Gulfstream to announce new jet Oct 14 2014
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Project P-42.
From Savannahnow:
"Whatever the project code-named P42 looks like, most industry insiders agree it will be Gulfstream’s answer to the Falcon 5X, which has a wider cabin and the ability to fly 1,000 nautical miles farther than the G450.
Aviation News has reported that the P42 is a clean-sheet successor to the G450 and will build on the all-new wing, fuselage and systems of the G650.
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the P42 is the report from Aviation News that General Electric and Pratt and Whitney appear to be the front-runners to power the new aircraft after Gulfstream ousted longtime supplier Rolls-Royce from the contest.
If confirmed, the decision would mark the first time in more than 50 years a heritage Gulfstream business aircraft has moved into final design with a non-Rolls engine."
From Savannahnow:
"Whatever the project code-named P42 looks like, most industry insiders agree it will be Gulfstream’s answer to the Falcon 5X, which has a wider cabin and the ability to fly 1,000 nautical miles farther than the G450.
Aviation News has reported that the P42 is a clean-sheet successor to the G450 and will build on the all-new wing, fuselage and systems of the G650.
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the P42 is the report from Aviation News that General Electric and Pratt and Whitney appear to be the front-runners to power the new aircraft after Gulfstream ousted longtime supplier Rolls-Royce from the contest.
If confirmed, the decision would mark the first time in more than 50 years a heritage Gulfstream business aircraft has moved into final design with a non-Rolls engine."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With this new model likely to have the fuselage of the 650 but less range and the 650 itself, the 550 starts to make very little sense.
The used market has already started to be flooded with 550s on sale due to upgrades to the bigger brother, now the price will go down quite significantly...
The used market has already started to be flooded with 550s on sale due to upgrades to the bigger brother, now the price will go down quite significantly...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read the Aviation Week article. Interesting to learn that it does not use the G650 fuselage (8'6" width), but instead has a 7'11" width. I would love to learn more about how they came to that decision, especially when you have the other OEMs going in the opposite direction. Also the AW article isn't very clear on whether the new fuselage cross-section is circular or whether it has a more complex design like the G650, and how the wing varies between the G500, G600, and G650. Is it the same wing with the lower models simply being artificially limited to lower fuel capacity?
I'm also wondering what the max fuel capacity of the new planes is so I can compare that and their range versus other Gulfstreams and competitive aircraft to see relative fuel efficiency.
Its so hard to get good information and analysis when it comes to private jets. All the major sources seem to act as PR mouthpieces for the OEMs, quoting them and accepting their carefully crafted marketing communications as fact. For example the AW article I just read quoted the G450 and G550 ranges as 4,220nm and 6,000nm respectively, surely taking new data from Gulfstream that makes their new models seem like bigger upgrades, even though Gulfstream has been quoting those planes to have ranges of 4,350nm and 6,750nm for years. Uh hello journalist?! If Gulfstream is telling you now that their G550 only has 6,000nm range (to make it seem like the 6,200nm G600 is an upgrade) do you think you might ask them a followup question about why they have been advertising 6,750nm range for years?!
I'm also wondering what the max fuel capacity of the new planes is so I can compare that and their range versus other Gulfstreams and competitive aircraft to see relative fuel efficiency.
Its so hard to get good information and analysis when it comes to private jets. All the major sources seem to act as PR mouthpieces for the OEMs, quoting them and accepting their carefully crafted marketing communications as fact. For example the AW article I just read quoted the G450 and G550 ranges as 4,220nm and 6,000nm respectively, surely taking new data from Gulfstream that makes their new models seem like bigger upgrades, even though Gulfstream has been quoting those planes to have ranges of 4,350nm and 6,750nm for years. Uh hello journalist?! If Gulfstream is telling you now that their G550 only has 6,000nm range (to make it seem like the 6,200nm G600 is an upgrade) do you think you might ask them a followup question about why they have been advertising 6,750nm range for years?!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I was finally able to get the gulfstream.com product pages for the new models to load and did this little comparison:
Am I missing something? Less than 3% lower fuel consumption per mile even after sacrificing all that range, all that cabin size, and having brand new clean sheet engines versus the G650 launching with engines that were already almost 20 years old? Also, an article I found on AINOnline claims that G600 M.90 range is only 4,800nm, a much higher percentage of range loss traveling at M.90 versus M.85 compared to the G650/ER.
I don't get it. Even if they just strapped these new engines onto the G650ER they should have gotten more of an efficiency gain than that. Shouldn't these new engines alone be good for at least a 10% increase in specific fuel consumption? That seems to be the case whenever commercial airliners are re-engined from something as old as the BR700s were to something brand new.
