Question for Falcon 2000 Pilots

[md8pilot]

I have an upcoming interview in which the sim ride is in a Falcon 2000. Can you Falcon pilots give me some gouge on flying the sim (e.g., "typical" V1, Vr & Vref for std day at MGW, power settings, degrees of pitch for rotation & various configurations/speeds, anything that might be helpful). Thanks a million!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

well I currently fly a 900 but have flown the 2000sim at FSI.

Piece of cake, one of the easiest, most docile planes you will fly. A guess on V speeds would be 112,120,133 .....

Power settings are also a no brainer...Its a FADEC. 3 clicks for T/O power, pull back one click for climb power, adjust from there.

Nosewheel steering does not seem to effective in the sim, stick with the rudders and brakes I say...

Im sure current 2000 guys will chime in with more details.

 

[2000flyer]

Chiming In

Md8Pilot,

MTOW (36.5) takeoff / SL 20°C / S&F10°:

V1 129
VR 129
V2 132
VFR 143
VENR 169

Landing, MLW 33.0 / SL 20°C
VREF 126

Gulf 200 is correct on the power settings. 3 clicks TO power, back one click = Climb, back one more click = Cruise. The sims I've been in are pitch sensitive with power changes (more so than in the actual plane). Below 80KIAS in the sim and the rudder won't steer the plane that well on the ground. Be gentle and the NWS works fine.

The controls (both sim and plane) are balanced very well. Again, be gentle. Yank on them and you'll get a surprise!

I would imagine like any interview sim check their looking for basic instrument and handling skills. The airplane is nothing to sweat. The power will come up VERY slow (even in the plane). It will slowly spool up, then the last push to T/O power will surge in quickly. No biggie, just be aware. Also, just push the throttles to the T/O detent. Don't try to milk them up. If you get a little split below 80KIAS, you'll be weaving down the runway.

Slats and flaps 10° - 200 KIAS
20° and 40° - 160 KIAS

Landing Gear extension 190 KIAS.

Typical operations is S/F 10°, let the plane continue to slow, gear down below 190, then rest of flaps below 160.

Good luck with the interview. If you have any more specific questions, please feel free to ask or PM me.

Regards,
2000Flyer

 

[banned username 2]

Piece of cake, one of the easiest, most docile planes you will fly. A guess on V speeds would be 112,120,133 .....

I thought these sounded kind of low for the 2000... These sound more like 900 numbers.. Remember, the 2000 does not have inboard leading edge slats, this jumps the numbers (and runway requirements) up a fair amount.

Ok, here is the $64,000 question:

Has anyone heard a logical explanation as to why Dassault elected NOT to put inboard leading edge slats on the Falcon 2000EX? You would think in light of them having to recertify the machine anyhow, add the slats and give it a nice runway improvement...

This is truely one of the things that make me say "Hhhmmm..."

 

[2000flyer]

Just a guess, weight? I wouldn't think the actuators and additional plumbing would weigh that much, but any added weight would negate their 3800NM promise and they've bent over backwards trying to keep that promise above all others. When the new PWC engines didn't meet specific fuel consumption goals, something had to be done to ensure that 3800 mile requirement, thus, they added more fuel. Ahhhhh...more fuel = more weight, so all the weights got bumped but they still suceeded in giving new owners their 3800 miles.

I haven't seen the new runway performance numbers, other than early predictions, but the added weights aren't affecting them very much. I do agree, however, that inboard slats would have given much better runway numbers.

2000Flyer

 

[BrnJetFuel]

I thought these sounded kind of low for the 2000... These sound more like 900 numbers..
This is truely one of the things that make me say "Hhhmmm..."

OHHHH. If you review the numbers that was at MGTOW. I doubt the 900 has numbers much less in the same scenario and at MGTOW.

If you want low numbers. Falcon 2000

Flaps 20

Sea Level and 20C

30,000lbs TOW

107
112
115
125
153

When I upgrade to our EAsy flight deck 2000EX's Ill let you know how the numbers are. We just don't go where we cant fly. Anxiously awaiting the 7X as well. Those will be some exciting numbers.

 

[md8pilot]

Thanks.

Thanks for the information! I hate going into a sim ride knowing nothing about the airplane.

 

[mike1mc]

If you need some info on the 2000, try this link:

http://www.gofir.com/general/upload/about.htm

 

[banned username 2]

If you want low numbers. Falcon 2000

Flaps 20

Sea Level and 20C

30,000lbs TOW

107
112
115
125
153

When I upgrade to our EAsy flight deck 2000EX's Ill let you know how the numbers are.

Falcon 900EX

Slats + Flaps 20

Sea Level and 20C

30,000 lbs. TOW

V1 99
VR/V2 105
Vfr 130
Vse 151

I didn't realize the EASy cockpit would change the performance number of the airplane...

Wow, what they can do with technology these days!

 

[BrnJetFuel]

Falcon 900EX

Slats + Flaps 20

Sea Level and 20C

30,000 lbs. TOW

V1 99
VR/V2 105
Vfr 130
Vse 151

I didn't realize the EASy cockpit would change the performance number of the airplane...

