Falcon 2000 questions

[BoilerUP]

I've heard the "classic" Falcon 2000 with CFE738s is underpowered and doesn't perform very well with regards to climb capability and cruise speed...is that accurate?

For those who have flown 2000s and 50s, how does the classic 2000 perform compared to the straight 50?

 

[Cat3C]

Can't speak for the 50 but the 2000 was a bit of a hog in the midlevels and especially so with the anti-ice on. I don't recall any issues getting the aircraft to altitude. It is still very capable though and should still be considered as a good all-around aircraft. I'm not sure what you mean by underperforming at cruise. I always thought that it did pretty well in the .80 to .82 mark. I am based at a 5000 foot runway and in 5 plus years of operating never had any issues meeting our trip needs even with contamination/anti-ice on.

Dassault learned and listened to the operators needs and wants when they redesigned (so to speak) the 2000EXEASy. Added power, fuel, and an advanced avionics package are some of the big selling point.

ymmv

 

[gulfstream2345]

A very slow climber but at altitude it cruises as advertised. I flew one to Europe a couple of times and noticed the climb rate but that was my only comment/complaint.

 

[fokkerjet]

ISA+ kills the airplane. There's been more than once, where I couldn't get it up to M0.80 (or maintain), cruising in the mid 30's, and ISA+20 temps. It's lacking on take-off performance too.

Pratt's seemed to have fixed those issues...

 

[DC3Flyer]

Gv

ISA+ kills the airplane. There's been more than once, where I couldn't get it up to M0.80 (or maintain), cruising in the mid 30's, and ISA+20 temps. It's lacking on take-off performance too.

Pratt's seemed to have fixed those issues...

How quickly you've become a Gulfstream guy!! It's the world standard you know

 

[G4G5]

I had a typical milk run, Ny to California and back, max t/o # all the time.

With A/I on:
When passing FL250, you get handed off to the high alt sector, at that point I would check in and offer to take vectors to get out of peoples way.

You are a flying speed bump.

 

[johnsonrod]

You'd think the senior Netjets pilots would have some opinions of the aircraft too. They have a pretty big Falcon fleet and a lot of good experience (although I heard all outstanding orders for Falcons going forward have been cut).

 

[Cat3C]

huh

I had a typical milk run, Ny to California and back, max t/o # all the time.

With A/I on:
When passing FL250, you get handed off to the high alt sector, at that point I would check in and offer to take vectors to get out of peoples way.

You are a flying speed bump.

rriigght

 

[BoilerUP]

Assuming a max gross takeoff and ISA+5 temps at altitude, what kind of initial cruise altitudes/cruise speeds can one realistically expect and what's the time to climb?

Just how bad is it with the "anti-climb switches" turned on?

 

[TxPilot0878]

It handles as well as other Falcon/Dassault products minus the 50EX. ISA+ kills its performance just like every other jet out there. A FEW EXCEPTIONS! The PW's are great but are still ISA+ susceptible...I have plenty of LR60/2000EXexperience and ISA+10 would bring you down to 1500-2000 min up to FL250 everytime.

As far as field performance it performs well. I mean average Toff dist. is 4400ft. But high and hot is detrimental...don't know an a/c that this doesn't apply to!

But the 2000EX is a screamer and makes the 2000 look like a *************************cat!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Don't know about the straight 2000...I can only imagine what a dog if the 900EX was a dog with the ice one. It's an underpowered airplane, no doubt.

Only other Falcon experience is the 7X - and it is night/day performance compared to the 900. Yes, it takes a hit max weight, ice on climb like most planes - but it can still climb and accelerate like an airplane should. Maybe that's what you get when you have decent motors and a real wing?

You don't know fun until you are in a 900EX coming out of S America at night stuck in the 30's when FL430 or FL450 would be clear sailing.

:0

Now, of course, we all know the Gulfstream just does not have these problems.

 

[BoilerUP]

Now, of course, we all know the Gulfstream just does not have these problems.

Very true...but Grummans burn at least 40% more fuel.

I guess "you get what you pay for" with the world standard, eh?

 

[G4G5]

I can recall the straight 2000 at max gross with A/I on around FL230-250 would climb between 500-1000 fpm at 260-270kts

In it's defense I can recall hitting 10,000 ft (mid weight) coming out of JFK and having center ask a DAL 767 if he could take a vector, because he was holding up traffic. The old grey hair was taken back and said that he could pick it up to 330, I said unless he could do 360k I was willing to take the vector if he wasn't.

I am sure that the new ones must be a blast to fly.

 

[2EASYPilot]

I can recall the straight 2000 at max gross with A/I on around FL230-250 would climb between 500-1000 fpm at 260-270kts

In it's defense I can recall hitting 10,000 ft (mid weight) coming out of JFK and having center ask a DAL 767 if he could take a vector, because he was holding up traffic. The old grey hair was taken back and said that he could pick it up to 330, I said unless he could do 360k I was willing to take the vector if he wasn't.

I am sure that the new ones must be a blast to fly.

The classic 2000 has what Dassault refers to as a thrust bucket....in the upper twenties it will poop out a bit especially with ant-ice on. Interestingly, when you do level at 390-410 you will find your time to altitude is quite reasonable.

The 2000EX has none of the anti-ice inflicted loss of climb performance. It is a very good all around performer with little more fuel burn than the classic.