Hello,

I hear that the Falcon 2000EX and soon LX will be approved for operating into London City airport.

Am I hearing voices or has anyone also heard something similar?

Cheers,

Hearing voices as far as I know, as far as I'm aware there are no plans to operate the 2000 or 200LX into LCY, the aircraft does not have the capabilities to land on the short runway after completing the steep approach.

The 7X visited us on Wednesday though . . .

WIP for the F2TH in LCY..

However the 7X..... How quiet was it ? :ok:

Very! All went well according to the pilots and CAA! Very nice piece of kit.

HS-125

".....the aircraft does not have the capabilities to land on the short runway after completing the steep approach."

What do you mean? A F2000 has brakes (and reverse) so what is the problem?

As we speak,

in order to meet the steep approach AND the go around gradient, The Falcon 2000 EX has to approach with Airbrake 1 and Vref+10 mini, as a consequence the Landing distance has to be factored +12%. Conversely the field length landing weight occurs when available runway length multiplied by 0.89 is equal to the landing distance ( or Landing field lenght as applicable) given by the tables.

This is why for the time being you cannot land with a F2TH in LCY :cool:

So, does anybody have any photos of the 7X at LCY? Was it doing certification or a revenue flight?

Certification, Especially, Noise on TakeOff at Max weight for the runway.

Thrust reduction at around 500 ft... and more data for the special normal procedure to come.

Here are my photos from Wednesday . . .

Airplanepics/Falcon 7X at LCY - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Airplanepics/Falcon%207X%20at%20LCY/)

Way back in about 1994/5 I was fortunate to have a ride in one of the first Falcon 2000's to do some demo flights into and out of LCY. As time somewhat dulls the memory I suspect they probably done for evaluation probably with special permission. I know at the time there were issues with GPWS but I had a feeling that approval was given for operation around 1996/97.
Can anyone clarify if this was the case and then later the approval removed or was it never issued?
I do note it is not on the current LCY list of approved aircraft.
Many Thanks
Mike Echo

would you be able to give me a list of approved aircraft at LCY please.:ok:

Thanks for the phots. HS-125. Looks like they had to clear all the other biz jets out from the signature ramp to turn her around, or maybe it was parked where the old fuel station/security gate was.

google is your friend :


London City Airport Consultative Committee - Aircraft (http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/index.html#Other)

Google well may be you friend but that list is not up to date and has been out of date for at least 18 months

Can you update the list then ?

Well since 5th of Septembre 2007 you can add the C680, for example.

Certainly

Of the top of my head some to add, Sovereign, Encore, Challenger 601, Dornier, mustang.

Anyway back to the thread, I thoght there were a lot of similarities with the 900 wing design so whats the problem with the 2000. There are similar weight swept wing twins going in there and the falcon has good brakes is it missed approach gradient issues???

Thanks for the phots. HS-125. Looks like they had to clear all the other biz jets out from the signature ramp to turn her around, or maybe it was parked where the old fuel station/security gate was.

The Jet Centre has not been operated by Signature for years, we never had to move any aircraft at all from the Jet Centre, in fact, we was surprised with the space the aircraft took up, although having more than one at a time could hamper our operation when busy.

Of the top of my head some to add, Sovereign, Encore, Challenger 601, Dornier, mustang.

Anyway back to the thread, I thoght there were a lot of similarities with the 900 wing design so whats the problem with the 2000. There are similar weight swept wing twins going in there and the falcon has good brakes is it missed approach gradient issues???

Challenger 601 has not been approved. The 604 (With the modifications) and the 605 have been approved.

I've been told the Falcon does not have the same stopping power as the F900, also the 2000 I've been told has no Slats so has a faster approach speed. I highly doubt you'll ever see the Falcon 2000 operating into LCY, with the amount of companies operating the aircraft in Europe, it would not be financially viable considering the amount of work needed to be done to the design of the aircraft.

The certification for the Falcon 2000 was never issued for London City operations.

Sorry HS-125, I meant Jet Centre. You guys really know how to pack the jets in. Great job. If only you could get the boss of Signature Edinburgh down to spend a few days in LCY to see how you operate, they have 4 times the space and struggle with more than 12 aircraft!!:D

Second that Mccusker, probably the most capable (Best practised!) group of guys at moving planes around in the country ,very diligent in avoiding ramp rash. Biggest danger to a/c and crew at LCYJC is being mown over by a 30mph Lektro :E:E:E

Did Lee ever leave knew he was planning on doing....

The F2000 certainly DOES have slats! It has exactly the same wing as the F900 - the only difference being the lack of slats at the very wing root. Dassault chose not to install inboard slats in order to save development costs for the F2000.

No inboard slats on the 2000. To give you an example at 30000 lbs
F900EX EASy VREF = 112 knots
F2000EX EASy VREF = 120 knots

Cheers,

TSP3

Thank you all for the kind words, I'll make sure to pass this thread on to the rest of hte guys!

GSPOT, trying to work out who you are - I think I know you somehow . .. ;-)

-S

After a chat with an old friend to confirm my memory
The 2000 received its steep angle approach supplement in 1996 and it did indeed do 3 visits as demos to LCY.
One of these was for a BAUA meeting in which pasengers were taken on demos including the CAA flight inspector. However it never received LCY approval because;
(a) no operator (as far as we know) applied to operate into there privately. And
(b) at the time LCY were tending only to clear types (CAA Politics)that could perform under Public Transport conditions. The 2000 couldn't quite make 1.67 stopping distance when the LDA was still 3999ft. Don't think anyone has looked at it since the runway has been extended, grooved and arrestor-bedded.
As an engineer, and not a pilot there may well have been other factors I was not aware of. I don't know what the situation is with a supplement for the EX/LX.

No inboard slats on the 2000. To give you an example at 30000 lbs
F900EX EASy VREF = 112 knots
F2000EX EASy VREF = 120 knots

Cheers,

TSP3

you cannot compare those values,

the 900EX is on average 2000 Lbs heavier than the F2TH EX (ie 26200 vs24200 ) as BOW.
a 900EX landing in LCY that would carry around 1000 Lbs of Pax and 2500 Lbs of fuel would have a Landing mass of around 29700 Lbs when for the same load the F2TH would land at 27700 Lbs and a Vref of 115 kt...

the LDA JAR OPS under these conditions is 4500 Ft this has to be factored +12% due to AB1 / VREf +10 approach goes to 5040 ft...with a declared LDA of 4324 ft....there is a bit missing.

But people are still thinking of some options.....

You can compare those values. What I was demonstrating was not an approach weight into LCY but the performance of the wing. They are essentially the same wing but the lack of inboard slats on the 2000 results in an 8 knot increase in VREF in this case. The difference is as much as 10 knots at higher weights.

If you look at the performance of a 900 in LCY you will see that it is extremely tight even with a reasonable headwind. In addition, Dassault have some how managed to get the aircraft certified with an approach speed of VREF + 5 with AB 1 instead of the 'normal' VREF + 10. They might struggle to do the same on the 2000 due to the missing slats.

Cheers,

TSP3