Global express

[rod farva]

Is a global express basically a crj-900 with a fancy interior and longer legs? If so, how come the global is one the harder jobs to get but if you have a pulse and 50 ME you can fly an RJ commuter anywhere? Discuss.

 

[jonjuan]

Is a global express basically a crj-900 with a fancy interior and longer legs? If so, how come the global is one the harder jobs to get but if you have a pulse and 50 ME you can fly an RJ commuter anywhere? Discuss.

If flying a C-172 paid $200K a year, it would be one of the "harder jobs to get."

 

[shroomwell]

Because the people in the back expect more, and are willing to pay more. Not to mention there are not that many of them flying around. Also, I believe the global is a different aircraft from the CRJ.

 

[rod farva]

Both excellent points. Thank you for the civil replies.

 

[Shamrock1]

Different frames, engines, avionics, and a higher level of automation. I am not sure if it is the same wing or not. The boss expects the plane and the crew to be ale to go anywhere at anytime (knowledge base of the crews and capabilities of the aircraft), and will compensate accordingly (hopefully).

 

[SCT]

I believe there is very little in common between a CRJ and a Global except for the Bomb. name. Now, the 604 and CRJ have similiar systems in common (according to our DM an ex RJ mech.) and they do not share the same type rating.

 

[svcta]

I was doing CL-65 sim at Bomb. once upon a time and made it in to the Glex sim for a bit, totally different airplane from what I could tell.

 

[Problow]

RJ are regional. Never heard of one going on a 3 week trip to Asia, Europe, or south america. You get on a global u can expect to carry more than ur airline flight bag. Africa is a little different then O'hare

 

[thatpilotguy]

From what I understand the global is a totally different animal. We recently did a pilot demo in the global 5000, which for all practical purposes is the same as it's big brother. The wing is incredible and not the same wing as the RJ, it's capable of much higher cruise speeds compared to the RJ. Include autothrottles, hud, IRU's and other goodies up front. Slightly dated avionics, but it's no RJ

 

[B1900FO]

Have worked pretty closely with a Global operator out of Boston. Great airplane, and VERY different than an RJ. Essentially its a 100X100 ft airplane with a drastically different wing, drastically different field performance and bigger engines.

As for the total time to fly one...I think the answer is insurance. Most corporate guys don't go through a 121 training program to fly their corporate airplane....

 

[Mercury]

As for the total time to fly one...I think the answer is insurance. Most corporate guys don't go through a 121 training program to fly their corporate airplane....

Not sure that i grasp the point you are trying to make with this statement. I assist with recruiting and hiring at my company (Fortune 150) and I can tell you that just about every resume we see has more than enough total time listed. We are looking for a certain type of individual. Corporate flying (esp. internationally) is drastically different from the regionals.

 

[B1900FO]

Not sure that i grasp the point you are trying to make with this statement. I assist with recruiting and hiring at my company (Fortune 150) and I can tell you that just about every resume we see has more than enough total time listed. We are looking for a certain type of individual. Corporate flying (esp. internationally) is drastically different from the regionals.

I was reffering to his question about how people can get hired to fly an RJ with 50 hours of multi-time. Since they go through an extremely regimented training program, I believe is what allows that.

I mean that if an individual showed up in your office with 50 hours of piston-multi time then they would probably be uninsurable. Thats all....

 

[Mercury]

True, they would definaltey be uninsurable. As for getting hired with 50 hours of ME time...well thats a whole different discussion. Its hard to believe that less than ten years ago, you had to have a min 1500 TT and 200-300 ME to even be competative at most commuters, and that was for a job in the 1900 or EMB120. Different state of affairs in the industry today.Best of luck to you!

Merc

 

[GVFlyer]

Different frames, engines, avionics, and a higher level of automation. I am not sure if it is the same wing or not. The boss expects the plane and the crew to be ale to go anywhere at anytime (knowledge base of the crews and capabilities of the aircraft), and will compensate accordingly (hopefully).

The Global's wing and center fuselage section are made for Bombardier by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Nagoya Japan, the same people that brought you the MU-2 and the Diamond Jet.


GV

 

[jonjuan]

The Global's wing and center fuselage section are made for Bombardier by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Nagoya Japan, the same people that brought you the MU-2 and the Diamond Jet.


GV

So-GV, answer the question. Is it the same wing or not?
Mistubishi Heavy- they also produced the G300 wing which kicks the snot out of the Gulfstream G-200 wing. What's your point? Are you really comparing the aerodynamics of the MU-2 and Beechjet wing to the Global wing? How about the G-100, G-150? Age 60 is closer than you think, GV.

