Will Falcon build a longer range Aircraft ?

[stilton]

The new 8X looks impressive but it's range doesn't come close to the top of the line Gulfstream and Global competitors.



Is this a deliberate strategy by Dassault not to compete at the very longest ranges or something else, perhaps no suitable engine for their completely unique tri jet configuration ?

[Richard101]

I imagine their view is something along the lines of "how many trips really need more than 6450nm range?" Given that most trips won't come anywhere near the aircrafts max endurance they might be focusing on the passengers cabin experience which is what I see in the 5X.

[CL300]

Back in 1991, during the presentation of the FNX program, there was 3 big ways for the "new generation falcon"
Various issues with Honeywell, ending up in a "off-court settlement " shrunk this big view a little. What remained ?

An "upgrade" program for the F2TH and the F900; the dumping of the FA50

A relatively "new" concept completely ****** up by Mr Bill the F7X..

And a box with the remains of what was ( at that time) the brightest idea on the Market.

F5X...... 5000 Nm 2 Engines ( actual fuselage)
F7X...... 7000 Nm 3 engines ( new fuselage)
F9X.......9000 Nm 3 engines ( new fuselage)

Of course in France and across the pond, finance rules, and the mix in between the hull and wings and engines looks like coming out of a lottery bag; ending up on one of the worst patch and plug line of aircraft ever !
10 years down the road of Easy program, only half of the capability are flyable on production aircrafts.
I love Dassault, and i am typed in all of them, yes all, even the mighty 200 :-) ; but what a band of suckers when it comes to make a proper market decision, but they are like Bentley, not the latest kit, not the best engine, but definitely the sexiest and most wonderful ride one can expect. ( and yes I flew Gulfstream and Global as well).

So , what tomorrow will bring ? It will bring a F10X... the large fuselage, stretched with 3 engines and 8000 Nm, because this is all they can think of today.
Let's see when...They need to chop a couple of heads in Saint cloud first though...

[ra4000]

The future is not longer range
But greener aircraft and more comfortable
The 2 new gulfstream have less range than 650.

[jetopa]

The future is not longer range
But greener aircraft and more comfortable

Also true.

Of course there will be the owners who always want to have the biggest, fastest, newest etc., but from what I hear, more often their request is for

• reasonable operating cost
• a comfortable ride
• a low cabin altitude
• a large baggage compartment
• a second lavatory in the forward cabin
• and a reliable internet connection

The fact that Dassault has been able to sell > 250 F7X in such a relatively short time means that it cannot be all wrong. And the 5X is taken very seriously by the competitors, it seems. Even though its lower range seems to be a disadvantage...

[AZAV8R]

The future will always be bigger, farther, faster.

Gulfstream has validated that by taking the G650 a bit farther with the ER. Then there's the Global 8000....

Gulfstream's newest products, the G500 and G600 are merely long overdue replacements for the G450 and G550. Both of which will be "greener and more comfortable" than their predecessors. But still not as long or as wide as the G650. They'll fit their respective niches by design, as intended.

[FlyMD]

The whole point of the Falcon 8x is not to go fartther and faster, but to have a 500NM range increase and a permanent crew rest while achieving the same take-off and landing performance as the 7x.

By re-designing the wing, Fassault have managed to save 600lbs, so the 3000lbs MTOW increase of the 8x is practically all fuel, meaning you can still operate to London Shitty, Cannes, La Môle, Saanen, etc....

Dassault's problem with the 7x/8x right now is dispatch reliability and product support, both of which are significantly behind a G550 for example.

[Booglebox]

Cannes

I'm all for bending the rules but those 7X/8X operators who choose to squeeze it in to Cannes with the reversible MTOW placard swicharoo are risking: A. a SAFA check for ignoring PCN numbers / being sued by Cannes airport for chewing up the pavement and B. dinging a shiny winglet on any of the dozens of spam cans that have to be moved out of the way anytime you want to taxi anywhere.

[CL300]

I'm all for bending the rules but those 7X/8X operators who choose to squeeze it in to Cannes with the reversible MTOW placard swicharoo are risking: A. a SAFA check for ignoring PCN numbers / being sued by Cannes airport for chewing up the pavement and B. dinging a shiny winglet on any of the dozens of spam cans that have to be moved out of the way anytime you want to taxi anywhere.

PCN is not an issue on the F7X at 22 tons; but this thing will be past history soon. They want 35 tons..WITHOUT redoing the runway, BUT the actual runway lays on top of a "river" for the one remembering how it was back in the early 90's; meaning that they will have to scrap the whole thing in order to be able to allow these aircrafts in. I wish them luck with this.

as far as the SAFA check is concerned , as long as you had the sign off on TAKE OFF LoL, you shall be fine, therefore TEB-CEQ is not an option...For the winglet bending, even if there was NO planes on Apron T, i can assure you that the " aces of Tracma" will manage to find either a hangar or anything hard enough to tow the aircraft in. Bunch of jsdhgkughl ( self censored)