Range + ETOPS of a Citation X

[shon7]

Can anyone tell me what the range is for the Citation X. Can it fly NY - London non-stop?

Any other corporate jets (excluding the gulfstreams ) with similar ranges.

Also what is the ETOPS requirement for the corporate jets?

 

[flydog]

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

Anyone else?

 

[IDO.92]

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.

 

[banned username 2]

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?

Falcon Capt.

 

[flydog]

Falcon Capt

What are the ETOPS requirements for twin engine jets. I wasnt aware of any for 91 or 135

 

[banned username 2]

I don't think there is any, but honestly not sure if there are, haven't looked into it since the only thing I currently fly is the Falcon 900EX and 50EX... both have 3 engines....

 

[h25b]

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.

 

[banned username 2]

I don't know the exact numbers but I have been told to DOCs on our Falcon 50EXs are about $1200 per hour and the 900EX at about $1250-$1300...

 

[Webslinger]

ETOPS= Engines Turn or People Swim.........heard this joke from a UAL 777 Capt., clever.....lol

 

[mach none]

I have to agree. The Falcon jet is a fine machine without the worries of ETOPS. The only thing better than 3 is 4.

 

[banned username 2]

Yeah, 4 is good but who wants to fly an old Jetstar.... Lead Sled!

 

[falcondrivr]

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

 

[banned username 2]

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!)

 

[falcondrivr]

youre right, ive been researching 900s lately and my brains fuzzy.
have fun
fd

 

[Sheik_Yer_Booty]

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

 

[banned username 2]

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....

 

[Sheik_Yer_Booty]

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.

 

[banned username 2]

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!

 

[h25b]

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.

 

[banned username 2]

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...

 

[GVFlyer]

Dassault

You know that Serge' Dassault tried to put the 50 out of production, but it had such a loyal customer base that the customers wouldn't let him, hince the 50EX. Falcon has had their share of problems with the TFE 731's. The 900 initially had problems with reduction gearing causing resonance and fan cracks. Then there were the problems with the carbon seals which they fixed, but then forgot to fix on the -40 and -60 engines for the 50EX and the 900EX. However, they had bigger problems on those engines in that the number 4 bearing journals were improperly drilled so they were not oiling properly. Subsequently, all the cases had to be cracked to fix the problem. Statistically, you are still more likely to arrive single engine in a three-holer Falcon than you are in the the Rolls-Royce powered Gulfstream. If three engine aircraft were a good idea, somebody besides Dassault would make them. There is an immediate 50% increase in maintenance costs when you have three engines doing the work of two. Falcon has realized this, their newest product will have two engines.

Having said all this, I've long thought that the Falcon was a great airplane in search of a great engine - they sure are sweet to fly!





.

 

[banned username 2]

Actually the 50EX has -40 engines and the 900EX has -60 engines...

I think statistically you are more likely to end up "Single Engine" in a two engine airplane, because in a 3 engine airplane it would require a double engine failure...

I THINK what you meant is statistically you are more likely to loose an engine in a 3 engine plane than a 2 engine plane... but then again, no big deal, a single engine failure isn't even on the Emergency Checklist... it is on the Abnormal Checklist!

And by the way, their "Newest Product" will have THREE engines... the Falcon 7X.... looks like a very overgrown 900EX, but with greater sweep angle on the wings... but still 3 engines!

 

[GVFlyer]

Granted.

I meant that because the Allied Signal TFE-731's fail at a rate greater than twice as often as the Rolls Royce's that you are statistically more likely to loose two of the TFE-731's than you are one of the Rolls.

This is easy to understand. At mid-ocean, the BR-710's on the GV are running around 88-89% on both LP and HP. The fastest spool on the engine is turning around 11,000 rpm. The engine is derated to 14,750 pounds of thrust from a family of engines designed to produce 22,000 lbs. It's loafing.

The TFE-731 engine started life as an APU for the DC-10. It has had to grow significantly since it's original design. In most applications, it's trimmed up to 101.5% and it's fastest spool is spinning at over 40,000 rpm. Keep in mind that internal pressures are a squared function of rotational velocities. It's running hard.

The newest product I was referring to is the 2000EX which has flown and will be delivered with two PW308C's once certified. It's interesting to note that they have abandoned the GE 738's in this growth derivative of the 2000.

It will be interesting to see if Dassault makes the Falcon 7X. I hope they do - competition improves the breed, but they have backed out of this market once before.