 

[AA717driver]

The Global's wing and center fuselage section are made for Bombardier by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Nagoya Japan, the same people that brought you the MU-2 and the Diamond Jet.


GV

I doubt that's a derogatory comment on the capabilities of MHI. They build lots of components for lots of aircraft. They assembled F-4's, 104's and F-15's for the JASDF.

If you want to make a negative comment about MHI building GLEX components, you might say "garbage in, garbage out".

rod f.--As you can tell, corporate aviation as well at the aircraft used is very different from the airline counterpart. The GLEX has to have a different wing to cruise at M84-85 for the distances it does. It has engines from the same family as the Boeing 717--a much different animal than the CRJ7/9

Basically it boils down to this: CRJ--made to carry a lot of people a little distance. GLEX--made to carry a few people a long way. TC

 

[Muddauber]

So-GV, answer the question. Is it the same wing or not?
Mistubishi Heavy- they also produced the G300 wing which kicks the snot out of the Gulfstream G-200 wing. What's your point? Are you really comparing the aerodynamics of the MU-2 and Beechjet wing to the Global wing? How about the G-100, G-150? Age 60 is closer than you think, GV.

What an asinine post.

If you had been in aviation long enough to have seen both an RJ and a Global, you'd know that the Global wingspan is about 15 feet greater than even a CRJ 900 and couldn't possibly be the same wing.

It's pretty clear that GVFlyer's post is intended to clarify that the Global wing is not the same as the RJ wing and to point out that the builder of the Global wing is also responsible for the manufacture of two seriously flawed aircraft.


Muddy

 

[ultrarunner]

So-GV, answer the question. Is it the same wing or not?

Completely different wing. Global was a new design.

 

[NGT]

Is a global express basically a crj-900 with a fancy interior and longer legs? If so, how come the global is one the harder jobs to get but if you have a pulse and 50 ME you can fly an RJ commuter anywhere? Discuss.

A passenger in an RJ paid $200(average) for his seat.
A passenger in a Global paid $45,000,000(average) for his seat.

Are you more confused that it is hard to get a Global job or that it is easy to get a RJ job.

Why is it hard to get an F16 job(small single engine jet) and so easy to get an RJ job(larger multiengine jet).

To say a Global job and RJ job have anything in common is insulting to both. Discuss.

Just because you can fly an airplane doesn't mean you should!

 

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

So-GV, answer the question. Is it the same wing or not?
Mistubishi Heavy- they also produced the G300 wing which kicks the snot out of the Gulfstream G-200 wing. What's your point? Are you really comparing the aerodynamics of the MU-2 and Beechjet wing to the Global wing? How about the G-100, G-150? Age 60 is closer than you think, GV.

Hmmmm....don't know GV too well, but after seeing some of his posts about aerodynamics on another site, and considering what he does for a living, I think he probably knows what he's talking about-- just a hunch--

 

[X man]

Different frames, engines, avionics, and a higher level of automation. I am not sure if it is the same wing or not. The boss expects the plane and the crew to be ale to go anywhere at anytime (knowledge base of the crews and capabilities of the aircraft), and will compensate accordingly (hopefully).

Totally different wing, huge wing root, almost 100 foot span, designed for .85 mach

 

[NJAFracPilot]

So-GV, answer the question. Is it the same wing or not?
Mistubishi Heavy- they also produced the G300 wing which kicks the snot out of the Gulfstream G-200 wing. What's your point? Are you really comparing the aerodynamics of the MU-2 and Beechjet wing to the Global wing? How about the G-100, G-150? Age 60 is closer than you think, GV.

He answered your question, no it's not the same wing. You're allegedly a pilot, you should know that.

What is it with you? You stalk GV around this board and make nasty, snivelling, whiney comments about his posts like some school girl who didn't get asked to the prom.

I like reading his posts. I learn a lot from them.

 

[GVFlyer]

So-GV, answer the question. Is it the same wing or not?

No, it should be abundantly clear than the Global Express and the CRJ do not share the same wing.

The 98,000 lb Global Express XRS has a 94-foot wingspan, 1022 square foot, point design, buffet limited wing.

The CRJ wings are 69.6ft. / 520.4 sq. ft. (CRJ200), 76.3 ft. / 738.7 sq. ft. (CRJ700), 81.5 ft. / 760 sq. ft. (CRJ700 series 705 and CRJ900).

For comparison, the 91,000 pound G550 has a wingspan of 93.47 feet with a surface area of 1136.6 sq. ft.

