Falcon 50 / Sovereign / Citation X

[HvyjetFO]

We are looking into upgrading into a FA50, C680, or C750. Can anyone provide any insight to these airplanes? I've done a lot of research and they all have particular strengths and weaknesses. At first observation I see the following...

FA50 - great range, good short field #s down at low alt airports, full pax and full fuel no problem. Med - high DOCS. Maint??? Does age create reliability issues?

C680 - Best short field #s out there, good range, new technology, low DOCS, but slow.

C750 - fast (obviously), good range, med-high DOCS, maint/reliability??? Short fields???

We tend to fly to places with shorter (<6000) runways and have a need for Trans-con range without tech stops. Any input is greatly appreciated.

Hvy

 

[G100driver]

How about 2nd segment? If that is an issue you cannot beat a 50. Do you plan on going to HI? The 50 has much better numbers than the others. I have never heard of anyone having to stop going east-west in 50 out of a 6000' strip.

If you want new with warranty then the others are a better fit.

Good luck.

 

[G100driver]

Also, a well maintained 50 by a reputable service center should be very reliable. My current co-worker used to fly a 50 for 6 years and was left stranded once (with me) because of an FMS that went T.U. before a flight into RNP-10 airspace.

 

[rumrnr78]

We have one of the last 50ex's so that puts it at 5 years or so. Parts should be no problem.

rum

 

[X man]

citation's / falcon

I did not have the privilage to fly the falcon 50, but I liked the cabin, and cockpit, and understand that they are a great aircraft for speed, endurance, passenger comforts, but I do not have any figures on the DOC's.
I flew the 750 for 500 hours, it was fast, great performance, good range, Washington DC to San Jose, 4 pax, -55 head wind component, straight to FL430, starting at .88 Mach, landing with 1900 lbs of fuel.
I also flew the 680 400 hours most recently, good range, great take off and climb performance, nice cockpit, except both the 750 and the 680 need more room for larger pilots,(6ft, 230 lbs), so for a long flight it got a bit cramped. We flew the 680 in the MIddle East, and had no maintanence issues, it just kept going, as long as you deep cycled the batteries on schedule. It actually flew nicer than the 750, better in a crosswind, and unbelievable approach speeds. Also straight to fl430 at ISA. At the mid to high 30's you were sitting on .78 to .795 depending on weight, but for the long range stuff, .72 to .74, not fast when you had to stretch the range. Anything up to 4 hours we just kept the levers in cruise detent, and let it accelerate.

We never flew the 750 slow, always in detent for max cruise, but if you pull them back to .84 or .85, you can extend the range, and both aircraft liked going higher when able, FL 450 or FL 470,(680 max ceiling), when light.

Maintenance. Like I said, the 680 just kept on trucking, although we operated in a dry climate mostly, but very hot. The 750's required more care, little stuff, but enough to put you into a service center, but that might be the price for that kind of performance. If you sat at the Cessna service center in Wichita, you would see 5 750's for every one 680, but at the time their were less 680's in service.



The citations both had huge external baggage compartments, especially the 680, incredable amount of luggage space, and we tested it regularly. The cabins on the 680 and 750 are identical, except for the 2 foot longer cabin of the 680. We had 11 seats as compared to the standerd 9 seats.

Good luck on which ever aircraft you end up with.

 

[HvyjetFO]

X Man,

Thanks for some great info. A couple add on questions for you.

How did the X do as far as short field performance? We regularly carry 6 people to small towns with shorter runways and sometimes we have to make them drive an extra 30 miles to go to the "international airport" with a longer runway.

Also, what kind of fuel burns at normal cruise do you see on both? What would you normally land with?

Thanks,
Hvy

 

[X man]

Citations

We used 4000-4200 lbs the first two hours in the 680, then it would drop at detent cruise to 1690 next hour, 1520 the next, 1450 the third, and I have seen it at long range cruise at at FL 450 as low as 1080 total fuel burn. We felt comfortable with 1600 lbs over the airport, unless we were familiar and the vfr conditions prevailed 1200 lbs worked.
On the 750, 2000, 2200 lbs preferred, 1900 was about as low as we wanted it.

The 750 worked well from short fields as long as it was not extremely hot or high altitude, then it was sluggish, but we use to run in and out of Santa Monica, with 4 pax you could make , if I remember right, Seattle, Denver, even Dallas under the right conditions. Depends on how far you need to go. The 750 had lots of thrust, and only hot high conditions really effected it's performance. But it has been awhile on these numbers. I believe there are some active guys out there on the 750, who could get you closer.

 

[Lead Sled]

We went through basically the same drill a couple of years ago. Long story short, we went with the 50 - we are based at CRQ, so runway length can definately be an issue with most types and the 50's cabin is more than adequate for us. I had some concerns with maintaining an older airframe, but after talking with dozens of operators, maintenance gurus, and even a few pilots we felt that most of our potiential maintenance headaches would be eliminated with a fresh C Check and the Proline 21 avionics upgrade that we performed right off the bat. The last year and a half has proven us correct.

LS

 

[rumrnr78]

A 50ex with the proline 21? Now that is a sweet ride!

Enjoy-rum

 

[Lead Sled]

A 50ex with the proline 21? Now that is a sweet ride!

Enjoy-rum

A 50EX would be a sweet ride. Ours is a straight 50, but still a sweet ride none the less. There's an STC out to covert the -3 engines to -4s. That would give the straight 50s near 50EX performance at a huge savings. We're taking a wait and see approach. It may be something worth doing.