Gulfstream to announce new jet Oct 14 2014

[robbreid]

Gulfstream to Unveil New Secret Jet - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/gulfstream-to-unveil-new-secret-jet-1413158801-lMyQjAxMTA0ODE2MjkxMDI4Wj)

[tartare]

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."

[Tray Surfer]

I look forward to reading the announcement tomorrow and seeing what this is all about… :)

[Booglebox]

I would have expected them to wait until NBAA... :confused:

[dirk85]

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...

[Tray Surfer]

Might be time to empty the penny jar and see if I have got enough for one :ok:

[500 above]

The two new models look stunning, G500 & G600.

[imriozer]

side sticks? :ugh:

[Tray Surfer]

Look very nice… Look to be the same in cabin dimensions, just slightly shorter in length than the 650 and 550…

Looking forward to reading more about them…

[tuna hp]

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?!

[tuna hp]

So I was finally able to get the gulfstream.com product pages for the new models to load and did this little comparison:

http://i.imgur.com/TsIRKPv.png

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.

[Astra driver]

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.

[Tray Surfer]

I think it looks flipping dapper! :ok:

[tuna hp]

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.

That's a good thought although they also mention the G450 range as being 4,220nm in the same context and obviously the G450 doesn't fly at M.90 at all and at its faster speeds it would get nowhere near that range.

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.

That's the impression I had back in 2011 when the G650 was announced and it was like, "look at all this extra size and speed and the bit of extra range that they are going to get out of only ~1% more fuel per mile, isn't it impressive what they can do even with these old BR700 series engines".

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.

[Astra driver]

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.

[imriozer]

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.

[cldrvr]

Does anyone has accurate number of how many 650 were delivered108 on order, 81 delivered, and yes we are on the list. Not sure if I am actually looking forward to it. The 605 has plenty of range, may have to find myself more and more ground duties......


Now they have the G600 coming out 8 years later with clean sheet engines and it just doesn't seem very impressiveWe came to a similar conclusion and decided on a 650 instead of waiting for the first 50 600's to roll of the line to get the bugs sorted out. We don't really need the 650's range, but once we ran the numbers it made sense over the 600. We didn't have exact details when we made our assessment, but Gulfstream had dropped enough hints to make the choice for us. The cabin difference over the 550 and the narrower 600 was the decider for us, all else remaining equal.

I can tell you that the last thing on the mind of owners is fuel economySpot on.

Look to be the same in cabin dimensionsIt isn't so I am not quite sure where it is going to fit in. Time will tell I guess.

the first time in more than 50 years a heritage Gulfstream business aircraft has moved into final design with a non-Rolls engine.

If it ain't broke don't fix it, for us on this side of the pond that will weigh in our decision making process, it did in ours.

[Lucky8888]

Does anyone has accurate number (or an estimate) of how many 650 were delivered? And how many got the ER ASC?


It might be interesting to note that existing G650's can be upgraded to the ER for a measly list price of $2M USD.

[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?

[tuna hp]

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?

Its definitely an upgrade from 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.

[FrankR]

From my tours of the factory, my take is that Gulfstream builds most of the fuselage in house, in Savannah.

I think they want to have a differentiated product, which is an upgrade to the 450/550. The 450 is an old dog now, and while the 550 is still a fantastic machine, it seems reasonable to make two versions as long as you're building a new bird. The 650 needs to be the big daddy, and be different from the pack, so it gets the wide body treatment.

Although the Bombardier lovers look at the wide cabin as being a fantastic advantage, most G owners feel that the old-school width is fine. What exactly do you need the 5 extra inches of width in the cabin isle for?

FR

[galaxy flyer]

FrankR,

So, there was no need for the wider cabin in G650? And, why all the old cockpit stuff in the G650?

GF

[Astra driver]

GF,

Don't know if I'd refer to the Plane View II cockpit on the G650 as "Old", this is still very much a "state of the art" avionics system, but basically the overall thought to the layout and design of the G650 was made with the intention that it would share a common type rating with the G550/450, unfortunately Gulfstream doesn't have the same clout with the FAA that Boeing does and this idea got nixed, the result being that you have a completely new type, "GVI" for the 650.

