Falcon 50/900 Information Needed

[Lead Sled]

I'm looking for some information. The boss is starting to ask questions about Falcon 50s and 900s. Could some of you Falcon gurus help me with some information?

What is a typical BOW is for a Falcon 50? For a 900? What is the respective max allowable gross weights? How many pounds of fuel do they hold? Are there any W&B or other loading issues? What are their normal cruise mach and fuel burns? What are their normal long-range cruise mach and fuel burns? Finally, given a 500' msl airport and a 5300' runway, how much weight could you go out with at 60F, 80F and 100F in each of the airplanes?

I know that this is a lot of information, but I would appreciate any help you guys could give me.

'Sled

 

[some_dude]

If I remember correctly (it's been a couple of years), most of the 50s I flew had BOWs in the 22,000 - 23,000 range. The max takeoff weight is 40,780 and it carries 15,500 pounds of fuel, so you can see that max takeoff weight is never an issue. I don't ever recall getting close to 40,780 in a 50.

I do happen to have a SimuFlite checklist handy, however. At a 1,000 foot airport, 50 degrees at 40,780 required 5400 feet of runway (S+20).

70 degrees, you could go at around 39,000. 90 degrees you would be down to around 37,000 pounds.

 

[banned username 2]

Well I can give you info on the Falcon 50EX and Falcon 900EX (I don't have any straight 50 or 900 time)...

Typical 50EX:

MGTOW: 40,780 lbs.
BOW: 22,500 lbs.
Max Fuel: 15,513 lbs.
Payload with max fuel: 2,767 lbs. (that would be 9 passengers (200 lbs each) and 967 lbs. of bags with full fuel)

There are really no loading or W&B issues with the Falcon 50EX... You would be hard pressed to ever get the weight over 40,000 lbs.

High Speed Cruise is 0.84M (Mmo 0.86M), Economy Cruise is 0.80M and LRC is around 0.75M. Typical altitudes we fly domestically are FL390, FL410, FL430 (occasional FL450).

I have done 6+34 hours at Mach 0.80 and landed with 2,800 lbs. fuel (1+45 hrs) remaining. (Our planes BOW's are about 500 lbs heavier than the typical)

Performance: (500 ft. MSL, 5,300 ft. dry runway, no wind, 29.92")
60°F: 40,780 lbs.
80°F: 39,630 lbs. (8 pax, 200 lbs of bags, full fuel)
100°F: 36,400 lbs. (8 pax, 200 lbs bags, 12,100 lbs fuel, enough for a 4.5 hour flight with plenty of reserves)

Performance: (500 ft. MSL, 5,300 ft. wet runway, no wind, 29.92")
60°F: 38,900 lbs (wet runway)
80°F: 37,700 lbs (wet runway)
100°F: 34,760 lbs (wet runway)


Typical 900EX:

MGTOW: 49,000 lbs. (49,200 Max Ramp)
BOW: 26,100 lbs.
Max Fuel: 21,000 lbs.
Payload with max fuel: 2,100 lbs. (that would be 9 passengers (200 lbs each) and 300 lbs. of bags with full fuel)

There are really no loading or W&B issues with the Falcon 900EX...

High Speed Cruise is 0.83-0.85M (Mmo 0.87M decreasing to 0.84M), Economy Cruise is 0.80M and LRC is around 0.77M. Typical altitudes we fly domestically are FL390, FL410, FL430.

I have done 9+32 hours at Mach 0.77 and landed with 2,900 lbs. fuel (1+45 hrs) remaining. (Our planes BOW's are about 600 lbs heavier than the typical). Many guys I know flying more typical weight 900EX's have done 10+15 and longer landing with a good reserve.

Performance: (500 ft. MSL, 5,300 ft. dry runway, no wind, 29.92")
60°F: 48,150 lbs. (8 pax, 200 lbs of bags, 20,250 lbs. of fuel (9+00 hrs w/res))
80°F: 47,180 lbs. (8 pax, 200 lbs of bags, 19,280 lbs. of fuel (8+20 hrs w/res))
100°F: 44,400 lbs. (8 pax, 200 lbs of bags, 16,500 lbs. of fuel (7+00 hrs w/res))

Performance: (500 ft. MSL, 5,300 ft. wet runway, no wind, 29.92")
60°F: 47,610 lbs (wet runway)
80°F: 46,460 lbs (wet runway)
100°F: 43,680 lbs (wet runway)

 

[GVFlyer]

That's my kind of post, Falcon Captain! Good job.

You'll be ready for drag polars anytime now!


GV








.

 

[bigD]

Question:

What is BOW? I looked in my 50EX and 900EX literature (thanks again Falcon Capt!), but I don't seem to have any information on weight and balance.

Offhand, I'd imagine it stands for Basic Operating Weight or some such. Looking at the numbers, and the fact that Falcon Capt mentioned the payload in the context of passengers only, is it similar to what I know as Empty Weight, but with the weight of the crew factored in?

