banner
banner

19 Jun 2021, 14:59 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 09 May 2021, 19:15 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 02/22/13
Posts: 119
Post Likes: +50
Location: Jensen Beach, FL
Username Protected wrote:
Wow. What a machine. Even if there was no performance reason for it I still think 3 engine gauges looks cooler than 2!

Do you train a single engine approach? Or is everything still on OEI?


Yes we do a single engine approach for the syllabus, and all engine out if we have time. 3 little engines or 2 big ones- if you have enough money just pick the one you like best! :cheers:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 10 May 2021, 09:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 07/10/08
Posts: 504
Post Likes: +64
Location: Leander, Texas
Username Protected wrote:
I like flying the 7X. If we have a plain old engine failure half way from Florida to Europe, I’ll sure feel better about still having 2 good motors during that 3 hour flight to our divert airport. The biggest advantage Falcon had over the G-whiz’s- no ladder is required for pitot covers install and it’s much easier to load baggage. I’d say that advantage is gone with the 10X.


Having flown both and loving each for different reasons, I do not miss installing the 7X center engine cover. Slick wing and or any wind made it interesting :). (We rarely installed engine covers on the Gulfstreams).

Kevin


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 10:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 6514
Post Likes: +1502
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
Username Protected wrote:
I like flying the 7X. If we have a plain old engine failure half way from Florida to Europe, I’ll sure feel better about still having 2 good motors during that 3 hour flight to our divert airport.

Exactly!

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 13:38 
Online



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 11317
Post Likes: +9628
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
I like flying the 7X. If we have a plain old engine failure half way from Florida to Europe, I’ll sure feel better about still having 2 good motors during that 3 hour flight to our divert airport.

Exactly!

Will it fly on one?
_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 16:12 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +148
Username Protected wrote:
Will it fly on one?

It probably will, though I don't know how high. I think his point, however, was that they never really have to worry about flying on only one engine.

Don't tri-jets have lower IFR takeoff minimums than singles or twins for Part 121, Part 125, Part 129, and Part 135 operations?

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 16:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/31/17
Posts: 509
Post Likes: +287
Location: KADS
Aircraft: C560, C340
Falcon 900EX did :D .

"According to Alexander Beringer, COO of Fair Wind, the problem manifested itself soon after takeoff, as the aircraft indicated a clog in its number-two engine fuel filter, followed quickly by the same indication in the number-three powerplant. The crew decided to return to base and then declared an emergency when the number-two engine failed. At 8,000 feet on approach, the number-three engine became unresponsive to throttle input, yet the crew landed safely on just the number-one engine, which also reported a filter clog. "We got lucky," he said, noting the entire incident occurred in less than 12 minutes from start to finish."

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... nated-fuel

I remember my Dad telling me about a recurrent in the 727 Sim where he was down to one engine on an ADF approach. He made it.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 16:53 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 13363
Post Likes: +16329
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEVV
Aircraft: MU-2B-26, C560V
Username Protected wrote:
at 8,000 feet on approach, the number-three engine became unresponsive to throttle input, yet the crew landed safely on just the number-one engine, which also reported a filter clog. "We got lucky," he said, noting the entire incident occurred in less than 12 minutes from start to finish."

Not clear it could fly on one if it was on the approach and descending. If it was heavy, which seems likely given it had just departed, it might have been close.

It was also clear that the third engine was going to quit soon as well. It definitely won't fly for very long with no engines.

Not exactly an indication that 3 engines are better than 2. Whatever takes out 2 engines (DEF in this case) will likely take out 3 engines or 4 engines.

Now they get to clean up 3 engines worth of DEF contamination instead of 2.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 17:47 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 618
Post Likes: +264
Aircraft: C340A
Username Protected wrote:
at 8,000 feet on approach, the number-three engine became unresponsive to throttle input, yet the crew landed safely on just the number-one engine, which also reported a filter clog. "We got lucky," he said, noting the entire incident occurred in less than 12 minutes from start to finish."

Not clear it could fly on one if it was on the approach and descending. If it was heavy, which seems likely given it had just departed, it might have been close.

