New Global models unveiled
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Al sur del norte
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Global models unveiled
This is Bombardiers answer to the G650. Two models, up to 7900nm range but a bit slower than the gulfstream, new wing but seems to have the same fuselage than the GLX and 5000.
The link here
The link here
Last edited by Silvio Pettirossi; 18th Oct 2010 at 22:31.
Press release says, the Global 7000 is a 10 foot stretch of the GLEX, 7300 nm still air ran gem four zone cabin. Global 8000 has a GLEX size cabin, 7900 nm range. CollinsGlobal Vision cockpit, windows are 80% larger than GLEX, clean sheet fuselage and wing, flap tracks are gone.
GF
GF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: where the money is
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The G-EX is a nice machine, but I suppose any potential buyer will think twice before signing the purchase contract, keeping in mind the 'teething problems' the original Global Express had...
Originally Posted by FLEXJET
Will the shower be available as an option on both the 7000 and 8000?
And what are the predicted MTOWs?
And what are the predicted MTOWs?
MTOW's expected:
Global 7000 - 106,250lb
Global 8000 - 104,800lb
Info from:
http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_..._factsheet.pdf
http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_..._factsheet.pdf
So much for airports with 100,000lb limits like Aspen, without prior permission. Perhaps it's time to raise some of those weight limits at airports, with the advent of larger bizjets?
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much for airports with 100,000lb limits like Aspen, without prior permission. Perhaps it's time to raise some of those weight limits at airports, with the advent of larger bizjets?
I discovered that many of these airports that have the 100,000 pond limit, really had no structural reasoning behind the weight limit, somebody just picked that weight out of the blue.
But getting Aspen to change, that may be a hard nut to crack. I've dealt with the Pitkin County Airport Board in the past and the word flexible is not in their vocabulary.
Anyway, it is good to see a company like Bombardier looking to the future.
The 100,000 pound limit will be addressed as it is on the GLEX-- a AFM supplement to operate at 99,500 pounds. If you don't know, there is a supplement to operate the GLEX at 75,000 pounds, the relevant airports in the US are Scottsdale, AZ and Naples, FL. KASE won't be usable at any weight above 99,500 pounds, anyway. Not an issue.
C-P. Yes, the B727 has a HUGE ACN (footprint) but I am surprised that SAC bases prohibited the plane. The ex-SAC base I operated had a PCN of 90 on the runways, the main taxiways and ramps. Remember, the B52 grossed over 400,000 pounds on four (count 'em 4) tires.
GF
C-P. Yes, the B727 has a HUGE ACN (footprint) but I am surprised that SAC bases prohibited the plane. The ex-SAC base I operated had a PCN of 90 on the runways, the main taxiways and ramps. Remember, the B52 grossed over 400,000 pounds on four (count 'em 4) tires.
GF
GF, looks like you're right on the mark. Just found this on Flight Global:
"both aircraft exceed the critical 100,000lb maximum takeoff weight mark, which is a critical barrier for gaining access to airports in Teterboro and Aspen. Though the 106,500lb and 105,050lb MTOWs for the 7000 and 8000 will likely be able to backed off to 100,000lbs with a flight manual supplement, sacrificing some range for access to the business jet-frequented airports.
"Given the margin we have," says Ridolfi. "You can imagine the 8000 still goes an awfully long way at 100,000lbs.""
"both aircraft exceed the critical 100,000lb maximum takeoff weight mark, which is a critical barrier for gaining access to airports in Teterboro and Aspen. Though the 106,500lb and 105,050lb MTOWs for the 7000 and 8000 will likely be able to backed off to 100,000lbs with a flight manual supplement, sacrificing some range for access to the business jet-frequented airports.
"Given the margin we have," says Ridolfi. "You can imagine the 8000 still goes an awfully long way at 100,000lbs.""
Let's just say, I have a nodding acquaintance with the GLEX. It will equal or use less runway than a GLEX, but I doubt it can operate out of KASE at 99,500#. It will not be restricted in TOGW there by an AFM supp to operate at 99,500.
GF
If you ask, "how do they enforce the supplement weight restriction?" Just ask for a clearance to Tokyo from SDL or a clearance to Paris at Naples; they can figure out that you are exceeding 75,000# pretty quickly.
GF
If you ask, "how do they enforce the supplement weight restriction?" Just ask for a clearance to Tokyo from SDL or a clearance to Paris at Naples; they can figure out that you are exceeding 75,000# pretty quickly.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to inforce anything, just wait for the first incident. A bit of inquiry, which includes the FOB, and this is it...
A bit like operating a Falcon 900 EXy in Lfmd, it exceeds the authorized MTOM, but what is closer from a 900B than an 900EX ? even the fpl is the same icao designation... Just wait for anything to happen, the insurance company will love it, your licence as well..
A bit like operating a Falcon 900 EXy in Lfmd, it exceeds the authorized MTOM, but what is closer from a 900B than an 900EX ? even the fpl is the same icao designation... Just wait for anything to happen, the insurance company will love it, your licence as well..
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This actually confirms some suspicions I've had about the G650. It made no sense to me that Gulfstream was launching a clean sheet airframe with these RR BR725s that are based of a 20 year old engine. So I always suspected that Gulfstream was going to integrate new engines for increased range at some point.
I think that this Global announcement is more evidence of this because both Gulfstream and Bombardier are working with the same types of customers and if they demanded upper 7000nm range then thats probably what the Gulfstream G6XX will make after they put new engines on it.
But how can you fly 7900nm at M.85 with 3 pilots? Seems to me like you would need 4 pilots for that job...
I think that this Global announcement is more evidence of this because both Gulfstream and Bombardier are working with the same types of customers and if they demanded upper 7000nm range then thats probably what the Gulfstream G6XX will make after they put new engines on it.
But how can you fly 7900nm at M.85 with 3 pilots? Seems to me like you would need 4 pilots for that job...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: A Higher Plane
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe the've kept the old CL600 series slab fronted windshield. Its a good looking plane but a switch to the CL300 series style shield would make it look far better.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF
Sorry about that, no active USAF SAC bases ever prohibited us in the 727. It was after the base was transfered to the city where the base was located. I've been trying to remember which base and I cannot for the life of me, all I can remember was that the base was somewhere back east.
A side note, when we RON with the 72 in PHX we had to park on steel plates, or we would sink through the ramp. Many a beer was won by me by never missing the plates. The trick was to ignore the stop signal from the marshaler and the second you felt the main gear lift up on the plate, stop. That would leave you sitting dead center on the plates. If you waited for the marshaler, most times you would over shoot the plates and have to do a 360 on the ramp and try again. Most the people that missed, stopped short of the plates and then had to add a lot of power to get over the edge of the plate. That cost a beer for everyone by the PF as well.
C-P. Yes, the B727 has a HUGE ACN (footprint) but I am surprised that SAC bases prohibited the plane. The ex-SAC base I operated had a PCN of 90 on the runways, the main taxiways and ramps. Remember, the B52 grossed over 400,000 pounds on four (count 'em 4) tires.
A side note, when we RON with the 72 in PHX we had to park on steel plates, or we would sink through the ramp. Many a beer was won by me by never missing the plates. The trick was to ignore the stop signal from the marshaler and the second you felt the main gear lift up on the plate, stop. That would leave you sitting dead center on the plates. If you waited for the marshaler, most times you would over shoot the plates and have to do a 360 on the ramp and try again. Most the people that missed, stopped short of the plates and then had to add a lot of power to get over the edge of the plate. That cost a beer for everyone by the PF as well.
