If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user
Actions
DASSAULT Falcon 20
From SKYbrary Wiki
FA20
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
| Aircraft | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Falcon 20 | ||||||||
| Manufacturer | DASSAULT | ||||||||
| Body | Narrow | ||||||||
| Wing | Fixed Wing | ||||||||
| Position | Low wing | ||||||||
| Tail | Cruciform tail | ||||||||
| WTC | Medium | ||||||||
| APC | B | ||||||||
| Type code | L2J | ||||||||
| Engine | Jet | ||||||||
| Engine count | Multi | ||||||||
| Position | Both sides of rear fuselage | ||||||||
| Landing gear | Tricycle retractable | ||||||||
| Mass group | 3 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
DASSAULT Falcon 20
Description
Medium range corporate jet. In service since 1965 (200 since 1981). Initial model of Falcon/Mystère family. Replaced by Falcon/Mystère 200, improved development with more powerful engines,improved range and improved fuel consumption. In production until 1988. Production of Falcon/Mystère 20 ceased in 1983. Used in some military versions as VIP transport, ECM trainer and maritime patrol (U.S. Coast Guard type HU-25 Guardian). Falcon/Mystère 200: MTOW 14,500kg31,967.028 lbs <br />14.5 tonnes <br />.
Technical Data
| Wing span | 16.30 m53.478 ft <br /> |
|---|---|
| Length | 17.15 m56.266 ft <br /> |
| Height | 5.32 m17.454 ft <br /> |
| Powerplant | 20: 2 x 19.6 kN GE CF700-2D-2 turbofans.
200: 2 x 23,13 kN Garrett ATF3-6A-4C turbofans. |
| Engine model | Garrett ATF3, General Electric CF700 |
Performance Data
| Take-Off | Initial Climb (to 5000 ft) |
Initial Climb (to FL150) |
Initial Climb (to FL240) |
MACH Climb | Cruise | Initial Descent (to FL240) |
Descent (to FL100) |
Descent (FL100 & below) |
Approach | ||||||||||
| V2 (IAS) | 120 kts | IAS | 150 kts | IAS | 270 kts | IAS | 270 kts | MACH | 0.70 | TAS | 420 kts | MACH | 0.7 | IAS | 250 kts | IAS | 220 kts | Vapp (IAS) | 110 kts |
| Distance | 1600 m | ROC | 3000 ft/min | ROC | 2000 ft/min | ROC | 1500 ft/min | ROC | 1500 ft/min | MACH | 0.76 | ROD | 1000 ft/min | ROD | 3000 ft/min | MCS | 160 kts | Distance | 1100 m |
| MTOW | 1316013,160 kg <br />13.16 tonnes <br /> kg | Ceiling | FL420 | ROD | 1500 ft/min | APC | B | ||||||||||||
| WTC | M | Range | 23002,300 nm <br />4,259,600 m <br />4,259.6 km <br />13,975,065.627 ft <br /> NM | ||||||||||||||||
Accidents & Serious Incidents involving FA20
- FA20, Durham Tees Valley UK, 2012 (On 9 August 2012, a serviceable Cobham Leasing Fan Jet Falcon overran the 2291 metre long runway at Durham Tees Valley after beginning rejecting take off from above V1 because of a suspected bird strike. The crew believed there was a possibility of airframe damage from a single medium sized bird sighted ahead which might have been hit by the main landing gear. It was found that the overrun distance had been increased by low friction on the stopway and noted that the regulatory exemption issued for operation without FDR and CVR was no longer appropriate.)
- FA20, vicinity Kish Island Iran, 2014 (On 3 March 2014, a Dassault Falcon 20 engaged in navigation aid calibration for the Regulator was flown into the sea near Kish Island in dark night conditions. The Investigation concluded that the available evidence indicated that the aircraft had been inadvertently flown into the sea as the consequence of the crew experiencing somatogravic illusion. It was also noted that the absence of a functioning radio altimeter and pilot fatigue attributable to the long duty period was likely to have exacerbated the pilots' vulnerability to this illusion.)
- FA20, vicinity Narsarsuaq Greenland, 2001 (On 5 August 2001, a Dassault Falcon 20 with an inoperative GPWS making a night approach to Narsarsuaq by visual reference impacted terrain 4.5 nm from the aerodrome. The Investigation noted the original crew intention to fly a non-precision instrument approach and attributed the accident to the failure of the crew to follow applicable procedures or engage in meaningful CRM as well as to deficiencies in the Operator's required procedures which had combined to leave the crew vulnerable to a 'black hole' effect. The effects of fatigue were considered likely to have been contributory.)