 

[banned username 2]

That's my kind of post, Falcon Captain! Good job.

You'll be ready for drag polars anytime now!

GV

Thanks!

What is BOW? I looked in my 50EX and 900EX literature (thanks again Falcon Capt!), but I don't seem to have any information on weight and balance.

Offhand, I'd imagine it stands for Basic Operating Weight or some such. Looking at the numbers, and the fact that Falcon Capt mentioned the payload in the context of passengers only, is it similar to what I know as Empty Weight, but with the weight of the crew factored in?

You are correct, BOW=Basic Operating Weight... Basically the plane (empty weight) plus normal stock and amenities plus the weight of the crew.

 

[Valkyrie]

And what would be the perf. with a 50, without EX?

 

[Lead Sled]

And what would be the perf. with a 50, without EX?

Excellent info Falcon Captain! Valkyrie, that's my next question; what is the performance of a "straight" 50 & 900? Is it true that a 900 will operate as cheaply (per mile) as a 50? Why? Also, does Falcon have some sort of "Smart Parts" type program? Inquiring minds (mine and my boss) want to know. Finally, what kind of fuel burn would you expect 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. hours?

Thanks again for all of your input!

'Sled

 

[GVFlyer]

You could have a G450 for 1.15 million less than a F900EX - that would pay for the difference in DOC ($1744 vs. $1688) for 34 and a quarter years on a 600 hour a year flying hour program.

GV

 

[Flying Illini]

You could have a G450 for 1.15 million less than a F900EX - that would pay for the difference in DOC ($1744 vs. $1688) for 34 and a quarter years on a 600 hour a year flying hour program.

GV

Shameless Gulfstream plug...I like it!

 

[Uncle Sparky]

You could have a G450 for 1.15 million less than a F900EX - that would pay for the difference in DOC ($1744 vs. $1688) for 34 and a quarter years on a 600 hour a year flying hour program.

That's an idea...
Using that reasoning, they could buy a "pick of the litter" used Falcon 50 and put the difference in the bank. Their boss could then pay them each a quater million a year plus pay all of the operating cost forever on just the interest. But they'd still only have two engines.

 

[bigD]

You could have a G450 for 1.15 million less than a F900EX - that would pay for the difference in DOC ($1744 vs. $1688) for 34 and a quarter years on a 600 hour a year flying hour program.

GV

Hey, you had mentioned that there were 120 Gulfstreams with VG kits installed - why would someone do that? Is something wrong with the design of the wing?

 

[banned username 2]

Excellent info Falcon Captain! Valkyrie, that's my next question; what is the performance of a "straight" 50 & 900? Is it true that a 900 will operate as cheaply (per mile) as a 50? Why? Also, does Falcon have some sort of "Smart Parts" type program? Inquiring minds (mine and my boss) want to know. Finally, what kind of fuel burn would you expect 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. hours?

Thanks again for all of your input!

'Sled

Our 50EX and 900EX operate within $100 per hour of each other...

When at lighter Take Off weights (less than 35,000 lbs on the 50EX and less than 42,000 lbs on the 900EX) and operating at Mach 0.80, our fuel burns typically are about the following:

1st hour: 2,800 lbs
2nd hour: 1,900 lbs
3rd hour: 1,800 lbs
4th hour: 1,700 lbs
5th hour: 1,600 lbs

When operating at a Max Gross Take-Off, fuel burns (900EX) will more typically be around:

1st hour: 3,100 lbs
2nd hour: 2,150 lbs
3rd hour: 2,100 lbs
4th hour: 1,990 lbs
5th hour: 1,890 lbs
6th hour: 1,790 lbs
7th hour: 1,730 lbs
8th hour: 1,650 lbs
9th hour: 1,600 lbs

When operating near a Max Gross Take-Off, fuel burns (50EX) will more typically be around:

1st hour: 3,100 lbs
2nd hour: 2,000 lbs
3rd hour: 1,900 lbs
4th hour: 1,800 lbs
5th hour: 1,700 lbs
6th hour: 1,600 lbs
7th hour: 1,550 lbs

(Disclaimer: The above data is derived from real world figures but should NOT be used for flight planning purposes, please refer to your aircrafts AFM for flight planning data.)

 

[banned username 2]

Hey, you had mentioned that there were 120 Gulfstreams with VG kits installed - why would someone do that? Is something wrong with the design of the wing?

DOH!!!
Now you did it!
(Preparing for 4 page long response (complete with drag polar diagrams ) describing the superior aerodynamic design of the Gulfstream wing...)

 

[GVFlyer]

Hey, you had mentioned that there were 120 Gulfstreams with VG kits installed - why would someone do that? Is something wrong with the design of the wing?

You must be bored. I recognize unmitigated Flame Bait when I see it.

