Question for Falcon 2000 Pilots

[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!