Falcon 50
$10.5M
Challenger 300
$24.0M
Technical Specification Matrix
Performance Metrics
| Parameter | Falcon 50 | Challenger 300 |
|---|---|---|
| Max Range (NBAA IFR) | 3,150 nmWinner | 3,100 nm |
| Max Cruise Speed | Mach 0.84Winner (Speed) | Mach 0.83 |
| Takeoff Distance (SL, ISA, MTOW) | 4,700 ftShort Field | 4,810 ft |
| Max Operating Altitude | 49,000 ft | 45,000 ft |
Cabin Environment
| Max Certified Seating | 9 pax | 10 pax |
| Cabin Width | 6.1 ft | 7.2 ftWider |
| Cabin Altitude @ FL410 | 8,000 ft | 7,400 ftLower Altitude |
Expert Insights
Range & Capability
The Falcon 50 excels in sheer capability with a 3150nm range, making it preferred for extreme ultra-long-haul city pairs, whereas the Challenger 300 counters with 3100nm.
Cabin Architecture
While the Falcon 50 focuses on its 1-zone configuration (6.1ft wide), the Challenger 300 provides 7.2ft of width, offering a distinctly different volumetric feel for passengers.
Technological Edge
The Dassault Falcon 50 remains a meaningful Falcon model for operators, buyers, and aviation researc... Both platforms represent the pinnacle of modern fly-by-wire avionics and systems redundancy in the super mid size class.
Operating Economics (Est.)
Variable Costs Per Hour
Economic Note
Estimates based on 450 hours annual utilization. The Falcon 50 shows higher fuel efficiency resulting in lower direct variable costs per hour, while both airframes require similar fixed overheads for crew and hangarage.