2 hours ago, Chock said:

It's really fun to fly and to anyone who is considering getting it, I'd say go for it, it's well on par with their other stuff even in this early release state.

Yep, I love it. On the back of their Falcon, their 441 is now on my to-buy list. After the Vertx DA-62.

9 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

The real Falcon 50 does not have auto spoilers. On touchdown, the pilot has to reach down and pull the air brake handle to the second notch manually.

Hi Jim,

Clarification please - so when are the brakes put in position 1 ? As per another thread - brakes plus flaps = no no ?

Thanks...

Regards,

Scott

Pos 1 or 2 to increase the ROD. Stow latest at 500ft AGL, Pos 2 at or after touchdown.

Edited November 22, 20187 yr by FDEdev

Hi FDEdev,

 Gotcha - Thanks...

Regards,

Scott

3 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Don't know how at what IAS you are descending, but the first stage of flaps extends only the slats, and since V_{FE slats}  is only 200kias this configuration shouldn't result in excessive drag.

Caveat...I'm still in seeing-what-it-can do mode and not actually following the checklists. When the runway is in sight I'm usually trying to keep it around 160-180 KIAS until I'm on short final, and then bring it down to about 110. If at 160 KIAS, I drop the first notch of actual flaps (i.e. not slats), and then the gear, I find that altitude tends to drop off very quickly. 

These are just observations, by the way, not criticisms. I can definitely live with a non-slippery jet when landing. 

 

Edited November 22, 20187 yr by Holdit

18 hours ago, Chock said:

they took a lot of the philosophy of what goes into a making a great military aircraft and put it in their Mystere airliner, resulting in it not being a commercial success, even if it was an airliner which could (and did) regularly drop at over 6,000 fpm from the TOD thanks to its fighter-like aerodynamics and fuel capacity

A bit off topic but did you mean the Mercure airliner (the Mystere was a fighter bomber)? It was a great bit of kit tbf, reliable, economical and advanced system but the woeful fuel capacity and range killed it. I don't know how it was priced, maybe it was expensive too?

 

Most aircraft do not permit the use of wing spoilers during final approach or at low altitude, as it increases the stall speed of the aircraft (some forbid any use of spoilers in conjunction with flaps) and forgetting to retract them for a go around could have fatal consequences (see AAL965). Other drag mechanisms are not normally so restricted, such as the fuselage mounted air brakes fitted to the BAe 146. The E190SR deploys spoilers during steep approach but this is managed by the computer and you only get limited extension of some panels.

Edited November 22, 20187 yr by ckyliu

4 hours ago, Holdit said:

While it's definitely a nice nippy jet, I don't find it hot at all on approach and it seems happy to dump altitude by the bucket load when I put out one notch of flaps with the wheels down. So much so that I find myself retracting flaps and adding power in order to make the runway.

That said, I don't normally do much jet flying, so a lot of that could be bad planning on my part, but I haven't yet found "coming in hot" to be a problem. 🙂

 

 

Adding flaps and gear will require a simultaneous application of increased power to keep rate of descent constant and airspeed from decaying excessively. The 50 has a very low VREF (for a jet) when landing lightly loaded with full flaps, which is one of the reasons it has such good short field performance.

The need to manage power manually in all flight phases can take some getting used to if your previous sim experience has been with an aircraft equipped with auto throttles.

For me, it is a bit easier because I been doing a lot of flying in the Aerosoft CRJ over the past year, which also requires manual power management in cruise, descent and approach.

22 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

The 50 has a very low VREF (for a jet) when landing lightly loaded with full flaps, which is one of the reasons it has such good short field performance.

Concerning low jet V_REF just a few numbers for comparison:   

Falcon 50 104kts @   21000lbs 

727-200    104kts @ 100000lbs  

C550           84kts @     9000lbs

Edited November 22, 20187 yr by FDEdev

8 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Concerning low jet V_REF just a few numbers for comparison:   

Falcon 50 104kts @   21000lbs 

727-200    104kts @ 100000lbs  

C550           84kts @     9000lbs

Yes, the 727 was an astonishing feat of engineering for its time with very low approach and landing speeds for an aircraft of its size and weight. Boeing designed it to serve regional airports with relatively short runways.

Especially interesting considering that the design of all the high-lift devices that make that possible was done by engineers working with slide rules for the most part. (That and a lot of wind tunnel testing).

2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

A bit off topic but did you mean the Mercure airliner (the Mystere was a fighter bomber)? It was a great bit of kit tbf, reliable, economical and advanced system but the woeful fuel capacity and range killed it. I don't know how it was priced, maybe it was expensive too?

Yup, Mercure, typo on my part lol. Very short ranged and basically beaten by the 1-11, DC-9 and 737, all of which had better range.

Edited November 22, 20187 yr by Chock

On 11/22/2018 at 2:31 AM, FDEdev said:

4000ft isn't exactly amazing since you need to reduce the MTOM below 36000lbs if you want to get out of a 4000ft strip again (calculated without any reserves).

If we start to use reduced weights for comparison, then e.g. an A319 is amazing with a landing distance of less than 2700ft.

 

When you consider you can depart from a 4,000 foot runway at sea level with 5 pax plus bags and fuel and do 5.5 hours with NBAA reserves, that is pretty impressive or land in Nevis with 8 seats full or depart with 8 seats full from Nevis and get to Miami. It's a very impressive supermid as is the 900 family.  Professionally, I love the Falcon 900 and 50EX for these reasons. And less ramp footprint than a IV-SP doing all of the same things.