any one flies falcon 2000EX

[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







.

 

[G100driver]

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







.

Of all the guys on the board, you ALWAYS give a well articulated and reasoned response. Thank-you

The only reason I brought up my response was my buddy who flies a G-IV (older) had dual hyd failure 30W. In the 2000EX you have 4 hydro pumps to power the systems of this 2 engine airplane. The only arguement that the G guys can about the 2000 is a TOTAL electrical failure and your APU fails to light (ouch). Other than that it has just as many engines at G-series.

Again, GVFlyer, thank you for the response. Next time I am up in the almost great white north I will have to look you up. The boss already talking upgrade. You provide great insite to the G's. Much more than our former Astra salesman .

 

[fokkerjet]

G4G5,

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

I don't have hydraulic system redunancy??????? Where are you getting your info from? With an engine failure, give me an example of what I'm losing on the 2000, but through hydraulic system "redunancy", I have on the 900? On the Gulfstream, I'd hope my Aux Pump, or ABEX activated (sorry, I can't recall all the conditions that turn them on)......

As for ETOPS.........LOL...oh, never mind!

 

[G4G5]

I don't have hydraulic system redunancy??????? Where are you getting your info from? With an engine failure, give me an example of what I'm losing on the 2000, but through hydraulic system "redunancy", I have on the 900? On the Gulfstream, I'd hope my Aux Pump, or ABEX activated (sorry, I can't recall all the conditions that turn them on)......

As for ETOPS.........LOL...oh, never mind!

Ok, apparenty I need to make this real simple. If you lose the #1 engine on a F2000 what powers the #1 hyd system? Real simple question, talk to us about system redundancy or how you don't need to worry because the system is the same as a 900. BS

On an F50/900 the right hyd system shared by the #1 and#2engine driven pumps. The #2 system has the stby pump and the #3 engine driven pump. On a Gulfstream the stby and the utilty pumps act as backups for the combined and flight systems (aka left and right)

I am not here for a systems recurrent class just admit that you are wrong and call it a day. The 2000 is a wonderful aircraft but it lacks the basic system redundancy that other aircraft of comparable price offer.

I am not asking you about simple things like the F2000 elect system backups or what happens to radar stabilization in the event you lose the #1 irs. Lets face the simple fact, Dassault never ment for the 2000 to compete with the 900 or the 50.

I completly missed your point about ETOPS, please feel free to explain it. Just because the 737 does it, doesn't make it ok. Let me ask you this, what percentage of transatlantic flights are conducted by 737's? 1% maybe 2%, you care to rest your argument on those odds?

---------------------------------------​

As far as the clowns that seem to think that it's ok because "you can fly the aircraft with no hyds". Please do it with someone else. the last time I checked flying a single engine aircraft over the North Atlantic was an emergency, doing it without an entire hyd system......no thanks but I am not a hero/test pilot, maybe you are.

 

[fokkerjet]

Ok, apparenty I need to make this real simple. If you lose the #2 engine on a F2000 what powers the #2 hyd system? Real simple question, talk to us about system redundancy or how you don't need to worry because the system is the same as a 900. BS

On an F50/900 the right hyd system shared by the #2 and#3engine driven pumps. The #1 system has the stby pump and the #1 engine driven pump. On a Gulfstream the stby and the utilty pumps act as backups for the combined and flight systems (aka left and right)

I am not here for a systems recurrent class just admit that you are wrong and call it a day. The 2000 is a wonderful aircraft but it lacks the basic system redundancy that other aircraft of comparable price offer.

I am not asking you about simple things like the F2000 elect system backups or what happens to radar stabilization in the event you lose the #1 irs. Lets face the simple fact, Dassault never ment for the 2000 to compete with the 900 or the 50.

I completly missed your point about ETOPS, please feel free to explain it. Just becaue the 737 does it, doesn't make it ok. Let me ask you this, what percentage of transatlantic flights are conducted by 737's? 1% maybe 2%, you care to rest your argument on those odds?

---------------------------------------​

As far as the clowns that seem to think that it's ok because "you can fly the aircraft with no hyds". Please do it with someone else. the last time I checked flying a single engine aircraft over the North Atlantic was an emergency, doing it without an entire hyd system......no thanks but I am not a hero/test pilot, maybe you are.

Nothing like a little name calling to help make your point; been to CRM lately? You really do need to relax a little and listen to some other points of view without getting so worked up. IMHO

Like the 900, I have the same type of backup; a standby pump. The F2000 standby pump is used to back up for pressure loss on the # 2 system; two engine driven pumps power the # 1 system for added redundancy.

 

[Gumby]

Ok, apparenty I need to make this real simple. If you lose the #2 engine on a F2000 what powers the #2 hyd system? Real simple question, talk to us about system redundancy or how you don't need to worry because the system is the same as a 900. BS

On an F50/900 the right hyd system shared by the #2 and#3engine driven pumps. The #1 system has the stby pump and the #1 engine driven pump. On a Gulfstream the stby and the utilty pumps act as backups for the combined and flight systems (aka left and right)

I am not here for a systems recurrent class just admit that you are wrong and call it a day. The 2000 is a wonderful aircraft but it lacks the basic system redundancy that other aircraft of comparable price offer.

I am not asking you about simple things like the F2000 elect system backups or what happens to radar stabilization in the event you lose the #1 irs. Lets face the simple fact, Dassault never ment for the 2000 to compete with the 900 or the 50.

I completly missed your point about ETOPS, please feel free to explain it. Just becaue the 737 does it, doesn't make it ok. Let me ask you this, what percentage of transatlantic flights are conducted by 737's? 1% maybe 2%, you care to rest your argument on those odds?

---------------------------------------​

As far as the clowns that seem to think that it's ok because "you can fly the aircraft with no hyds". Please do it with someone else. the last time I checked flying a single engine aircraft over the North Atlantic was an emergency, doing it without an entire hyd system......no thanks but I am not a hero/test pilot, maybe you are.

Anyone wanna pick out the error in the above statement for the 900 series?