From my experience flying the two models I can tell you that the G650 is a very different animal from all previous Gulfstreams, the FBW system is completely "invisible" to the pilot and makes it an absolute pleasure to hand fly, it's ground handling, braking and landing characteristics are by far the best of any previous Gulfstream.

As for the Cabin on the 650, I suspect that Gulfstream wanted to build a cabin that would hands down beat the cabin on their principal competitors, namely Bombardier.

I'm guessing that when it came to the new 500/600 models the thinking was that they wanted to develop a model that would best compete with the latest Falcon models in terms of cabin size/range/efficiency without possibly canibalizing the sales of the 650, hence the slightly smaller cabin cross section along with a smaller, more efficient engines that can still deliver what has now become the trademark cruise speed of Gulfstream, Mach.90.

The new Symmetry flight deck takes the existing Plane View a step further and will also be an easy transition for existing 450/550/650 crews. From what I have been able to gather so far these new 500/600 models will also be a further evolution of the 650 which was itself an evolution of the 550 and so on.

[galaxy flyer]

Astra,

So, a type certification from 1967 was the basis for trying to make a common type for the G650? Wonderful, the G550 was engineered when the Beatles was the leading edge of music. I would hope it's the best of any Gulfstream, they still didn't make it modern.

See this!

My current type is G650 - yes, I'm off the Global, but you cannot be serious about a Global being a step behind a Gulfstream. The G650 has good range, speed and cabin (when the cabin works...) but it is LIGHT YEARS behind when it comes to systems - I'll spell it out for you below...
BD700 - from the early 2000's
G650 - from 2012.

G650 - dark cockpit - you're kidding right?

G650 - Break Power Transfer - WTF? What on earth is this? Cannot transfer from Ext AC power to APU Gen without a Break Power Transfer which can break computers and make your life a misery! Give me a break.

G650 - no RAT autodeploy, must turn off RAT gen first, then deploy RAT, then wait 30 secs and then select RAT gen which will result in a Break Power Transfer - AND no autopilot on the RAT - for goodness sake!

G650 - no autostart - wait, what? On a newer engine varient? Why?

G650 - manual ground spoilers - seriously, I have to power up first, then turn the ground spoilers on, otherwise they'll pop up and scare the pax... Rubbish.

G650 - the most antiquated cabin pressurisation system I have EVER had the displeasure to use.

The G650 takes at least 20 mins longer to prepare for flight than the BD700 - I can go on, but don't have time right now. The old Global is miles ahead of the G650...

Bring it on!

GF

[Jet Jockey A4]

Dassault, Gulfstream and Bombardier all make superbe aircrafts!

When a owner pays big bucks for his aircraft a lot of it comes down to his personal preferences for what ever reasons just like when he would chose a Mercedes over a BMW or Audi.

Pilots also have their preferences and no matter how good the competition is you may want and prefer to fly the other brand.

Just my $0.02.

[con-pilot]

I've just one question, do the new Gulfstreams have anywhere the room in the cockpit as the Challenger series aircraft?

Not that I'll ever fly again, but still, the biggest shock in my life was when the first time I flew a G-IV was how bloody small the cockpit is, not much room for a guy my size.

Especially when I was going to sit in it for eight hours. The 900EX has a little more room, but not that much really. Hell, the old Jetstar has a lot more leg room in the cockpit and it was designed in the late 50s.

[Astra driver]

GF,

Well clearly your intimate knowledge of Gulfstream engineering is spot on, nothing has changed since the Beatles were making records, but just like Paul McCartney keeps selling out stadiums, Gulfstream keeps selling airplanes, they both must be doing something right!

As for the former BD700 pilot who for some reason abhors the idea of having to occasionally make a decision for himself, and God forbid, having to lift a finger to do it, I doubt he won't be happy until he gets to fly an airplane that has just two switches, one labeled "On/Off" and the other "Take-off/Land".

In the meantime Gulfstream will continue to build airplanes that actually meet or exceed their design performance expectations.

[josephfeatherweight]

Oh, dude, that was a bit rough...
I'm happy flying both jets, I just really expected the latest and greatest from Gulfstream to be a fair bit less antiquated. Where did I say anything about not wanting to make decisions?
Why so bitter and nasty? I was critising the jet (and not everything about it) cause I'm lucky enough to be in a position to compare - I'm not some brand fanboy. And I certainly wasn't critising anyone else.
But, Astra Driver, I'll make an exception - you're a knob.

