154
TTL AT BO 007876 03.46 ------ RTE MAN

 

[LegacyDriver]

I would hope so?...for I have never lied to my favorite 3rd world pilot!

...

More like your favorite 3rd World Punching Bag.



Looks like you didn't beat me by 38 mins as you boasted but rather 13. Burned more gas to do it as well with fifteen knots less on the nose than my figures. Oh well.

May as well throw Mach .89 up there just for fun.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

More like your favorite 3rd World Punching Bag.



Looks like you didn't beat me by 38 mins as you boasted but rather 13. Burned more gas to do it as well. Go figure. May as well throw Mach .89 up there just for fun.

Is LRC 450 KTAS?

LRC is posted there LD....450KTAS.

Where did it burn more fuel?...never more and hell, almost 500lbs less at the slowest speed ARINC will run us...which is still faster and more efficient than the regional airliner. Maybe someone can post DA2000EX/LX numbers and see what happens with one less engine?...

Falcons may not be my favorite airplanes either LD, but they are efficient and some of them have impressive performance (for the operating $$$)

It is what it is and if it pays the bills thats good....but those EMB numbers are pretty pathetic.

 

[LegacyDriver]

LRC is posted there LD....450KTAS.

I'm tired. I missed it the first time through sorry.

Where did it burn more fuel?...never more and hell, almost 500lbs less at the slowest speed ARINC will run us...which is still faster and more efficient than the regional airliner. Maybe someone can post DA2000EX/LX numbers and see what happens with one less engine?...

Uh, your burn says 5524 at Mach .82 giving you about 13 mins advantage. You will note my last showed 5342. Post away. I'm sure it will be insightful. This is a hypothetical situation where airplanes with slats have a decided advantage--namely a short field. Falcons are good at flying slow.

Falcons are not be my favorite airplanes either LD, but they are efficient and some of them can really perform.

CLEARLY the 7X is a performer. But Falcons have always been miserly relative to the competition on fuel burn for comparable airplanes. Then again, the 50EX burns as much as a Legacy. Technology changes the game over time.

I'd love to see what the 650 does but I don't have any numbers for it. The 600 is probably at the end of the line for new builds.

 

[spxdriver]

Maybe someone can post DA2000EX/LX numbers and see what happens with one less engine?...

2 hours and 40 minutes with a burn of 4,951 lbs. That's a Falcon 2000EX.

 

[LegacyDriver]

2 hours and 40 minutes with a burn of 4,951 lbs. That's a Falcon 2000EX.

What speed is that at?

And this for an airplane with only 62% the cabin and 45% the baggage compartment area... Just saying.

 

[spxdriver]

What speed is that at?

And this for an airplane with only 62% the cabin and 45% the baggage compartment area... Just saying.

Max cruise thrust.

If you want a better cabin comparison, the 900EX is coming in at 2:34 and 5,322 lbs of fuel.

 

[LegacyDriver]

It is what it is and if it pays the bills thats good....but those EMB numbers are pretty pathetic.

I hear ya. I won't say pathetic. Because the 2000 isn't really that much better--and considering size it is worse.

The Embraer likes more runway than the Falcons do. There's no getting around that with Flaps 9 as a limit for takeoff.

But again, 4,300' is quite an extreme example IMHO and does not play to the EMB's strengths. It does play to Falcon's.

May as well throw Gulfstream, Cessna, Hawker, etc. numbers up there while we are at it. LOL