It was also clear that the third engine was going to quit soon as well. It definitely won't fly for very long with no engines.

Not exactly an indication that 3 engines are better than 2. Whatever takes out 2 engines (DEF in this case) will likely take out 3 engines or 4 engines.

Now they get to clean up 3 engines worth of DEF contamination instead of 2.

Mike C.


This isn't exactly related to the issue at hand, it affected all engines regardless if it was 1 or 4, so I'd put this in the category of a bird strike from that perspective. Given that the engines all fail at different times a slight advantage would be for the trijet, if this were a twin they may not have made the threshold.

The idea is the third engine removes some of the risk associated with losing an engine. Things that would cause a failure of two engines and not all engines seem exceedingly remote.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 17:58 
Offline


User avatar
 YIM  Profile

Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 6784
Post Likes: +1645
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: KA A/B90
I’m reminded of the L-1011 that damn near had a water ditching (they were preparing for it) in the Miami area. It was a maintenance induced failure (failure to replace oil sensor seals or something like that) which affected all three engines in succession.

I think its lessons drove a lot of the ETOPS rule making, somewhat ironically.

_________________
[unintelligible]


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 18:12 
Online


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 4782
Post Likes: +1796
Company: Aviation Tools / CCX
Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
Username Protected wrote:

Now they get to clean up 3 engines worth of DEF contamination instead of 2.

Mike C.


Now you are arguing for the SF50


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 18:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/31/17
Posts: 509
Post Likes: +287
Location: KADS
Aircraft: C560, C340
Username Protected wrote:
at 8,000 feet on approach, the number-three engine became unresponsive to throttle input, yet the crew landed safely on just the number-one engine, which also reported a filter clog. "We got lucky," he said, noting the entire incident occurred in less than 12 minutes from start to finish."

Not clear it could fly on one if it was on the approach and descending. If it was heavy, which seems likely given it had just departed, it might have been close.

It was also clear that the third engine was going to quit soon as well. It definitely won't fly for very long with no engines.

Not exactly an indication that 3 engines are better than 2. Whatever takes out 2 engines (DEF in this case) will likely take out 3 engines or 4 engines.

Now they get to clean up 3 engines worth of DEF contamination instead of 2.

Mike C.


Of all the airplanes with DEF contamination that lost 2 engines this is the only one that landed with one running. :D That I know of.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 18:55 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +148
Username Protected wrote:

Of all the airplanes with DEF contamination that lost 2 engines this is the only one that landed with one running. :D That I know of.


Well, doesn't DEF only stand for DUAL Engine Failure?

Edit: green font applied

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Last edited on 11 May 2021, 21:45, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 20:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 01/30/08
Posts: 1059
Post Likes: +775
Location: San Diego CA.
Username Protected wrote:

Of all the airplanes with DEF contamination that lost 2 engines this is the only one that landed with one running. :D That I know of.


Well, doesn't DEF only stand for DUAL Engine Failure?


No, it's a diesel fuel additive that does not get along well with jet engines.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 20:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 01/30/08
Posts: 1059
Post Likes: +775
Location: San Diego CA.
Username Protected wrote:

Don't tri-jets have lower IFR takeoff minimums than singles or twins for Part 121, Part 125, Part 129, and Part 135 operations?


They have lower standard take-off minimums but I don't think there is a 121, 135 or 129 carrier that does not use a lower than standard take-off minimum.

That is to say tri and quad jets have no real take off minimum advantages.


As an aside I would also like to know what the point of the single power lever is. I don't see a real advantage.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Falcon 10X
PostPosted: 11 May 2021, 20:44 
Online



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 11317
Post Likes: +9628
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
As an aside I would also like to know what the point of the single power lever is. I don't see a real advantage.

That’s the crux of it for me; there is a potential down side and no upside that I can see. Just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2021

.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Flaremeter_85x50_v2.png.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.aspen-85x100.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.dynon-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.dshannon.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.SierraTrax_85x50.jpeg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.southseas-85x50-2021.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-05-24.jpg.
.Microkit_85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.