any one flies falcon 2000EX

[G4G5]

The G4/5 Cl601/604 system redundance meets ETOPS requirements.
The 757/67/77 system redundance meets Etops

All have RATS or Abex backup electrical systems.

The Falcon 2000 has NO such back up electrical system.

The apu lites off in flight but funny thing is, it does too in the Gulfstrams except they give you TWO batteries to make sure it starts the Falcon 200 only gives you ONE. So you better be quick with that check list and lucky that it starts on the first shot because min bat voltage for APU start is 23v. Other wise all you did was drain down your ONLY bat.

 

[2000flyer]

The G4/5 Cl601/604 system redundance meets ETOPS requirements.
The 757/67/77 system redundance meets Etops

All have RATS or Abex backup electrical systems.

The Falcon 2000 has NO such back up electrical system.

The apu lites off in flight but funny thing is, it does too in the Gulfstrams except they give you TWO batteries to make sure it starts the Falcon 200 only gives you ONE. So you better be quick with that check list and lucky that it starts on the first shot because min bat voltage for APU start is 23v. Other wise all you did was drain down your ONLY bat.

Ok everyone, do a search of "RAT" on this board and you'll find about 400 pages of arguments, pro and con. I love a great debate, but this one has been beaten to death, IMHO.

$50 Million will buy you a GV with a fancy RAT or similar device, goes far, flies fast, people love to fly / ride in it.

$26M will buy you a Falcon 2000EX without RAT, goes far, flies fast, people love to fly / ride in it.

Both have a fantastic safety record. Both fly domestic and international. Both are loved and hated.

2000Flyer

 

[G4G5]

[/color][/size]

To put things in perspective....tell me....how many 2 engine airplanes have been lost at sea due to double engine failure? Hmmm? The only reason I would really care about having 3 or 4 engines on most modern aircraft is because of the 2nd segment climb when one sh!ts the bed.


Ummm....PFT? No no no....seriously....beer....favorite flavor? Tough call here...but I'd have to go with either Harp or Guiness Stout..

Not exactly. Nobody is overly concerned about the remote possibilites of a dual engine flameout over the Atlantic(unless you are flying an Airbus for a Canadian tour operator)

Three engines provide system redundancy The Falcon50 for example has the #1 and #2 engine hyd pumps on the #1 left system and the stby and the #3 engine on the right/#2 hyd system. A single hyd pump failure is a non event. Electric works in a similar manner.

The Gulfstream's provide an sby pump and a Utility pump ( whose purpose is to operate the cross side hyd system using onside pressure to drive the pump)

The Falcon 2000 does not have a utility pump or an abex or a rat. It has NOTHING.

 

[G4G5]

Ok everyone, do a search of "RAT" on this board and you'll find about 400 pages of arguments, pro and con. I love a great debate, but this one has been beaten to death, IMHO.

$50 Million will buy you a GV with a fancy RAT or similar device, goes far, flies fast, people love to fly / ride in it.

$26M will buy you a Falcon 2000EX without RAT, goes far, flies fast, people love to fly / ride in it.

Both have a fantastic safety record. Both fly domestic and international. Both are loved and hated.

2000Flyer

I agree in fact I love the way Falcons fly and IMHO they fly/feel better then anything I have ever flown.
With that being said, the 2000 was never designed to be an over water international aircraft ( those words are directly from the Dassault rep, "why would we do that, if you want to go Intl over H2O buy a 900 or a 50") Typical French logic.

 

[fokkerjet]

G4G5,

You got to get a grip on yourself.........we all get it, you don't what to fly a Falcon 2000 over water.

BTW, the Falcon 2000 has 3 engine driven hydraulic pumps, plus an electric standby pump. Hydraulic system 1 is powered by pumps on engines 1 and 2, and system 2 is powered by another pump also on engine 2, then backed up by the standby. From what I remember about the Falcon 900, basically all the systems on the 2000 are the same, except of course minus one engine, but that's usually compensated for by another source in case of an abnormal situation...ie: APU is a source for air and electrics, verses the third engine, and hydraulics as mentioned above. Of couse, with a dual engine flameout, I'm screwed, you're still flying! Also, from what I little understand of the B737, it has neither a RAT or ABEX, yet it's ETOPS certified.....the APU is the "backup" power source for electrics, maybe air also, so you don't need a RAT or ABEX for certification.

I don't know what ever came of it, but I recall a few years ago that the JAA was looking into requiring "bizjets" to be ETOPS certified for overwater operations( I don't recall all the details), surprise - surprise, the only manufacture supporting this was Dassault....nobody else had airplanes that would qualify.

BigD.......had a great time in Austin, rode 73 miles in a little less than 5 hours; already signed up for next year! LIVESTRONG

 

[Lead Sled]

To put things in perspective....tell me....how many 2 engine airplanes have been lost at sea due to double engine failure? Hmmm? The only reason I would really care about having 3 or 4 engines on most modern aircraft is because of the 2nd segment climb when one sh!ts the bed.

I can only think of one off hand and one or two near misses. There was also the case of the 747 that flew through a volcanic cloud and ended up flying for a while on 1 engine until they could get the others relit.

Basically however, this is one of those marketing department driven arguments that will go on forever. There is no real right (or wrong) answer. Yes, twins are safe. Personally, I've spent some time out over the South Pacific and quite a bit more time over the Atlantic. I happen to be a fan of "many motors" when it comes to operations like that. I've been stranded in places (in a twin) where it would have been very nice to have been able to do a 2-engine ferry. Over the years, I've had two inflight shutdowns in jet aircraft - one due to a failure, one precautionary - I was very glad that I was at FL390 over Montana and not 5 hours out of Sydney.

Bottom line is this...

You can talk to a Harley guy all you want about the virtues of your Japanese or German crotch rocket, you may even get him to agree with you on some points, but when it comes time to lay down the money he's going to buy a Hog. And visa versa. They've sold a lot of Gulfstreams and Globals. They've sold a lot of 50s and 900s and they're going to sell a bunch of 7Xs as well. From a pilots point of view any one is a good job to have (at least until the SSBJ comes along. )

'Sled

 

[GVFlyer]

You forgot about that other huge failure of a 3 engine airplane design...
The B-727 I don't think anyone bought any of those...
(Looks strangely like a Falcon 50/900... Hhhmmm )

Yes, they bought 1832 of them during it's production life from 1964 to 1984. Then it was superceeded by technology - it's twin engined sister, the B737, which passed the B727 in total units built in 1990.

GV







.

 

[fokkerjet]

Wasn't the 757 designed to replace the 727? The 737 has just kind of evolved into the #1 selling commercial airplane for Boeing, kind of the classic example of getting your monies worth out of an old design, wouldn't you say?

 

[GVFlyer]

Wasn't the 757 designed to replace the 727? The 737 has just kind of evolved into the #1 selling commercial airplane for Boeing, kind of the classic example of getting your monies worth out of an old design, wouldn't you say?

Point taken. In fact the original 737 had 60% parts commonality with the 727 which included the doors, leading edge devices, nacelles, cockpit layout, avionics, components and other fittings when it first flew in April 1967.

I think, however, the Next-Generation 737 - 900 has morphed into something the original B737-100 designers would barely recognize as a 737.

GV







.





.

 

[bigD]

BigD.......had a great time in Austin, rode 73 miles in a little less than 5 hours; already signed up for next year! LIVESTRONG

Glad you had a great time! I would have been there but was in Ruidoso on vacation. Was the event pretty well organized?

 

[fokkerjet]

I think, however, the New Generation 737 - 800 has morphed into something the original B737-100 designers would barely recognize as a 737.

GV

But don't you find it interesting that you still have the same type rating; -100 thru -900 series. Even with the different engines and "advanced" cockpit, same rating; but with the Gulfstream, you need a GIV and a GV type inorder to fly both models.

BigD...well organized, good bands, SAG and food, plus the weather was perfect. I'm also a firm believer of drafting......nothing like sitting behind a tandem for the last 10 miles

 

[GVFlyer]

But don't you find it interesting that you still have the same type rating; -100 thru -900 series. Even with the different engines and "advanced" cockpit, same rating; but with the Gulfstream, you need a GIV and a GV type inorder to fly both models.

That , unfortunately in the case of Gulfstream, is something that is dictated to the airframer by the FAA.

GV

 

[m3pilot1]

stop sippin on the hatorade. The 2000EX is a great airplane.

 

[G4G5]

G4G5,

You got to get a grip on yourself.........we all get it, you don't what to fly a Falcon 2000 over water.

BTW, the Falcon 2000 has 3 engine driven hydraulic pumps, plus an electric standby pump. Hydraulic system 1 is powered by pumps on engines 1 and 2, and system 2 is powered by another pump also on engine 2, then backed up by the standby.

Here is a real simple one for you. What happens to the 2000 hyd system with an engine failure?

On the Gulfstreams the answer is nothing. On the F900/50 its the same, nothing. Maybe you missed the boat on system redunancy.

As far as ETOPS goes, Boeing does not sell Etops and non Etops aircraft. It's up to the airline to comply with etops requirements

 

[GEXDriver]

stop sippin on the hatorade. The 2000EX is a great airplane.

I don't believe anyone here hates the Falcon 2000EX. Most feel as I do that it is a great flying airplane if somewhat light on power. Some use it internationaly, others have contended that it lacks the redundancy required for safe overwater flight. The later view is the position of my flight department. Fortunately, we don't have to use it for flights over the pond because we have other options.

 

[G4G5]

need to

I don't believe anyone here hates the Falcon 2000EX. Most feel as I do that it is a great flying airplane if somewhat light on power. Some use it internationaly, others have contended that it lacks the redundancy required for safe overwater flight. The later view is the position of my flight department. Fortunately, we don't have to use it for flights over the pond because we have other options.

I could not agree more. I really enjoyed flying the 2000 and from what I hear the EX provides the additional power that the original required. The 2000 Easy is one awesome looking cockpit.

It's not a matter of being a hater. It's more a matter of Dassaults original design. With that being said I was forunate enough to always have a long haul over water opition at my disposal. If the 2000 is your only aircraft, you could do a whole lot worse.

 

[2000flyer]

I don't believe anyone here hates the Falcon 2000EX. Most feel as I do that it is a great flying airplane if somewhat light on power. Some use it internationaly, others have contended that it lacks the redundancy required for safe overwater flight. The later view is the position of my flight department. Fortunately, we don't have to use it for flights over the pond because we have other options.

The original 2000 needed more thrust. The 2000EX has great thrust. Acceleration rates, typical weights, around .45. Climbs excellent, no mid-30s lag that the 2000 suffered from. All around great airplane. And, yes, the EASy cockpit is FANTASTIC!

Regards,
2000Flyer

 

[Falcon Pilot]

2000ex

I have been all over the world in the 2000's and have no complaints. The 2000EX has much more power than the classic and really climbs well. Like the classic 2000, FL410 in available with a gross weight takeoff.

I am off to EASy school next month and looking forward to seeing if EASy is really easy!

Falcon Pilot Services
[email protected]
973 945 3668

 

[G100driver]

I have been all over the world in the 2000's and have no complaints. The 2000EX has much more power than the classic and really climbs well. Like the classic 2000, FL410 in available with a gross weight takeoff.

I am off to EASy school next month and looking forward to seeing if EASy is really easy!

Falcon Pilot Services
[email protected]
973 945 3668

Nice to see a voice of reason, if not thinly vailed sales pitch , in this completed retarted thread.

Here is a real simple one for you. What happens to the 2000 hyd system with an engine failure?

Who cares!!! The airplane can fly with a TOTAL hyd. failure. Reason #1 not to have a RAT. Even so, with a single engine failure you still have your hyd boosted flight controls. Real question here, why does the G have 4(?) pumps? Because it must, high failure rate, perhaps? (GVFlyer, please)

SHHEZE you G guys are obsessed!

 

[GVFlyer]

[/color]

...Who cares!!! The airplane can fly with a TOTAL hyd. failure. Reason #1 not to have a RAT. Even so, with a single engine failure you still have your hyd boosted flight controls. Real question here, why does the G have 4(?) pumps? Because it must, high failure rate, perhaps? (GVFlyer, please)

SHHEZE you G guys are obsessed!

All Gulfstreams, the GV/G550 included, have one engine mounted hydraulic pump on each engine for the main hydraulic systems and two pumps (one in the wheel well and one in the aft equipment area) for the auxiliary hydraulic systems which provide operational redundancy and perform various utlity functions.

The GV was originally delivered with four engine mounted Vickers hydraulic pumps to power the two main hydraulic systems. These pumps, although used in the same configuration on an MD airliner, were very susceptible to faulty local maintenance practices and the system was difficult to bleed properly. Subsequently, some operators had difficulty with the system. In 2001 a more tolerant hydraulic system with two ABEX hydraulic pumps, two accumulators and two tilted reservoirs was cut into production and all Vickers pumps in the fleet were replaced with ABEX pumps at no charge.

The hydraulic system has a Hardover Protection System which takes a malfunctioning actuator off-line and a provision for splitting the flight controls in the event of a jammed flight control. The jet is completely flyable in manual reversion with a complete hydraulic failure.

GV







.