Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Phew - that felt more like a 727 than a business jet! A rare flaps-0 takeoff. Cusco, Peru all the way to Easter Island, Chile. Had to run it at M.75 with island reserves.
  2. I haven't seen anyone on the internet yet talking about this Falcon 50. 🙂 That livery seems so familiar....... N566L - PMDG FLIGHT OPERATIONS LLC (ALEXANDRIA VA) ...oh that's why.
  3. I ended up getting the RXP GTN750. Wow, it adds so much to the experience! I feel so much less handicapped. I've only flown the Falcon 50 with it, but it makes the plane intercept LNAV courses better than ILS's! (I'll admit to still being a little turned off by the database tradeoff though. I think the FMS add-on in development will be the game changer.)
  4. Would you guys say that this makes one better than the other? RXP vs F1? In all my years of flightsimming, I've never had one of these add-on GPSs, but I'm starting to get weary of the limitations of using the default GPS/Flight Planner system.
  5. Nope, unfortunately. Just flying around using the performance at the back of the .doc file I found at the top of this thread.
  6. Sometimes I'll choose between what benefits me most for a given flight. If I'm flying a long haul, I'll usually plan fuel based on the manufacture of fuel. If I'm flying a short flight and want to operate at heavier weights, I'll use the realistic fuel burn and land heavier. -Tony
  7. I just disregard fuel *burned* counters. As far as I can tell, the weights at any given time are accurate, so basing your landing numbers on the gross weight gauge (as reset by the button on the 2d popup window) is accurate. The plane just generates fuel as it transfers. I'm working on a PFPX profile bias that accurately reflects this. Admittedly, I kinda avoided letting the cat out of the bag because what we have is basically a longer-range version. Fewer tech stops - almost like having winglets or upgraded engines. Also flying the True Airspeed indicator seems to be more accurate than the airspeed indicator at altitude. That affects fuel burn too. -Tony
  8. So I've been comparing my performance with aircraft I can confirm as Falcon 50 Classics on FlightAware (times to climb, etc) and I've backed my thrust scalar back to 1.02, and I might even bring it back to 1.00 again. 1.05 is behaving too much like a -40 or EX. Making the change also wrecks the biases on Santiago's Falcon 50 PFPX Profile that I've been working on for weeks. Hah. What we really really need is a Falcon 50 Classic (TFE731-3) Flight Manual with a complete Section 5 - Performance. If we had that, with climb performance charts, etc, we could make an accurate PFPX aircraft profile and everything. Then the trial-and-error task of biasing would be minimal because our data more closely matches Flysimware's model. I've been back and forth across the internet and, while coming close with the -4 performance doc (significantly outperforms the -3), the AFM on avialogs (completely missing sections 5 and 6), and the checklist/performance doc from the sticky resources post (only has cruise tables - which are still useful), we're still missing important pages like climb performance. I wish I knew someone with access to a Falcon 50 Classic.
  9. Any of you guys fly with the default GPS? Sometimes I use a VOR/LOC mode to fly direct to a VOR before switching to GPS mode to continue down the GPS path. Whenever I do this, the autopilot always holds half a dot left or right of the GPS course. Only after previously using VOR/LOC mode. Anyone else notice this? -Tony
  10. I adjusted mine to 1.05 too after pilatuz mentioned it above. I'm liking it! Also getting used to checking the climb thrust table every 5000' to make sure I'm where I need to be. At 1.05 it still climbs slow when it's hot outside or when I'm heavy - especially on the 300/.80 profile. I just got done flying from India to Texas today, and there were some seriously hot climbouts - I was operating on multiple occasions in blocks on the chart warmer than it had numbers for. ISA +15 or more was common over India and Canada. The climbout over Canada took forever at those temps - although I shoulda stopped at FL380 instead of going all the way up to FL400 on the 300/.80 climb profile. Tech stopped in Helsinki and Goose: VIAR-EFHK-CYYR-KSGR. Videos being uploaded on my youtube channel for posterity/reference/science. Includes the entire climb to cruise. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRl_fqsGwIFuEBnQDJYsjwA http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=viar-ksgr viar-efhk-cyyr-ksgr&MS=wls&DU=nm -Tony
  11. When you check your fuel burns against your PFPX-generated flight plan, are you comparing "Fuel Used" numbers or "Fuel Remaining" numbers? I've found that if you compare fuel remaining, the aircraft actually manufactures fuel. So I have one PFPX profile (originally built off the -40 numbers I think) that I'm trying to get biased to match fuel remaining (for an unrealistically, yet still fun, long range) and another for fuel used. I'm way over on time-to-climb vs flightplan, though. I should probably hunt around for a PFPX profile built off these tables we're talking about. Or see if I can fumble through and make my own.
  12. Finally found some performance data for the Falcon 50 with TFE 731-3's. It's hidden at the end of the checklist document at freechecklists.net (linked below and also in the sticky "reference information" post). Looks like the takeoff N1 we're aiming for is 101.5%. It also has climb thrust settings, cruise thrust/fuel flow/TAS charts, etc. Very interesting and useful stuff. I think my times-to-climb are going to get even longer with compliance with these tables, especially the 300kt/M.80 profile. (It's realistic though - I've been studying FA50s on FlightAware and they're definitely in no hurry to reach cruise. 30 minutes or more is very common when heavy. Here's an example.) http://freechecklists.net/Resources/Dassault/DA50+Falcon+50/ Best, Tony
  13. Hi guys, New to the forum. Very interesting thread you have here. Just wanted to offer some info I found. Below is a link to a Falcon 50 performance manual I stumbled upon, and which I'm going to study in more depth in the coming days. It says it's for the TFE 731-4-1C engines. It does seem like the stars need to align for it to get much higher than FL400/FL410. And even then, climbs take a very long time. The chart limits seem to stop at 300fpm or 40 (!!) minutes. 1000FPM seems a little aggressive for inching up to the limits of your plane's capability of the day. I fly the E175 and we routinely peter out to 700, 800 fpm - sometimes less if the wind shifts to a tailwind. I think 500fpm is the expected minimum that defines your service ceiling in a jet. The performance manual linked below says this about the climb profile: Two different climb schedules are recommended: • 260 KIAS/M0.72 associated with long range and M0.75 cruise • 300 KIAS/M0.80 associated with M0.80 and maximum cruise thrust cruise Also - side note. I have about 225 hours in the Lear 35 (N604S and N360AY, which both have repaints available (!!) - so awesome). Our climb profile in that thing was roughly 250/M.70. The guys I flew with referenced turbine temp for climb power setting and, depending on who you talked to, it ranged from 795 to 830. Cruise, also depending on who you talked to, was as follows: FL200s - TT 735, M.75, or M.78 FL300s - TT 765, M.75, or FF 600 (most guys) FL400s - FF 600 (most guys), or M.75 http://maistl.com/sites/wsa/50dash4/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/wsa-falcon-50-dash-4-performance-manual Again, I have to study it a bit more, but I think there's a good chance that may answer just about all the performance questions we could possibly come up with. All the best, Tony
  • Create New...