Challenger 350 Full Performance Testing & Analysis
Hello Community! As you may know, the CL35 came out yesterday and with that we lost the C750. Business jets have long been cast aside in favor of airliners (even though some of those airliners received private-esque liveries), so this is, in my opinion, a solid update.
Today’s topic will be analyzing the performance of the CL35 and seeing how it stacks up to other business offerings we have in Infinite Flight. I will cover and compare the following aircraft:
- Challenger 350
- Citation X (removed)
- A318-100 ACJ
- 737-700 BBJ
- 737-900 BBJ
- 747-8i BBJ
- Private E175
- Private MD-11
I have elected to ignore the TBM because it’s not a jet and I don’t have enough experience flying it to design a proper test for it.
Testing Parameters
-
For all tests, each aircraft was loaded with 5 passengers (~900 lbs) and 1,000 lbs of cargo. This is to simulate standard business jet operation.
-
“3 Hours” refers to an aircraft carrying the aforementioned non-fuel load as well as enough fuel to complete a 3 hour flight with an hour of reserves. This number is obtained from my fuel calculator.
-
“Aircraft Limit” refers to an aircraft carrying the aforementioned non-fuel load as well as the maximum amount of fuel it can without going MTOW.
-
“Medium Autobrakes” refers to touching down at a reasonable speed with medium autobrakes selected, reversing at 60% N1 until 60 knots, then stowing the reversers before hitting the parking brakes when the autobrakes wear off at 30 knots.
-
“Emergency Stop” is throwing everything at the aircraft (except wildly flailing the rudder or spinning out) to get it to stop. No mind is paid to landing quality, N1, or brake temperature.
I chose to use both metrics since all the planes I will be looking at have wildly different ranges and it didn’t feel right to compare the takeoff performance, for example, of a 747-8i about to go for a 15 hour flight and a Challenger about to go for a 2 hour flight without some other nuance.
Without further ado, let’s get into the numbers.
Fuel-Related Performance
I have long held that Infinite Flight is a little too generous when it comes to range. I assume this is probably because they want to build in a little bit of leeway for new players - if someone puts in 3 hours of fuel for a 3 hour flight, it makes sense to make the plane burn only 2.5 hours of fuel so that the player is not punished. In 2005, Boeing set the record for the longest nonstop flight by a commercial airliner when they flew a 777-200(LR) for nearly 23 hours straight. Despite this record still holding, no fewer than ten Infinite Flight aircraft would be able to complete this flight, of which nine would be able to do it with an hour or more of reserves.
Anyways, I figured that the CL35 would have the same fate. Was I correct? Let’s find out.
Fuel Burn
Fuel Capacity: 14,110 lbs or 6,400 kgs
Tested Speed: M 0.82
Game-Estimated Maximum Flight Time: 7hr 26m
Theoretical Maximum Flight Time: 8hr 13m
Flight Profile (East): FL410 (100%-91%), FL430 (90%-61%), FL450 (60%-0%)
Flight Profile (West): FL420 (100%-81%), FL440 (80%-0%)
Additional Comments: Above FL410, odd altitudes are usually used. However, with ATC clearance, even altitudes can be used. I have left both in for this reason. M 0.82 is most efficient in this aircraft but it is very much flirting with the overspeed tape. 0.81 or even 0.80 may be a better choice if you’re worried about this, it cuts a tiny bit of range off but not anything significant.
Overall, the maximum flight time is not egregious. This is promising.
Flight Time
Here is how the Challenger compares to other business offerings when loaded up with the aforementioned ~1,900 pounds of non-fuel and required to fly with reserves. It is on the low side (the lowest on the chart, in fact), but this is not an issue. It’s just simply a shorter-range jet than the rest of them.
Range
Since all the aircraft cruise at different speeds and different altitudes, I also calculated a range figure.
