G550 - Fuel Burn for Various Missions

[ufcpa]

Would someone mind posting total fuel use and avg burn/hour for the G550 in several mission scenarios (assuming half-passenger loading), as follows:

Mach .8, .83, and .85 for 1,500 3,000, and 4,000 NM missions? If anyone has the charts that they wouldn't mind sharing, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.

[falconbis]

ask a brochure to gulfstream :rolleyes:
cheers

[Hankers]

Dubai-Stockholm. FL400 then FL430 mach .85 Approx 2800nm fuel burn 20,000 lbs 12 pax lots of bags. Took 6 Hours

[tophe]

Basicly, the G burns 50% more than a 7X/900 EASy for the same mission, knowing that it can do much longer legs than these 2 Falcons...

[Hankers]

Burns more fuel but looks better!!

[smallfry]

The gulfstream does not burn 50 percent more than a falcon 7x. What rubbish. On an equal flight the G550 burns 11 percent more. However in other cases eg London to Vancouver the G can still do 0.85 mach and carry 8 pax. The 7X would have to slow to LRC (between .78 and .80 Mach) and cannot carry 8 pax. The 7x is a worthy competitor with the G 450, not the G550.

[captainmorgan888]

hi smallfry,
of course i agree with you, that the G550 is more capable in range, but EGLL-CYVR is 4105nm, assuming 4700nm for wind/routing, that´s 9:25 and 28000lb at @.85 for the 7x.

even the 900EX fly´s a little further than then G450.

...and today EGLL-CYVR is 4196nm / + 7kn head wind, if somebody is happy with only 2000lb remaining the 900EX could do it...

[smallfry]

I thank you for the numbers! On paper it certainly seems feasable.

I was only quoting a discussion about some flights that happened...

But the 10-11% efficiency is fact. (the G550 for the same flight was about 30100 lbs...) 9000lbs remaining - over 3 hours fuel.)

[falconbis]

smallfry

you should check your fact, I flew the 7x commercially london vancouver m.85 with 3000 lbs of fuel on landing, with 5 pax but 8 just 636lbs..so not big deal.
Went pick up pax to Tortola and flew 1h15 less than our G550 .. the pax used of the 550 noticed the time difference, not pure speed just no need to remain at 120 minutes..
other eg Narita teterboro..10h20 via polar roads our 550 flew a bit over 12h

so I agree, 7x is not a 550 specially when you need to fly more than 6000nm but we operate 12 G550 and less than 5% of flight request are beyong that range..

think you mix up 450 versus 900LX !

Also commercially 7x need far smaller rwy, meaning more destinations available on direct flight. We are flying direct to london from some island in the Carrebeans where our 550 need to stop in St Maartin or Aruba to refuel.

from in house fuel data on the exact same route fuel consumption varried between 20 to 40 % less on the 7x than the 550..

last but not least, 7x price 42-44 M ish against 48-50 m ish, so to sum up the 7x perform better in ALL areas except one ..when you need to go beyond 6000nm

Now there is reliability issues at the moment due to new type and technology entry into service but according to our last maintenance data 7x availability was equal to our 550 ( which was surprising as we have only 2 in service against 12)

HANKER for me 7x look also much better than the G550 truck but color and taste cannot be objective.
cheers

[Hankers]

Helsinki Phuket. Mach .80. 12100m then FL410. 29000burn. 10 hours 10 min

[FLEXJET]

Tell me why NetJets Europe has just sold its third 7X to a russian company/organization?
Why not selling some G550s then since they are more expensive to operate and only required for 5% of the flights?

If you are not a buyer and ask someone knowledgeable at Dassault, why would he admit that the 7X is not a great success? :uhoh:

[Rusty Trombone]

I see a lot of mixed comments on this topic, NJE as a comparison using the G550 against the 7X.
Both are great products, the 7X bringing excellent quality and short field performance and the G550 bringing durable service, dependability and looks.
I think the 7X is more to compare with a G450.

With regards the EU ops on ETOPS or EROPS the G550 BR700-710 is approved for 180 minutes so rules out any 3 engine design regarding meeting the circles etc. But unfortunately not all JAR OPS 1 have made the approval to go 180 minutes.
This in the case of NJE is their lack to provide the engineering data to INAC to get the G550 approved this was being talked about 3 years ago in the monkey den at lisbon.
One thing remains the GV/550 will do 14 hours 95% of the time at .80 very impressive long range aircraft.
I just submitted our 180 Minute approval myself took 3 weeks and all fully approved by EASA.

[Kelly Hopper]

But after 14 hours in the seat with no crew rest area you feel and probably look like a rusty trombone! :p

[Rusty Trombone]

Thats True if you have one of those awful aft galley aircraft. We have a great crew rest area with full reclining seat, DVD player and its quiet depends how its outfitted.
Did see a nice 7X the other day at EGBB with forward bunk beds which was a novel idea.
14 hours is enough for anyone trust me, done plenty of those legs