falcon 10 or 100?

[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