Falcon 7X - Who's Getting Em'? Impressions?

[volunteer]

You kids go back to the sandbox and talk about how cool you are. Just because you operate one jet does not make you an expert on another. If you go back and read my initial post, I simply offered up my OPINION about this airplane from what I knew of it. I thought that is what this thread was started for. I was talking purely from the ops standpoint. Again, I couldn't care less about the creature comfort side of it because (1) I don't know anything about what is offered in the back, and (2) I am not going to be flying it. The button to push these days seems to be the "you're the reason everyone has left FI." That's a little pot and kettle here I believe. When people gang up on another person and starts name calling (tool,etc) and tells them they should "STFU" just because they don't agree. Grow up. If you don't like your 7X, then you shouldn't have ordered it. I'm finished with this. Good luck to you all.

 

[G100driver]

what are they targeting?

Seems to me US-Europe flight departments. Lots of West Coast operators that have been forced to operate G-V's and up to go non-stop. You can operate these flights using the Flight Safety Foundation criteria for a sinlge crew.

Falcon has been at a definate disadvantage here. I am sure that the 8X will address the crew rest issues!

 

[mzaharis]

In that spot (between the Challengers and the 550) you have the 7X and the Hawker 4000.

I don't claim to know much, but I thought that the Hawker 4000 was a super-midsize, about the same size as a Challenger 300 and with similar range, and smaller and shorter-legged than a Challenger 605. I'm not sure how it could fit in the "between a Challenger and a G550 range" category.

Maybe this is the source of some confusion that people have regarding your prior posts.

Check out the specs here.
HAWKER 4000
http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/hawker/aircraft/hawker_4000/4000_Spec_Perf.pdf
Cabin - 25' long by 6' 5.5" wide by 6' high - 762 cu. ft. Cabin Volume
Range (with 625lb payload): 3,400 NM (NBAA IFR Reserves)

Challenger 300
http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_2/pdf/challenger_300_factsheet.pdf
Cabin - 28'7" long by 7'2" wide by 6'1" high - 860 cu. ft.
Max Range with 8 passengers - 3,100 NM (.80, I think) (NBAA IFR Reserves)

Challenger 605
http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_2/pdf/challenger_605_factsheet.pdf
Cabin - 28'5" long by 8'2" wide by 6'1" high - 1,150 cu. ft.
Max Range with 5 passengers - 4,045 NM at .74, 3,732 at .80 (NBAA IFR Reserves)

 

[AA717driver]

These threads only turn into bashfests when someone won't defer to others who know more about the subject than they do. I won't talk Falcons because I don't know squat about them. I defer to G200, rice and 'banned username 2'.

If I want to know something about UT, I'll call you, volunteer. TC

 

[Gulfstream 200]

G200,

It's not an Airbus, it's a Dassult product and that's the problem.
Not that initial FBW and Airbus technology was all that impressive. I still remember seeing the Air France A320 try to do the low pass (into the trees).

Please don't preach the safety of FBW until you have lived through the growing pains of being the first kid on the block to get a low serial number Falcon Jet.

I am not that old, but I am old enough to remember when I was an A&P tech for a company that got s/n 19 and 24, from Dassault, the CEO had to be the first kid at HPN with a new 900. What a POS! Nothing worked right, the APU never started, Dassault would tell us, not our problem. That was until we sent s/n19 sideways down a runway because the "French" didn't know how to design a T/R (Falcon Jet answer,"it's not our fault, it's YOUR PILOTS fault"). I would stand next to the "old timers" and they would tell me this is the way the 50 (initially designed with no APU) was when it came out. Got to love that 200 with the reverse flow engines.

Then years later, I was on the receiving end of "we just bought 3 F2000's (all s/n's under 25). They didn't work worth a crap either. I personally remember showing up at the hanger to depart the morning my buddy had a sudden stoppage right at V1 with a full load of pax trying to stretch HPN-SJC. I watched when the tech's opened the cowl and all of those nuts and bolts hit the hanger floor like my kid dropping his Lego's out on the carpet.

Not even two months later I was on the receiving end of a complete (I forgot which side) loss of one hyd system. All I did was drop the gear, come to find out, they forgot to permaswage the hyd fitting that comes off the eng hyd pump.

No big deal but when I asked Falcon Jet Engineers, "why it required full aileron deflection to control the aircraft", Falcon Jet answer "you are an idiot, what are you talking about that can't happen".

It turns out that in certain situations that ONLY ONE leading edge slat will extend on it's own at slow airspeeds because their isn't an hyd pressure to hold it up and airspeed pressure isn't enough. I guess having one slat extend on it's own, when you are low and slow, was an acceptable design criteria for those particular engineers.

I've been stuck in Rochester MN in the dead of winter because it was actually too cold for the F2000 to operate ("Falcon Jet answer, we have never seen that happen before"). Left high and dry in the Hot Austin sun because of a massive fuel leak coming out of the right engine FCU (that was actually dangerous, Falcon Jet answer, "that can't happen") Man I could go on and on about what happens when you are the first kid on the block to receive a new Falcon Jet. Or Gulfstream..