The short answer is:

All GV/G550's have 120 VG's. Generally,they are used to generate turbulence in the boundary layer, preventing flow separation and the associated pressure drag. Suction and blown wings, like on the F-4 Phantom, have been used to accompish the same thing on other aircraft.

Specificaly, on the G550 they prevent boundary layer separation due to the formation of shockwaves. That's why you should slow down to M 0.85 if you are missing any of them.

The downside of VG's is that they also generate parasite drag. Gulfstream scientists are developing subboundary layer vortex generators (SLVG's) that will perform the same function as VG's, but at a lower drag count.

GV

 

[bigD]

You must be bored. I recognize unmitigated Flame Bait when I see it.

As evidenced by the winking smiley face at the end of my post!

 

[GVFlyer]

That's an idea...
Using that reasoning, they could buy a "pick of the litter" used Falcon 50 and put the difference in the bank. Their boss could then pay them each a quater million a year plus pay all of the operating cost forever on just the interest.

I was humorously comparing aircraft of similar capabilities. The G450 is 51% larger than the F900EX, flies 3500 nm @ M 0.85 or 4350 nm @ M 0.80 and will always go initially to at least 41,000 feet.

But they'd still only have two engines.

Which is all you need. Across over 4,000,000 hours of Rolls Royce engine fleet time in the Gulfstream the number of inflight shutdowns have been so rare as to be statistically insignificant. The G-IV and derivatives meet over double ETOPS 180 requirements.

All things considered, however, I bet the crew likes your solution best.

GV

 

[banned username 2]

difference in DOC ($1744 vs. $1688)

These numbers look pretty old... What fuel price was used to generate these figures? I would bet there is a larger difference these days with fuel in the $3.25 to $4.75 range...

Lets use the following example:

9 hour flight, landing with reserves (3,000 lbs for 900EX and 4,000 lbs for G-450) that would mean each burned 18,000 lbs and 25,500 lbs respectively for the same trip.

25,500 - 18,000 = 7,500 lbs difference / 9 hours = 833.3 lbs per hour more burned in the G-450.

833.3 lbs / 6.67 = 125.0 gallons * $3.25 = $406.25 more per hour just in fuel
if fuel is $3.75 / gal then it is $468.75 per hour in fuel cost.

This would equate in an additional trip cost of $3,656.25 for this one 9 hour leg (at $3.25 per gallon, $4,218.75 with fuel at $3.75/gal))... In addition, Internationally, most landing and handling fees are based on weight, and seeing as the G-450 is "51% larger" the fees would be larger too...

Sometimes bigger isn't always better!

 

[GVFlyer]

These numbers look pretty old... What fuel price was used to generate these figures? I would bet there is a larger difference these days with fuel in the $3.25 to $4.75 range...

Lets use the following example:

9 hour flight, landing with reserves (3,000 lbs for 900EX and 4,000 lbs for G-450) that would mean each burned 18,000 lbs and 25,500 lbs respectively for the same trip.

25,500 - 18,000 = 7,500 lbs difference / 9 hours = 833.3 lbs per hour more burned in the G-450.

833.3 lbs / 6.67 = 125.0 gallons * $3.25 = $406.25 more per hour just in fuel
if fuel is $3.75 / gal then it is $468.75 per hour in fuel cost.

This would equate in an additional trip cost of $3,656.25 for this one 9 hour leg (at $3.25 per gallon, $4,218.75 with fuel at $3.75/gal))...

The Direct Operating Costs are from the Fall 2004 Conklin and DeDecker. The fuel cost used is $2.72 a gallon, up from $2.52 in the Spring edition. DOC's also include maintenance labor ($79 / hour), parts, engine reserves and miscellaneous flight expenses.

I think $2.72 is probably a good domestic figure. It's over 30 cents a gallon more than we pay at home plate and is representative of our AVfuel and MultiService contract fuel prices.

Other than the fact that it takes a G450 nine and a half hours to run through 25,500 pounds of fuel (at 9 hours with an 1800 lb payload fuel burn would be 24,100) and we use 6.7 pounds per US gallon to determine fuel capacity - your numbers look right on and would be correct at those fuel prices with the corrected fuel burn for the G450.

In addition, Internationally, most landing and handling fees are based on weight, and seeing as the G-450 is "51% larger" the fees would be larger too...

At least as far as Signature is concerned, the Falcon 900EX and the G450 are considered to be "Heavy Jets" and pay the same landing fees. The G550 is a "Super Heavy Jet" and pays more.

Sometimes bigger isn't always better!

That's something you could only expect us guys to believe.


GV

 

[bigD]

How are you calculating the difference in size? Gross weight? Seems to me that it'd make more sense to consider the interior.

Cabin volume for the 900EX and the G450 is 1254 and 1525 square feet respectively. Eyeballing these numbers, that looks like a 20% difference or so.