NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
I am assuming your question is in reference to fuel requirements and alternates for single engine extended over water operations
For Part 91 you are limited to the 91.167 Fuel Requirements under IFR meaning you may be limited if your destination doesnt have a suitable alternate such as Bermuda. If we fly to bermuda we typically leave from ILM and use ILM as our alternate so we have to carry enough fuel to make Bermuda fly back to ILM and 45 minutes after that. This works out to roughly 4 hrs and within the capabilities of most corporate jets
135.223 is similar and our Op Specs dont have any special requirements
8400 has additional requirements for enroute operations but I dont recall anything specific to extended overwater ops
Regarding the range of the Ten, I think Cessna is advertising 3200 but reality sets in and it ends up being about 2700-2800nm. Going from the east coast to europe its somewhat prudent to make a stop in gander or there abouts to give yourself the most options unless there are some outstanding winds. Do you know somebody who flies one or are you in the market yourself? HA HA.... To answer your question, yes the Ten can go from NYC to London.
Try a Falcon 50EX for NY-London... no ETOPS required because it has 3 engines... Similar price as the Citation X new... Domestically you can cruise at Mach 0.84 or 0.85 all day long and it can get in and out of a 4,000 ft runway, even if it is raining!
And if you do lose an engine the effect on range is negligible, which means you can still make your destination, it'll just take you longer... And if you fly in and out of airports requiring steep climb gradients the second segment climb numbers are great... How about out of ASE on an IFR day (requiring a steep second segment gradient) and having more than enough fuel to go to Philidelphia non-stop?
Just wondering about the extra DOC's involved in the Falcon three holers... Anyone with some insight would be appreciated. Just curious, I came real close to being a Falcon driver last Fall but the deal fell through.
you are one lucky dude. i spent the last 5 yrs flying fa10's around with a short stint in 20's. the whole time dreaming id someday get into one of their 3-engine big brothers. the finest recreational vehicles in the air. got close recentlywith a 50b, but no deal. the EXs must be that much better!
ps: im looking for work if your company is in need.
i recently crunched the numbers on running a fa50 for a possible purchase: @180/hrs/yr...$1524/hr/docs.
this compares to a fa10 which is a completely diff airplane @ $1306/hr
the 50ex is a few hundred less than the 50b because of engine msp costs which actually makes it less $ than the 10.
a fa50, and better yet the 50ex are very economical to operate. (that is looking past initial capital outlay)
got any other questions p/m me
FalconDrivr... there is no 50b, there is a straight 50 and a 50EX... I think you are thinking of the 900/900A/900B/900C/900EX series...
I like both the 50EX and 900EX... they are a lot of fun to fly... I have about 1,400 hours in the 50EX and about 400 hours in the 900EX... Never flown a straight 50 or a 900b... BUT I do have about 500 hours in GE powered Falcon 20's (yuck!)
The straight 50 is not a performer either. We’ve got an older 50; early 80’s model and she’s wonderful to hand fly, easy to handle and all round generally a nice plane but lacks a bit in the performance department.
On a standard trip, we’ll depart with the center tank empty and 6 passengers, she’ll climb ok to 15 or 20 thousand then she’ll start to show her age a bit and we’ll have to go easy on her to reach FL330 to 350 where we will accelerate to .78 or .80 then step to 390 or 410 as we can.
They claim a range of 2,600 nm with the older –1 TFE’s but the only way we have ever seen this type of reach was with two pilots, minimal snacks aboard and all the seat cushions tossed out.
I have heard that about the straight 50's... Does the straight 50 have a different fuel system? You said you depart with the center tank empty? On the 50EX we have 3 "wing tanks" and 3 feeder tanks... each wing tank feeds it's respective feeder which feeds its respective engine... If we depart with the "center" tank empty, ol' #2 is just along for the ride....
Yeterday we departed from near Boston with 9,500 lbs. of fuel and 4 pax on board, climbed directly to FL430 and cruised at Mach 0.83 all the way to Chicago... Temp at altitude was ISA, time to climb to 430 was about 18 mins...
They advertise the 50EX range as 3,220 NM.... my guess is it is closer to 3,000 NM.... I have gone 7 hours and still landed with 2,800 lbs on board....
From you description of the 50EX, the fuel system is the same; 3 wing and 3 aft fuse tanks. Each fuse tanks is fed via a transfer pump from its associated wing tank then the engine is fed via the boost from its associated fuse tank.
I just referred to the tank layout as a single tank only because it has a single quantity gauge indicator for all three-fuselage tanks, misstatement on my part. We won’t run the center tank dry for the reasons you point out but we don’t depart with it fully fueled either. Only when we are tankering fuel, which is rare.
18 minutes to 430… good grief…
At 33,000 lbs it would take us 18 minutes to reach FL310 on a good day, 27 minutes to FL390 and nearly 35 to FL430.
OK, I understand now... we have 3 gauges for the 3 wing tanks and 3 gauges for the 3 feeder tanks....
I have never flown the straight 50 but have been told the 50EX has a ton more performance than the straight 50...
I fly the 900EX also, I understand it has quite a bit more performance than the 900B... The EX series of Falcons seem to be what the originals SHOULD have been, but I guess the airframe was before the engines time!
The Falcons are certainly the best hand flying plane out there... like driving a BMW... smooth and responsive!
Thanks for the insight, sounds to me like the straight 50 is pretty much a loser, glad we didn't get it. I don't see much advantage to the straight 50 other than maybe the range. One other question, what additional maintenance issues are there with the #2 engine. Seems like it would be a royal pain to get to. Do to its position are there issues. I fly the 731 on the Hawker 800's and we've recently had some engines popping bybass buttons and having to get torn down. I wouldn't want to go through that very often with that #2.
Anyway just thinking out loud, without really having a clue what I talking about.