Am I missing something? Less than 3% lower fuel consumption per mile even after sacrificing all that range, all that cabin size, and having brand new clean sheet engines versus the G650 launching with engines that were already almost 20 years old? Also, an article I found on AINOnline claims that G600 M.90 range is only 4,800nm, a much higher percentage of range loss traveling at M.90 versus M.85 compared to the G650/ER.
I don't get it. Even if they just strapped these new engines onto the G650ER they should have gotten more of an efficiency gain than that. Shouldn't these new engines alone be good for at least a 10% increase in specific fuel consumption? That seems to be the case whenever commercial airliners are re-engined from something as old as the BR700s were to something brand new.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 61
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuna,
I also noticed the discrepancy in the range quotes for the G550, 6,000nm vs 6750nm. (The latter is the correct maximum range)
I think the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the 6750nm range for the '550 is at M.80 , at it's high speed cruise of M.85 it will go 6,000nm.
Since I think the article was attempting to make an apples to apples comparison it compared the range of the slowest cruise speed of the G600, M.85 to the range of the highest cruise speed of the G550.
I suspect the meager improvements in fuel efficiency you illustrate on the 600 vs the 650ER are due to the fact that the engine/wing/fuselage design was optimized for the G500 and that said design was then stretched to give it a 550 type cabin and range which resulted in the corresponding loss of efficiency. Notice that the 600 carries 9,910 lbs more fuel than the 500, as a rule of thumb I find that you can expect to burn about 4% per hour of that extra fuel carried, hence on a 12 hour flight you can expect about 1/2 of that extra fuel to be burned just to carry it. No doubt this will cause a big hit to the aircraft's efficiency. If you were to load the 600 up with the same payload and fuel as the 500, I suspect you would see much closer efficiency.
Having worked in the private biz jet industry for 15 years now, I can tell you that the last thing on the mind of owners is fuel economy, they may go nuts over the fact that the flight crew went $5 over the meal allowance the night before, but are oblivious to fuel costs.
Also the BR725 engines on the 650, while based on a 20 year old design are quite different from their predecessors, a one piece machined fan up front with scimitar blades, time between overhauls increased from 8,000 hours to 10,000 hours and the previous 4,000 hour mid life inspection has been completely eliminated.
In general I find that I can expect slightly better fuel efficiency from the 650 vs my old 550, and this is an aircraft that has a significantly wider fuselage, weighs about 10% more, goes 6% faster and about 4% further.
I also noticed the discrepancy in the range quotes for the G550, 6,000nm vs 6750nm. (The latter is the correct maximum range)
I think the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the 6750nm range for the '550 is at M.80 , at it's high speed cruise of M.85 it will go 6,000nm.
Since I think the article was attempting to make an apples to apples comparison it compared the range of the slowest cruise speed of the G600, M.85 to the range of the highest cruise speed of the G550.
I suspect the meager improvements in fuel efficiency you illustrate on the 600 vs the 650ER are due to the fact that the engine/wing/fuselage design was optimized for the G500 and that said design was then stretched to give it a 550 type cabin and range which resulted in the corresponding loss of efficiency. Notice that the 600 carries 9,910 lbs more fuel than the 500, as a rule of thumb I find that you can expect to burn about 4% per hour of that extra fuel carried, hence on a 12 hour flight you can expect about 1/2 of that extra fuel to be burned just to carry it. No doubt this will cause a big hit to the aircraft's efficiency. If you were to load the 600 up with the same payload and fuel as the 500, I suspect you would see much closer efficiency.
Having worked in the private biz jet industry for 15 years now, I can tell you that the last thing on the mind of owners is fuel economy, they may go nuts over the fact that the flight crew went $5 over the meal allowance the night before, but are oblivious to fuel costs.
Also the BR725 engines on the 650, while based on a 20 year old design are quite different from their predecessors, a one piece machined fan up front with scimitar blades, time between overhauls increased from 8,000 hours to 10,000 hours and the previous 4,000 hour mid life inspection has been completely eliminated.
In general I find that I can expect slightly better fuel efficiency from the 650 vs my old 550, and this is an aircraft that has a significantly wider fuselage, weighs about 10% more, goes 6% faster and about 4% further.
Last edited by Astra driver; 14th Oct 2014 at 17:17.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Astra driver
I think the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the 6750nm range for the '550 is at M.80 , at it's high speed cruise of M.85 it will go 6,000nm.
Originally Posted by Astra driver
In general I find that I can expect slightly better fuel efficiency from the 650 vs my old 550, and this is an aircraft that has a significantly wider fuselage, weighs about 10% more, goes 6% faster and about 4% further.