Wow, what they can do with technology these days!

Gee, are those numbers in the 900 at 30K with crew wairing only underwear and just enough fuel for a single flight around the pattern?


Regarding the performance numbers of our EAsy equipped 2000EX's, I highly suspect that most reading my previous post were intelligent enough to rationalize that with the 2000EX's more powerful engines and incorporating MGTOW 2000 mods, we might just get some different numbers than the standard 2000. But then I guess I assumed too much about everyone reading these posts.

 

[2000flyer]

When I upgrade to our EAsy flight deck 2000EX's Ill let you know how the numbers are.

BrnJetFuel,

Ummmmmmmmm, those were your words, not Falcon's.

(sorry, couldn't resist )

Whether the 2000EX has EASy or not should have no bearing on performance numbers of a P&WC engine.

Regards,
2000Flyer

 

[banned username 2]

Gee, are those numbers in the 900 at 30K with crew wairing only underwear and just enough fuel for a single flight around the pattern?


Regarding the performance numbers of our EAsy equipped 2000EX's, I highly suspect that most reading my previous post were intelligent enough to rationalize that with the 2000EX's more powerful engines and incorporating MGTOW 2000 mods, we might just get some different numbers than the standard 2000. But then I guess I assumed too much about everyone reading these posts.

Hey, YOU started the pissing match, I was just finishing it!

30,000 lbs. can get you from Chicago to Detroit with a couple pax...

Ok, here ya go...

This is a 900EX with 10 passengers, and enough fuel to get from Chicago to Denver (real world enough for ya?) on a 20C day.

V1.............101
VR/V2.......113
Vfr............138
Vse...........163

BFL........2,990 ft

Landing Ref........112
Landing Distance...2,470

 

[bigD]

BFL?

::scratches head::

 

[Wiggums]

Balanced field length.

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/ssmith/med.html

 

[fokkerjet]

Chicago Midway to Denver Int'l.
10 paxs with bags
OAT 20 at both MDW / DEN

.........................F2000.......F900EX.......GV
TAKE OFF WT:...31600.......36300.....61400
DISTANCE.........4590
......V1...............117
......Vr................120
......V2...............122
......Vfr...............132
......Vsr..............157
FLT TIME..........1+56............1+57.......1+53
FUEL BURN.......3691............4153.......5358.......Jet Plan data
CRUISE MACH...M.80.............M.80......M.83.........company SOP
ALTITUDE........FL430............FL430......FL470......Jet Plan data
LANDING WT...27900...........32200......56100
DISTANCE........5091...........................................factored at 1.67
......Vref............116

Anyone care to fill in the blanks on the other two?

 

[bigD]

Ah. Thank you Wiggums. The way I understand that site you listed - for a given takeoff speed (dependant on weight), the BFL is the smallest amount of runway necessary to meet both accelerate-stop and accelerate-go conditions. Right? So the BFL is what you guys use to determine whether a given runway is long enough for acceptable use?

If this is the case, I'm really impressed with the 2,990' for the 900EX!

 

[banned username 2]

Chicago Midway to Denver Int'l.
10 paxs with bags
OAT 20 at both MDW / DEN

.........................F2000.......F900EX.......GV
TAKE OFF WT:...31600.......36300.....61400
DISTANCE.........4590
......V1...............117
......Vr................120
......V2...............122
......Vfr...............132
......Vsr..............157
FLT TIME..........1+56............1+57.......1+53
FUEL BURN.......3691............4153.......5358.......Jet Plan data
CRUISE MACH...M.80.............M.80......M.83.........company SOP
ALTITUDE........FL430............FL430......FL470......Jet Plan data
LANDING WT...27900...........32200......56100
DISTANCE........5091...........................................factored at 1.67
......Vref............116

Anyone care to fill in the blanks on the other two?

This is a 900EX with 10 passengers, and enough fuel to get from Chicago to Denver on a 20C day.

V1.............101
VR/V2.......113
Vfr............138
Vse...........163

BFL........2,990 ft

Landing Ref........112
Landing Distance...2,470 ft (Landing Field Length (FAR 135) 4,125 ft)

 

[Postflight]

3 engines v. 2 engines

Just a VERY basic/quick observation or reminder:

Any three engine aircraft only loses 1/3 of its total trust with an engine failure on take off (or any other time

Any twin loses 50% of its thrust if an engine failes

Therefore, for comparable aircraft (regarding thrust to weight ratio--all other things being semi-normal), the more engines an aircraft has, the better (shorter) its BFL.

Definately NOT a dig on the 900; I'd love to back into the front seat of ANY Falcon!

 

[banned username 2]

Re: 3 engines v. 2 engines

Just a VERY basic/quick observation or reminder:

Any three engine aircraft only loses 1/3 of its total trust with an engine failure on take off (or any other time

Any twin loses 50% of its thrust if an engine failes

Therefore, for comparable aircraft (regarding thrust to weight ratio--all other things being semi-normal), the more engines an aircraft has, the better (shorter) its BFL.

Definately NOT a dig on the 900; I'd love to back into the front seat of ANY Falcon!

You are absolutely correct!