falcon 10 or 100?

[Hugh Johnson]

The 10's we're developed and built AFTER the early 20's. The first 10 came online around 73 or 74. That's a good 10 years nearly after the first 20.

I stand corrected. I wonder why the built so few then. Theres usually a reason. I bet the head of Dassault had to use the toilet and cancelled the program.

 

[banned username 2]

The 10 was a fun airplane. I enjoyed flying it. I wouldn't mind flying one again.

Realistically, though, the Lear 35 is better in almost every way, with the exception of cruise speed (if you need to get more than 1000nm out of the 10 you're back at .76-.78 anyway, just like the Lear) and landing numbers.

I agree, I thought the Lear 35 was a better overall machine when it came to capabilities (except cruise speed 0.78 vs. 0.82)...

 

[ultrarunner]

I stand corrected. I wonder why the built so few then. Theres usually a reason. I bet the head of Dassault had to use the toilet and cancelled the program.

Ya know, that's how suff happens, I'm sure.

They built 225 airplanes. Most are still in service. The last 25 or so we're 100's. The only significant differences we're Collins EFIS, a 4th cabin window on the starboard side, std aft baggage, std TR's and a gross weight increase to 19,400.

Today, there are many earlier ones that have modded with EFIS systems better than those in the 100's. The 100's were also heavier airplanes. The GW increase is via a SB, so some early ones are also 19400 airplanes.

Most also have the tailcone baggage as well.

The airplane is an easy 1300 nm plane. It holds 5900 lbs of fuel and .80 burns are 1800, 1500, 1300. That leaves a 1200 reserve. Plenty in good wx.

If I were shopping for one today I'd look for one with an EFIS mod, higher gross and no TR's.

Those Grumman TR's weigh 600 or 700 lbs vs. a non-TR plane. And unless you are going to be using really short runways, they are not needed. Typical ref speeds are 110 to 115.

A non-TR airplane with have a BOW of 11,500 or maybe a touch less. Add in 5900 lbs of fuel and that leaves you with an available payload of 2000 lbs! Pretty darn good on a 8 place (max) airplane. You literally cannot over gross a 10 with the 19.4 weight.

It's the nicest plane I have ever flown. If you have any other specific questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

 

[banned username 2]

The airplane is an easy 1300 nm plane. It holds 5900 lbs of fuel and .80 burns are 1800, 1500, 1300. That leaves a 1200 reserve. Plenty in good wx.

A non-TR airplane with have a BOW of 11,500 or maybe a touch less. Add in 5900 lbs of fuel and that leaves you with an available payload of 2000 lbs! Pretty darn good on a 8 place (max) airplane. You literally cannot over gross a 10 with the 19.4 weight.

Lear 35
MGTOW: 18,300 lbs (Max Ramp 18,500 lbs)
Typical BOW: 10,200 lbs
Max Fuel: 6,238 lbs
Payload available with Full Fuel: 2,062 lbs (8 - 200 lbs guys and 462 lbs of bags)
Fuel burns at Mach 0.78:
Hour 1: 1,600 lbs
Hour 2: 1,200 lbs
Hour 3: 1,100 lbs
Hour 4: 1,000 lbs

Land after 4 solid hours with about 1,350 lbs and you are nearly 1,800 NM downrange.

 

[ultrarunner]

Yep, no doubt about it. If you need 1800 nm range, the 10 is not the plane. If you're range requirements are a bit less, there's no comparison in my opinion..the 10 is the superior product, and yes, I have flown both.

 

[C54Capt]

In my opinion the Falcon 10 is superior to any aircraft in its class. It has been test flown beyond the speed of sound and is built like an airliner rather than a corporate jet, not to mention it is a real joy to fly for the fighter pilot sorts. Having said that, I would select the Lear 35A over the Falcon 10 for most corporate usage because it just isn't as economical regarding fuel and maintenance. However, if your mission is always 1200 to 1500 miles and you have to do it fast go with the DA-10.

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

thank you all, could someone tell me about the engine upgrade -2c?

 

[ultrarunner]

What's the average pay for a right seater in a Falcon 10 and Falcon 20 going for these days?

Depending upon the part of the country, light jet FO should demand 50 to 60K.

 

[ultrarunner]

thank you all, could someone tell me about the engine upgrade -2c?

What do you want to know?

The stock engine is the 731-2

The mod takes it to a -2C

Basically it's a hotter core that you get. In return you'll get a cooler running engine and lower MSP costs.

Here are the general differences:

-2 -2C


ITT at TO 860 880

climb is 832 865

cruise is 795 827

MPI interval is increased from 1400 hrs to 2100 hrs

You also get an increase in Life of the HPT disk. It basicallly doubles to 10000 cycles.

This mod is acomplised at no charge for MSP customers AT CZI. In addition, if an operator does not already have DEEC computers, they are also included in the mod.

The mod also includes all new HPT disks/blades, LPT1 blades and several other upgrades, such as seals, etc...

It is a HECK of an upgrade! Basically a -3 engine on the Falcon 10.

 

[some_dude]

The 10 is also not the best if you go anywhere hot and high, at least if you want to have legal second segment climb.

At the end of the day, there is a reason why the Lear 35, which IIRC cost less when new, sells for significantly more than the 10 today. That reason is that the Lear is a better airplane.

The core of the problem with the Falcon 10 comes back to when they had the tail come off in flight testing. They had to reduce the size of the rudder, which required reducing the thrust, which hurt performance.

But, as I said before, it was a nice airplane to fly, and I would happily fly one in the right job.

Yep, no doubt about it. If you need 1800 nm range, the 10 is not the plane. If you're range requirements are a bit less, there's no comparison in my opinion..the 10 is the superior product, and yes, I have flown both.

 

[ultrarunner]

The core of the problem with the Falcon 10 comes back to when they had the tail come off in flight testing. They had to reduce the size of the rudder, which required reducing the thrust, which hurt performance.

The 10 will do .82 or better on most any day. Down lower for shorter trips, it'll do .87 and and altitudes below 30 or so, it'll indicate 370kts!

All this on about 15% less thrust than a 35 and at heavier wts.

A 10's performance is hardly lacking.

 

[some_dude]

Go visit the rocky mountains this summer, and then tell us how great the performance is on the 10.

The 10 will do .82 or better on most any day. Down lower for shorter trips, it'll do .87 and and altitudes below 30 or so, it'll indicate 370kts!

All this on about 15% less thrust than a 35 and at heavier wts.

A 10's performance is hardly lacking.

 

[ultrarunner]

Don't need to do that. But I agree with you. If I was some charter puke with dispatch sending me to those $hithole mountian airports, the 10 wouldn't be my first choice. Neither would a 35. I'd rather be in my lightly loaded 60.

 

[User546]

Don't know how accurate this information is, but here are the specs for both the 10 & 100 - courtesty of Airliners.net:
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=172