Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Range + ETOPS of a Citation X

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
falcon capt,
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.

h25b,
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)
fa50-$8-15mil
fa50ex-$19+mil
got any other questions p/m me

falcondrivr
 
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!)
 
Falcon Capt.

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.

Sheik
 
Hey Sheik,

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!

Arthur Q is my best friend!
 
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.
 
The cowl on the #2 engine is a big clam-shell which opens on the bottom of the engine... very easy access... out mechanics never complain about #2 at all...

The straight 50 is still a very good machine... still will second segment outclimb (OEI) any 2 engine plane... but the 50EX has a lot more performance and a full glass cockpit...
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top