[Astra driver]

Joseph,

OK apology issued, I'm a knob. I wanted to address your complaints more specifically but was short on time.

The BPT you get switching from GPU to APU is really a non-issue since it is seldom ever required except in some European airports where there is an APU time limit, if that happens refer to the OIS that tells you to start the APU without the GEN, start at least one engine to get one IDG online and then a no break power transfer from the GPU can be accomplished. I personally have never had to do this yet as the folks at LFPB tell me there is an exemption to the time limit if "no GPU Is available", (handler says as he gives the classic French shrug)

No RAT auto deploy, having to push the GEN off, then on again? I think this is done out of an abundance of caution to preserve what would be in this situation your last continuous power supply left. But since you have 3 GEN's (any one of which is capable of running the entire plane) that would have to crap out before this would happen, (exception being L Main bus fault) the likelyhood of ever actually getting to this point in real life is statistically small, and it if you ever did the fact that you would need to push a couple of buttons and have to hand fly for a bit would be the least of your concerns.

No auto Start? Well if you mean having to wait until you see positive LP rotation before moving the Fuel control switch to "Run", everything is fully automated and protected by the FADEC after that. Really, what's the big deal about having to do that? Personally I think it's a good thing as it keeps the crew more involved in the start process and increases the likelihood of avoiding a start anomaly.

No "Auto" ground spoilers? A bit of a misnomer here as the Ground Spoilers do deploy automatically, but yes, you are required to arm them on line up with at least one throttle "cracked", and yes this step could be avoided by having then linked to a minimum tire or ground speed, but I suspect this was not done as this feature could be one more thing to potentially fail and subsequently cause dispatch ability problems. In day to day operations it really is a non-issue;
"Ground Spoilers", "Do you have one up?", "Yes", "Spoilers armed, speeds boxed, EICAS clear".

"Most antiquated Pressurization system ever"?
Okay, you have me stumped here, a fully automated system which requires virtually no input from the crew other than to verify it's in AUTO and a couple of pre-flight checks of the back up systems. A system that also provides what is probably the highest pressurization differential (10.69psi) in Aviation resulting in a cabin altitude of 4,850 ft at FL510 or slightly over 3,000ft at typical low 40's cruise altitudes and has full redundancy and multiple back up modes.

"G650 takes 20 minutes longer to preflight than BD700"
I find that with a competent Co-Pilot I can have the 650 ready to go in about 15 to 20 minutes, usually the limiting factor here is how long it takes to Fuel or more often how long the FA needs to get ready.
I can see where crew new to the aircraft will need more time to prepare and I think part of the problem here is the way the checklist is written, it bares no resemblance to a logical flow pattern and can trip up crews new to the airplane.
Add to this the incorrect rumors that you can't turn on the FBW system or the GCMS until the IRU's are aligned. (The IRU's just need to be switched ON first, it's OK if they are still aligning).

I'm sure folks here can find other "Short comings" to list, but the point is every Aircraft has its strong and weak points. I've never flown a Bombardier product but I'm sure I would list its strong points and look past its weak points if I had.

[josephfeatherweight]

Ad Astra and I have had a chat behind the scenes - evidently he's not a "knob" - we both had a simultaneous vent of frustration and agree that life is pretty good in any such aircraft! Apologies for the name calling...

[Astra driver]

Joe,
:)
:ok:

[Jet Jockey A4]

It is so nice to see you two boys kiss and make up!:D:ok::rolleyes:

[JammedStab]

From my tours of the factory, my take is that Gulfstream builds most of the fuselage in house, in Savannah.

I think they want to have a differentiated product, which is an upgrade to the 450/550. The 450 is an old dog now, and while the 550 is still a fantastic machine, it seems reasonable to make two versions as long as you're building a new bird. The 650 needs to be the big daddy, and be different from the pack, so it gets the wide body treatment.



Does having three different fuselage widths mean that three separate assembly lines are required.

How does that compare with BBD for its Global series. Can they use just one assembly line if the various Globals all have the same width.

I find it amazing that a G500 lists as over 20 million cheaper than a G650. Is the G650 really that much better?