Dassault Falcon 7X Sets Speed Record From Teterboro To London City Airport
Contact us to Add Your Business
Dassault flew a Falcon 7X from suburban New York's Teterboro Airport to London City Airport on May 2, setting a speed record of 5 hr., 54 min. on the sector between the two major financial hubs. Aviation Week's Rupa Haria was along for the flight.
The cockpit is really something, Damn!
Jeepers, 4,800 lbs first hour ?????
Quote: Thanks to the wind
Unquote
🙂
Enjoyed the video
Dats one speedy plane.
le “that’s all folks” avec un accent à couper au couteau est magnifique
Teterboro in USA?? Tks.
Too bad they took off to the west … would have saved some time on the opposing runway.
Average ground speed 535 nm
True airspeed: 485 nm LMAO
0:09 What’s the catch? There are plenty of jets that can get between London and NY. Citation X, G650, etc.
That London City airport is a 1500 meter runway slightly less than 4900ft. (G650 5858ft take off, Citation X -5250ft take off) via wiki: Only multi-engine, fixed-wing aircraft with special aircraft and aircrew certification to fly 5.5° approaches are allowed to conduct operations at London City Airport. The largest aircraft which can be used at the airport is the Airbus A318.[6]
landing weight, steep approach and noise restrictions
Is it the landing or the range, i think its landing weight is within the limits.
Citation X is not capable of landing in EGLC
Actually the Citation X is more than capable to land and take off from EGLC it’s one of the most powerful planes out there with the best climb rates… it’s just not on the approved list for city – and they use that list as “blackmail”… the ten would be more than capable to operate there and as you’ll might know Citation CJ1, CJ2, CJ3 and Sovereign flying there, and just to prove my point how crazy that is you actually have commercial variant of planes that can use EGLC whereas their “private jet” counterpart can’t – like the Embraer E190 and Embraer Lineage 1000 fiasco… E190 is the commercial version approved because the airline paid for its approval – the private Embraer Lineage 1000 which is lighter, faster and less noisy not approved… makes total sense right…
The real challenge is the takeoff from such a small runway. There is no stopping distance upon takeoff
Flying M0.88 at FL290 is cheating, nobody flies at such a ridiculously low flight level burning fuel like mad.
Slow till we beat Concorde !
Concorde was extremely uneconomical. We most likely will not have affordable super sonic air travel probably until late in almost all of our lifetimes.
Why such a low cruising altitude? Wind?
I wondered that myself since this aircraft has a max altitude of 50,000. FAR FAR higher then any commercial aircraft. I think the highest i’ve been on a commercial aircraft was 40,000.
The speed of sound is higher at lower altitudes. Since the aircraft is limited by mach number, it can fly faster at 29000 than at 40000.
Mach .88 @ 29000 is 519 knots while mach .88 @ 40000 is 504 knots. Also, most trans-Atlantic airline traffic is flying at between 30000 and 39000 feet. So the flight corridor at 29000 feet will be empty. Yes, the jet-stream is usually in the 25000 to 29000 feet range as well.
For sure wind and maybe best GS performance. Not sure.
more then likely its their economical altitude.
The BMW interior is just divine.
Mate just at the same time than learjet, they were pioneer, since ages. And as they are made in the same plant than the mirage (merignac, bordeaux, my home), these little jets benefits from super hi tech since thirty years: the supercritical wings (allowing some mach speeds in case of sudden fall or brief error, ) fly by wire hud and many more….at a huge price, mostly with 3 engines. Now i found Bombardier since the G 4 are more elegant and in the same “rank”
@Ian Powell I am Gulfstream fan but the guys and gals at Falcon are slowly winning me over.
Falcons are the real deal.
Takeoff weight 36,700, fuel burn 27,000, 5 people on board= 8,700 pound empty weight? My citation 2 weighs more. I think this was the empty weight. Fuel burn at 29,000 must be crazy high. Not knowing the winds on this day, I would think the ground speed would be better at a higher altitude but I’m sure this flight was to set a record so all that was taken into account. Anyway, great story, wish I was there.
The Transatlantic Jetstream tends to be strongest at ~26,000 to ~32,000 ft. While airliners try to use them to their advantage as much as possible, they usually wont because of the increased turbulence that can occur below 30,000 ft. However, they (Dassault) probably didnt care about turbulence as much on this flight as they were trying to set a record instead.
Why are groundspeed and true airspeed in “nm”? What’s that? Kts?
NM is Distance.
Knots is Speed (NM/Hour).
It is wrong to say Knots/Hour, which would expand to NM/Hour/Hour, which would refer to acceleration, say like gravity, until a terminal velocity is reached.
i think its nautical miles per hour? admittedly, ive never heard of that
I miss understood the question then.
@AircraftMechanic I asked “Why are groundspeed and true airspeed in “nm”, and then asked what it was, and then referred to the corresponding speed unit “Knots”. Obviously the fact that speeds are referred to in “NM” is the problem, not the meaning of “NM” itself.
@Papoum he asked what NM is. I told him… I’m very aware it’s not a measurement of speed…
On your mark ,get set ,go !!!!
These speed records all depend on the wind. You get a good push and you’ll get a better time…. Same plane could do it the next day and be 45 mins longer due to winds.
Very nice..