Now they have the G600 coming out 8 years later with clean sheet engines and it just doesn't seem very impressive. Significantly narrower fuselage and less range than the G650/ER and saves less than 3% fuel per mile? Shouldn't they have been able to do that or better just with the narrower fuselage and optimization at lower fuel capacity, without the brand new engines? And by the way it only seems like it will use about 2% less fuel per mile than the G550, an airplane that came out 15 years earlier (or 21 years earlier if you count from the G-V).
Now this is all speculative because as we know Gulfstream and the other OEMs are all very cagey and manipulative with the information they release. For example, they listed the G650 as having 5,000nm range at M.90 until one day they announced that it would actually be 6,000nm. It could very well be that the G600 will have significantly more max range than they are currently letting on but that they don't want to cannibalize G650 sales. So if one day closer to the 2019 launch date Gulfstream announces that "Oh nevermind, the G600 is actually going to have 6,700nm range, not 6,200nm, with fuel capacity staying the same as planned" I wouldn't be surprised.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 61
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuna,
Historically Gulfstream has consistently been known to under promise and over deliver, so I wouldn't be surprised if we do see some of these range estimates being surpassed, but most likely I suspect it will be the high speed range numbers that could be improved, as was the case with the G650 that was given a revised M.90 range of 6,000nm up from the initial 5,000nm once the aircraft had been in service a short while.
In the case of the 650 the overall max range was never surpassed, but it has been found that it can come very close to this max range at M.86/M.87 instead of the published M.85.
Historically Gulfstream has consistently been known to under promise and over deliver, so I wouldn't be surprised if we do see some of these range estimates being surpassed, but most likely I suspect it will be the high speed range numbers that could be improved, as was the case with the G650 that was given a revised M.90 range of 6,000nm up from the initial 5,000nm once the aircraft had been in service a short while.
In the case of the 650 the overall max range was never surpassed, but it has been found that it can come very close to this max range at M.86/M.87 instead of the published M.85.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Around FL380
Age: 38
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone has accurate number (or an estimate) of how many 650 were delivered? And how many got the ER ASC?
I really think that changing to side stick addresses these aircrafts to a different market.. Couple of days ago I thought to myself, that 7x is delivering great numbers in terms of speed/range/cabin size/to price/doc, if it only had a YOKE.
I really think that changing to side stick addresses these aircrafts to a different market.. Couple of days ago I thought to myself, that 7x is delivering great numbers in terms of speed/range/cabin size/to price/doc, if it only had a YOKE.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone has accurate number of how many 650 were delivered
Now they have the G600 coming out 8 years later with clean sheet engines and it just doesn't seem very impressive
I can tell you that the last thing on the mind of owners is fuel economy
Look to be the same in cabin dimensions
the first time in more than 50 years a heritage Gulfstream business aircraft has moved into final design with a non-Rolls engine.
Last edited by cldrvr; 15th Oct 2014 at 00:38.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mutt
I'm actually surprised that the 500/600 don't have the 650 cabin. From a passenger point of view, what exactly are the new aircraft offering compared to the 450/550?
* max cabin width increased from 7'4" to 7'11"
* floor width increased 66" to 74"
* cabin height 6'2" to 6'4"
* Cabin length from 40'4" and 43'11" to 41'6" and 45'2" in the G450/550 and G500/600 respectively
* uses the larger windows from the G650
* has the higher 4,850' cabin pressure at max altitude of the G650
* Higher M.85 to M.90 cruise speeds of the G650 (supposing they greatly increase the estimated M.90 range as they did with the G650)
Definitely surprised they didn't use the G650 fuselage. They use the same fuselage for G-II, G-III, G-IV, and G-V, and then all of the sudden within 2 model launches they have 2 new fuselages. It makes me wonder what their motivation was. I don't buy their quote that it completely had to do with the G650 fuselage being too large for their performance goals. Engineers can design anything to meet their performance goals. I know they have been having problems with suppliers on the G650, is it possible that they couldn't increase production of the fuselage from the G650 because of supplier issues? Maybe there are tenets of their risk sharing agreements with suppliers that prevent Gulfstream from just taking production of components in-house without buying out the supplier. Its possible that facing an intransigent supplier, they figured it was better to design a substantially new fuselage that they could build as they wanted to leave the limited supply of G650-size fuselages for the G650 program, and to provider additional leverage over intransigent supplier. Like, "hey I know you're playing hardball trying to get us to renegotiate our contracts and pay you more for fuselage components, but we just wanted you to know that we have an alternative large-enough fuselage in production now and if you don't stop ******* with us we're just going to move the G650 successor to this new fuselage that you have nothing to do with".
Or it could be something worse... maybe there are fundamental problems with the G650 fuselage design that warranted a complete redesign... who knows.