Now you want to tell me that this time it will be different, and I am a "moron" for thinking that the same Dassault engineers will produce a completely flawless FBW system. Ok, whatever, my butt ain't getting in one until they hit at least s/n 100+. I love my family too much, I'll let all you FBO Heros work out the kinks. Oh that's right the system will be perfect from inception.

I still want to know, who were the operators that were jumping up and down screaming give up FBW. Their weren't any. The push pull tubes on a Falcon are far superior to the cables on a Gulfstream. So, why did they get rid of that system? That's a question I would love to ask a Falcon sales rep. New technology(great)? Weight? It wasn't the competition.

I don't ever recall the Ailerons, Elevator or rudder on a Falcon being un-reliable. When something works don't F with it, unless you are French.

I hear ya...and Im no huge Dassault fan (obvious)...

but what does operating old 900's and 2000's have to do with the 7X Fly-by-wire?....(I confuse easily, I know) Im not sure what your point was?

anyhow, the one thing impressive to me on this 7X IS the FBW. I was a big doubter also but I will have have no problem flying it. To me it seems more bulletproof than anything out there today.

and as far as the Airbus riding into the tress? I dont recall that having to do with anything but crew error....and keep in mind....many more people have been killed by good old Boeing 737 rudders than by any Airbus FBW problems.....I know you hate the French - I find them very annoying at times also...but they have some skills in airplane making. I'll give em' that along with food and wine.

now...I do know you old "Grumman" guys are really skeered of technology and all....but y'all will come around...

maybe.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Grow up. I'm finished with this. Good luck to you all.

good riddance....take your ball and go home you candy a$$.

stick to what you know....CRJ's and college football.

 

[G4G5]

I hear ya...and I'm no huge Dassault fan (obvious)...

but what does operating old 900's and 2000's have to do with the 7X Fly-by-wire?....(I confuse easily, I know) I'm not sure what your point was?

Food and wine are great and I actually believe that they build a superior airfame but that's not the point. My point was and is. I don't ever recall any new corporate jet coming out bug free and if the 900 and the 2000 are any indication of how the 7x will be delivered (and I believe they will) then look out. I am sure that s/n 157 will be a great aircraft but I don't want any part of s/n 1,5,7 or even 57.

I have witnessed first hand what their customer support is like when you explain to them that their brand new aircraft isn't perfect.

It's not French or 7x bashing. I lived through the brake by wire problems of the G4 and the dual hyd pump issues of the G5. Heck our first G4 didn't have a perf computer or auto throttles, yet GAC felt it was OK to deliver the aircraft then have you come back and put your new G4 down for MONTHS, while they installed everything you were promised in the first place.

The company I was working on actually had an order in for the CL600. Thanks but no thanks, the flaps by wire on the 601's we got instead were POS's. Constantly pulling breakers to reset computers, seems like that is Bombardiers answer to everything. What about all the GEX issues when it first came out?

Again, that's my point, their will be problems and FBW is way to critical of a system to have issues with.

anyhow, the one thing impressive to me on this 7X IS the FBW. I was a big doubter also but I will have have no problem flying it. To me it seems more bulletproof than anything out there today.

Two things here, why FBW in a corporate jet, was their something wrong with the current Falcon Jet controls? Were operators screaming, "give us FBW"? I am a bit of a pessimist, you want to call it a technological advancement, more power to you. I question things like, why remove the inboard slats on a 2000 when they were working great on a 900? It's not $$$ the folks buying these aircraft have the coin. How many 2000 sales would you have lost? Zero, they just wanted to improve their margins. I love the air recirc system on the 2000, lets see where would be the best place to take the recirc air from? The Lav? PU. Superior engineering mu butt.

PS, their is no such thing as a bulletproof system, especially a brand new FBW installation.

and as far as the Airbus riding into the tress? I dint recall that having to do with anything but crew error....and keep in mind....many more people have been killed by good old Boeing 737 rudders than by any Airbus FBW problems.....I know you hate the French - I find them very annoying at times also...but they have some skills in airplane making. I'll give em' that along with food and wine.

It's the loss of full control in te FBW system that is the issue.

"On all Airbus planes other than the older A300 and A310, computers prevent the pilot from putting the plane into a climb of more than 30 degrees where it might lose lift and stall. The maximum bank or roll allowed is 67 degrees. The plane's nose-down pitch is limited to 15 degrees. There are protections against overspeed. And the computer won't allow the plane to make any extreme maneuvers that would exceed 2.5 times the force of gravity."

Airbus gives the crew NO WAY to overide the FBW computers.Boeing does, and I hope that Dassault will too.
now...I do know you old "Grumman" guys are really skeered of technology and all....but y'all will come around...

Not a technology issue or a "Grumman" thing. Call it experience. Let the FBO hero's be the first kid on the block with the new toy.

maybe.

Good luck with it.

 

[TXGold]

If I want to know something about UT, I'll call you, volunteer. TC

UT...thats tennessee not Texas.

 

[AA717driver]

UT can be used for the University of Tennessee, too. TC

 

[fly4kix]

UT can be used for the University of Tennessee, too. TC

The ONLY UT where I come from, you get to enjoy Knoxville's only begotten son on sundays now...