Mistubishi Heavy- they also produced the G300 wing which kicks the snot out of the Gulfstream G-200 wing. What's your point? Are you really comparing the aerodynamics of the MU-2 and Beechjet wing to the Global wing? How about the G-100, G-150?

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has been hit or miss in their wing design. They obviously have done well with the Boeings as they have been selected to build wing boxes for the 787.

I only feel qualified to comment on aircraft that I have flown in an evaluative context, a constraint that apparently doesn’t affect your willingness to make critical comments.

In the military, I flew a test flight series for source selection in the Beechjet 400. Among other deficiencies, it had pronounced Dutch roll characteristics which interacted in phase with turbulence. The narrow chord spoileron system used for differential roll control adversely affected aircraft stall characteristics and single-engine capabilities.

The competitive analysis test flight on the Global Express showed an unusually draggy wing with a T over C ratio of 12 percent.

The wing was also extremely susceptible to performance degradation due to leading edge contamination.

While doing performance analysis on the Global, Bombardier’s cruise Manual predicted a maximum attainable speed of Mach 0.89 at FL450 and 65,000 lb aircraft weight. What we could achieve was only M0.864. During a slight turn under these conditions the Global accelerates. This indicates a wing size and /or a wing incidence problem.

While doing control friction, freeplay and breakout force evaluation, we found that Global breakout forces are around six pounds making handflying difficult. G550 breakout forces by comparison are about 8 ounces.

We had to knock off stall testing because we started to encounter indications of an impending aerodynamic stall 6 knots above computed shaker speed.

I could continue, but I think you get the idea.

Does this make the Global a bad airplane? No, it’s just not a Gulfstream.

The thrust deck for an engine determines how much aircraft volume you can push through the air. As the Global and the GV both have 29,500 lbs of thrust (G550 30,770 lbs thrust), their volume must be similar. Bombardier decided to spend their volume on cabin. Gulfstream, true to their performance based aircraft design philosophy, spent theirs on wing.



Subsequently, I can take a pilot on a demo flight up to 51,000 feet, have him do steep turns then pull the speed brakes to descend. This would cause most aircraft to depart controlled flight. In the test Global, we couldn’t even get the jet up to 49,000 feet with a light load of fuel and four flight test engineers in the back, much less do turns.

Are you going to do steep turns on a corporate flight at FL510? No, but you might want to go up there to top weather and with the Gulfstreams wide margins, turbulence isn’t going to bring you down.

These high altitude capabilities have also made the Gulfstream popular with atmospheric research organizations such as NOAA and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). Ordered in 2001, the UCAR GV, known as the High-performance, Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER) was chosen for its exceptionally high cruising altitude, range, endurance, payload, reliability and low operating costs, as well as Gulfstream's industry-leading, award-winning product support programs.


For the same reasons, domestic and foreign militaries have also selected military variants of the Gulfstream for high altitude intelligence gathering and other special missions.


http://www.pbase.com/xnir/image/62735636


As a point of fact, GV, G500 and G550 wings were designed by Gulfstream scientists using NASA concepts and are made by Vought in Dallas, TX. The G350/G450 wings, also a Gulfstream design, are made by Vought in Nashville,TN. While Gulfstream has a design for a G200 wing, it has not been implemented. Current G100/G150/G200 wings were designed by and are made by Israeli Aircraft Industries in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Regarding your comments comparing the Challenger CL300 (nee Continental) to the G200, their performance is similar. The CL300 has the edge in take-off runway performance and maximum initial climb altitude. The G200 has the benefit of Gulfstream’s unsurpassed worldwide service support. G200 sales are strong and the jet is one of the most popular offerings at NetJets.

Age 60 is closer than you think, GV.

What, for you? Congratulations on reaching another milestone.

If you are referring to me, you are wrong. Even if I were approaching 60 what possible effect would that have on my performing as a test pilot or Part 91 G550 captain? Gulfstream’s Chief Test Pilot is 61. His predecessor, Bob Smyth, the F-14 chief test pilot before he was VP Flight Ops at Gulfstream, continued in that position until nearly 67 before accepting another position.

http://www.grummanpark.org/grumman_test_pilots.htm


GV

 

[SkyGirl]

Gosh, jonjuan, that's going to leave a mark. GVFlyer gave you quite a spanking!

_SkyGirl_

 

[Shag McNasty]

Well..... jonjuan, I think that just about covers it. Any more questions?

 

[G21Agoose]

No, it should be abundantly clear than the Global Express and the CRJ do not share the same wing.

The 98,000 lb Global Express XRS has a 94-foot wingspan, 1022 square foot, point design, buffet limited wing.

