Why does the Falcons have 3 engines?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brazil
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does the Falcons have 3 engines?
With the exception of the Falcon 2000, all new Falcons (as long as I know) have 3 engines. Why?
Is it for the passengers / owners feel safer?
It doesn't make sense, at least in the costs aspect.
Is it for the passengers / owners feel safer?
It doesn't make sense, at least in the costs aspect.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It gives the fat cat that owns it a little piece of mind when out over the pond. And.....mostly because if you can afford a new Falcon, engine maintenance is not one of your worries. 
Gentlemen, please. Enough with the terrible jokes already. Time for a serious answer. 
The Jetstar prototype was originally built for a military application with two 4800 lb thrust Bristol Orpheus engines - that were to be built under license by Curtiss-Wright - and no slipper tanks. The deal to build the Orpheus in the US fell through, and the American military were reluctant to acquire an aircraft with a foreign built engine. Lockheed went back to drawing board and added two pairs of 3000 lb thrust P&W JT12's in place of the single powerplant, added two 560 gallon slipper tanks to counter the increased fuel requirement and as they say in French "Viola!"
Trivia tidbit: The four rear mounted engines configuration Lockheed used was first proposed by Vickers in 1956, for the project that became the VC10.
The Jetstar prototype was originally built for a military application with two 4800 lb thrust Bristol Orpheus engines - that were to be built under license by Curtiss-Wright - and no slipper tanks. The deal to build the Orpheus in the US fell through, and the American military were reluctant to acquire an aircraft with a foreign built engine. Lockheed went back to drawing board and added two pairs of 3000 lb thrust P&W JT12's in place of the single powerplant, added two 560 gallon slipper tanks to counter the increased fuel requirement and as they say in French "Viola!"
Trivia tidbit: The four rear mounted engines configuration Lockheed used was first proposed by Vickers in 1956, for the project that became the VC10.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Educated guess - at the time of the inception of the first of the Falcon trijets, the Falcon 50, the only proven light fan engine was the TFE 731 series which had a track record on the LR35/36 and 125-700 (the later 731-5 series was fitted to the Falcon 900 and 125-800).
The only other suitable contender in the power bracket for a 2 engined alternative being the ALF502 from Avco Lycoming which at the time has all sorts of teething problems which were being experienced by operators of the 146 and Challenger 600.
The only other suitable contender in the power bracket for a 2 engined alternative being the ALF502 from Avco Lycoming which at the time has all sorts of teething problems which were being experienced by operators of the 146 and Challenger 600.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Engines on Falcons
I don't know, but it feels really good to have 3 throttles in my hand. I have flown a Falcon 50 for a couple of years, and it is a wonderful airplane.
Also, if you lose one engine on a twin, you loose a lot of your excess power(which makes you climb). If you lose one of three, you lose a lot less of your excess power on a percentage basis.
The airplane has an amazing performance envelope. We operate out of a 4300 foot strip, and can legally carry 3.5 hours of fuel on a wet runway, ISA day. Off longer runways we can non-stop it to Western Europe.
Also, if you lose one engine on a twin, you loose a lot of your excess power(which makes you climb). If you lose one of three, you lose a lot less of your excess power on a percentage basis.
The airplane has an amazing performance envelope. We operate out of a 4300 foot strip, and can legally carry 3.5 hours of fuel on a wet runway, ISA day. Off longer runways we can non-stop it to Western Europe.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Amidst the dust and the flies, somewhere in Western Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
specnut727!! LOL -
VC10 was a thing of beauty! Sad to see her retire from airline ops as indeed I was with Tridents and my beloved 1-11's!
VC10 was a thing of beauty! Sad to see her retire from airline ops as indeed I was with Tridents and my beloved 1-11's!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA50driver
Also, if you lose one engine on a twin, you loose a lot of your excess power(which makes you climb). If you lose one of three, you lose a lot less of your excess power on a percentage basis.
Also, if you lose one engine on a twin, you loose a lot of your excess power(which makes you climb). If you lose one of three, you lose a lot less of your excess power on a percentage basis.
takeoff first segment (gear down):
on a twin:
"positive" climb (25.121(a))
On a trijet:
0.3% climb (25.121 (a))
takeoff second segment (gear up):
on a twin:
2.4% climb (25.121 (b))
On a trijet:
2.7% climb (25.121 (b))
above 400ft:
on a twin:
1.2% climb (25.111(c)(3)(i))
On a trijet:
1.5% climb (25.111(c)(3)(ii))
So following engine failure the climb gradients are not dissimilar - which means that all other things being equal a twin will have better performance (in terms of excess thrust) when all engines are operating, which is the most common case (you hope
). So unless that 0.3% difference is make-or-break - in which case the twin won't be taking off without unloading - the twin is usually a better climber.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a bit more than just the certification to it mad scientist. What you quote is the certification requirements. I can't think of any of the aircraft quoted above that wouldn't exceed those requirements, some by a large margin. So the difference lies in the figures actually achieved by the individual aircraft.