The ordering is similar, with the one change being the Challenger now outranges the E175 because it flies significantly faster. Much more importantly, the quoted range for the Challenger is 3,200 nm. While I don’t know if this is empty or loaded, the fact that Infinite Flight’s version hits within 40 nm is a huge win (although it will probably be closing in on 4,000 nm completely empty).
Note that these numbers come from a zero-wind situation with SFC OAT set at 24C. Your mileage (literally) may vary.
Takeoff Performance
This is an incredibly important metric when analyzing business jet performance, since these aircraft will often be departing off short runways belonging to small airports. This test was performed at VTBS (very close to 0 MSL) with 95% N1 and reasonable flap settings. Not all of these aircraft would use 95% N1 for takeoff, but I need to standardize it.
Bombardier quotes about 4,800 feet for takeoff. As you can see, Infinite Flight’s version is an overachiever because even fully laden it still clears that mark by more than a quarter mile. In fact, every plane here seems like an overachiever because these takeoff distances are ridiculous. I think it’s reasonable to draw a generalization that runway length is really not a constraint for Infinite Flight aircraft. If you can find a gate for it, you can probably get it airborne no problem.
Climb Performance
Pure business jets tend to climb fast and fly high. The airliner-derived business offerings, maybe not, but let’s check out how they all stack up anyways. This test will be split up into FL100 - FL280 and FL280+ to account for the fact that ceilings and cruise altitudes in this group are pretty varied.
FL100 - FL280
This test measures how long it takes for aircraft to climb at 95% N1 from FL100 to FL280 whilst adjusting VS to maintain their Mach Transition Speed.
Ignoring the 747-8i’s absolute inability to climb while heavy, this group is fairly close together. Notably though, the Challenger and Citation X do not win outright like you think they would given the fact that their power to weight ratios are very similar and both well clear of the rest of the field. In fact, both the 0.36 Challenger and the 0.37 Citation X get washed by the 0.30 737 brothers, the 0.31 A318-100 and MD-11, and 0.32 E175. Even the 0.27 747-8i outclimbs the two business jets on a 3 hour flight. Losing to the airliners for a 3 hour flight sort of makes sense (the two business jets have a higher zero-fuel load), but losing to all airliners at the limit except the atrociously heavy 747-8i BBJ and the 737-700 BBJ that carries an insane amount of fuel seems strange. Regardless, the Challenger is still maintaining an average climb rate of 3,600 FPM while fully loaded, so it’s nothing to scoff at either.
FL280+
This test measures how high an aircraft can get to if it has its speed AP locked to its cruising speed and slowly climbs at 1,000 FPM from FL280. This does not mean these aircraft can maintain or are efficient at these altitudes, just that they can get there.
Honestly, I wanted this test to shed some more insight, but all it showed me as that every plane can achieve some pretty crazy altitudes. The two pure business jets are the two strongest contenders though, which makes sense. More importantly, both of them can maintain those high (FL450+) altitudes, which the airliners cannot do (except for the 787 family, which isn’t in this test).
Landing Performance
What goes up, must come down. Let’s talk landing performance. This test is done with about an hour of fuel left in the tank as well as the ~1,900 pounds of non-fuel weight.
Bombardier quotes ~2,400 feet for landing. Looking at the results, Infinite Flight’s version definitely is overachieving. In fact, no other aircraft on the field even comes close to matching it on a regular landing, with only the 737-700 BBJ staying with it on an emergency stop. Just like taking off, runway length is usually not the constraint for whether you can land an aircraft at an airport in Infinite Flight. If you can find a gate for it, you can probably land it there.
Conclusion
This was very interesting (and tiring) to put together in a day, so I really hope you enjoyed or learned something from it. Overall, I’m very impressed with this aircraft. The 3D model is nice, it flies like a dream, and for the first time in a while I can say that the fuel figure and altitudes make sense.
Now, I can finally get the update on my iPad which I purposefully kept on the previous version to have access to the Citation’s data and enjoy the content.
Until next time,