The CRJ wings are 69.6ft. / 520.4 sq. ft. (CRJ200), 76.3 ft. / 738.7 sq. ft. (CRJ700), 81.5 ft. / 760 sq. ft. (CRJ700 series 705 and CRJ900).

For comparison, the 91,000 pound G550 has a wingspan of 93.47 feet with a surface area of 1136.6 sq. ft.






Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has been hit or miss in their wing design. They obviously have done well with the Boeings as they have been selected to build wing boxes for the 787.

I only feel qualified to comment on aircraft that I have flown in an evaluative context, a constraint that apparently doesn’t affect your willingness to make critical comments.

In the military, I flew a test flight series for source selection in the Beechjet 400. Among other deficiencies, it had pronounced Dutch roll characteristics which interacted in phase with turbulence. The narrow chord spoileron system used for differential roll control adversely affected aircraft stall characteristics and single-engine capabilities.

The competitive analysis test flight on the Global Express showed an unusually draggy wing with a T over C ratio of 12 percent.

The wing was also extremely susceptible to performance degradation due to leading edge contamination.

While doing performance analysis on the Global, Bombardier’s cruise Manual predicted a maximum attainable speed of Mach 0.89 at FL450 and 65,000 lb aircraft weight. What we could achieve was only M0.864. During a slight turn under these conditions the Global accelerates. This indicates a wing size and /or a wing incidence problem.

While doing control friction, freeplay and breakout force evaluation, we found that Global breakout forces are around six pounds making handflying difficult. G550 breakout forces by comparison are about 8 ounces.

We had to knock off stall testing because we started to encounter indications of an impending aerodynamic stall 6 knots above computed shaker speed.

I could continue, but I think you get the idea.

Does this make the Global a bad airplane? No, it’s just not a Gulfstream.

The thrust deck for an engine determines how much aircraft volume you can push through the air. As the Global and the GV both have 29,500 lbs of thrust (G550 30,770 lbs thrust), their volume must be similar. Bombardier decided to spend their volume on cabin. Gulfstream, true to their performance based aircraft design philosophy, spent theirs on wing.



Subsequently, I can take a pilot on a demo flight up to 51,000 feet, have him do steep turns then pull the speed brakes to descend. This would cause most aircraft to depart controlled flight. In the test Global, we couldn’t even get the jet up to 49,000 feet with a light load of fuel and four flight test engineers in the back, much less do turns.

Are you going to do steep turns on a corporate flight at FL510? No, but you might want to go up there to top weather and with the Gulfstreams wide margins, turbulence isn’t going to bring you down.

These high altitude capabilities have also made the Gulfstream popular with atmospheric research organizations such as NOAA and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). Ordered in 2001, the UCAR GV, known as the High-performance, Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER) was chosen for its exceptionally high cruising altitude, range, endurance, payload, reliability and low operating costs, as well as Gulfstream's industry-leading, award-winning product support programs.


For the same reasons, domestic and foreign militaries have also selected military variants of the Gulfstream for high altitude intelligence gathering and other special missions.


http://www.pbase.com/xnir/image/62735636


As a point of fact, GV, G500 and G550 wings were designed by Gulfstream scientists using NASA concepts and are made by Vought in Dallas, TX. The G350/G450 wings, also a Gulfstream design, are made by Vought in Nashville,TN. While Gulfstream has a design for a G200 wing, it has not been implemented. Current G100/G150/G200 wings were designed by and are made by Israeli Aircraft Industries in Tel Aviv, Israel.

GV

So, just to clear this up once and for all, you're saying that the Gulfstream 500/550 has basically the same wing as the Gulfstream II?
Or am I just being supercritical?

 

[GVFlyer]

So, just to clear this up once and for all, you're saying that the Gulfstream 500/550 has basically the same wing as the Gulfstream II?
Or am I just being supercritical?

G21Agoose, you're an evil man.

...and the only thing supercritical about the G550 wing are the winglets.



GV

 

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

GV, great post by the way-- I've learned a lot from all of your posts--

You're an O.K. guy, no matter what *certain* GLEX drivers may say!!

 

[GVFlyer]

GV, great post by the way-- I've learned a lot from all of your posts--

You're an O.K. guy, no matter what *certain* GLEX drivers may say!!

Thanks, Charlie Fox.

I fight the Forces of Darkness and Ignorance (G200) wherever I can.


GV

 

[Charlie_Foxtrot]

Thanks, Charlie Fox.

I fight the Forces of Darkness and Ignorance (G200) wherever I can.


GV

Yeah, me too.............I believe the effort to be futile, however......:laugh: