any one flies falcon 2000EX

[Lead Sled]

...the reason the 757, 767 and 777 are all twins is because the airlines dictated that they wanted twins to reduce maintenance costs, not because 2 engines is a particularly good idea... Airlines are the buyers so they make (most of) the rules when it comes to those things...

I agree with Falcon Captain...

I believe that the main driving force behind ETOPS is the need to cut airline operating costs and one of the major ways this is done is by eliminating engines. In years past, engines were a pilot's security blanket - the more the merrier. The earlier generation engines didn't have the power, the reliability, nor the efficiency of today's powerplants - hence, in order for an early generation jet aircraft to be large enough to be economically viable it had to have several (4, 6, or 8) engines. (B-707, B-47, B-52) The side benefit was that in the event of an engine failure you only lost 1/4, 1/6, or 1/8th of the available thrust.

Today's engines are more reliable, more powerful, and more economical. They have the power and the reliability to enable twin-jets to safely operate over oceanic routes. Or at least that's what the airline's accountants want us to believe. If you ask almost any experienced pilot would he rather fly a 3 or 4 engine verses a twin-jet on those long oceanic legs I think that, to a person, you would find that they would favor 3 or 4 engine aircraft for those trips. This isn't to say that ETOPS operations aren't safe, but rather I believe that most pilots simply would prefer more than two engines on those routes.

I've got a friend who is a 747 captain. He put it best when he said that when a 3 or 4 engine jet looses an engine it's an inconvenience - not an emergency. Engine failures on these aircraft aren't even included on the Emergency checklist, it's considered an abnormal procedure. On a twin-jet, it's definitely something that's easily handled but, never the less, it's still an emergency.

Oh well, enough of this let's discuss something that really matters. You choose.

'Sled

 

[FracCapt]

If you ask almost any experienced pilot would he rather fly a 3 or 4 engine verses a twin-jet on those long oceanic legs I think that, to a person, you would find that they would favor 3 or 4 engine aircraft for those trips.

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.

Oh well, enough of this let's discuss something that really matters. You choose.

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

 

[SPBRIAN]

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

I'm becoming a big fan of any kind of a dark, must be the season here in the northwest. Better yet, what's the best kind of beer to go with BBQ? Even better than that anybody know of some really great BBQ in Oregon?

-SPB

 

[bigD]

For a good midlevel beer - Shiner Bock. Goes well with BBQ too!

 

[FracCapt]

For a good midlevel beer - Shiner Bock. Goes well with BBQ too!

I love Shiner....and it's finally becoming widely available. 5 years ago I had to go to Texas anytime I wanted some! Have you tried the Shiner Blonde? Kinda interesting...but I prefer the Bock..

 

[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?