a falcon has a good finish too , the assembly to the wings is piano , there are more bolts than necessary .A falcon has 20 bolts by wings . (4 big bolts by wings for the others ) .the holding force is better distributed , even if it s not scientificaly requisite.
I'm sure some of it is branding/marketing (more safety)... but I believe 3 engines give you more thrust on takeoff so you can use shorter runways. Utility is always more important than cost. I'm pretty sure the person who owns this jet wants to visit some small strip in Aspen or up in the Alps and isn't worried about an extra million here or there.
So.. I actually work at Falcon in the US; Stachowski is right, and the 3 engines allows the jet to fly farther away from land and customers 'feel' better about having the third engine. The F900 is still a popular airframe as was the Falcon 50, and the tri-jet is totally in demand. The tri-jet is really nimble and the extra power is useful for takeoff and landing, especially on steep approaches like London City and Aspen but they're still really efficient at cruise speed. It does increase maintenance needs, yes, and that's a tradeoff that is made. Making it heavier is true but it's not dead weight. It's 50% more power for less than 50% more weight, improving the power to weight ratio of the airframe. Plus, we go to painstaking lengths to ensure that Falcons are the lightest and quietest jets in their classes; and have succeeded. They also have the best cost-of-ownership in the biz, the most runways, and the shortest combined field lengths pound for expensive pound.
Best cost-of-ownership or not, the 8X will still have its work cut out going head to head with its main competition the G650 the darling of its target customer demographic.
3 engines also allow it to fly across the ocean without having to deal with FAA ETOPS (60min to nearest airport) routes. etops=Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes or slang "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim"
When I see what is required to build such a jet from the ground up, I always think they are cheap at whatever cost they are selling. Even at 50 M$ they are cheap compared to what it takes to build them. If you were to pay it based on what you pay your plumber to fix your broken pipe attchement at home, such an aircraft would sell not for M$ but for T$.
a falcon has a good finish too , the assembly to the wings is piano , there are more bolts than necessary .A falcon has 20 bolts by wings . (4 big bolts by wings for the others ) .the holding force is better distributed , even if it s not scientificaly requisite.
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
@5:00 bless you
Why the 3 engines tho, why not 2. Those have to make it heavier, more complex, costly to acquire, own and operate.
I'm sure some of it is branding/marketing (more safety)... but I believe 3 engines give you more thrust on takeoff so you can use shorter runways. Utility is always more important than cost. I'm pretty sure the person who owns this jet wants to visit some small strip in Aspen or up in the Alps and isn't worried about an extra million here or there.
So.. I actually work at Falcon in the US; Stachowski is right, and the 3 engines allows the jet to fly farther away from land and customers 'feel' better about having the third engine. The F900 is still a popular airframe as was the Falcon 50, and the tri-jet is totally in demand. The tri-jet is really nimble and the extra power is useful for takeoff and landing, especially on steep approaches like London City and Aspen but they're still really efficient at cruise speed. It does increase maintenance needs, yes, and that's a tradeoff that is made. Making it heavier is true but it's not dead weight. It's 50% more power for less than 50% more weight, improving the power to weight ratio of the airframe. Plus, we go to painstaking lengths to ensure that Falcons are the lightest and quietest jets in their classes; and have succeeded. They also have the best cost-of-ownership in the biz, the most runways, and the shortest combined field lengths pound for expensive pound.
Daniel Smith /stachowi, thank guys, u learn something everyday. There's clearly a market for it or they wouldn't have sold any. ;-)
Best cost-of-ownership or not, the 8X will still have its work cut out going head to head with its main competition the G650 the darling of its target customer demographic.
3 engines also allow it to fly across the ocean without having to deal with FAA ETOPS (60min to nearest airport) routes. etops=Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes or slang "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim"
When I see what is required to build such a jet from the ground up, I always think they are cheap at whatever cost they are selling. Even at 50 M$ they are cheap compared to what it takes to build them. If you were to pay it based on what you pay your plumber to fix your broken pipe attchement at home, such an aircraft would sell not for M$ but for T$.