Bombardier New Aircraft

[ultrarunner]

The rumor is that they are going to take the Lear 45 wings and brakes and stick them on a 60 fuselage. That was the buzz when I was out at ICT picking up an airplane.

How much fuel do the 45 wings hold? 60 wings are 1450 a side plus a 5000 lb rear tank for a total of 7900 lbs.

I see the 45 has a total fuel of 6000 lbs but BAS doesn't give the break down.

If you could get the total fuel up to 9000 or 9500 on the 60 with a wing-change, that would be excellent. A good 3000 nm airplane.

 

[GVFlyer]

Hope and pray that he doesn't go vertical on you and squeeze one off on that pretty G-String of yours:laugh: . So to speak.

G what? Gulfstreams and Hornets carry the same amount of armament in W157A and W158C and the FA-18 is not vertical at 51,000 feet unless he started way down low where 1/2 Rho V Squared is a big number. Then he's ballistic and still can't turn with us.

The fighters don't like the thin air, so on a daily basis we actually share the same airspace. They use W157A up to FL430 and we have W158C overlying from FL430 to FL520. If the test card calls for lower altitudes we'll take the Yankees out near AR1 and they'll take the Xrays so they can work the North and South Tacts ranges (and stay close to shore).

GV

 

[banned username 2]

Hey GVFlyer,

Just curious, during all the testing and certification of the G-V and/or G-550, what was the highest altitude that was attained?

 

[GVFlyer]

Hey GVFlyer,

Just curious, during all the testing and certification of the G-V and/or G-550, what was the highest altitude that was attained?

Both the GV/G550 and the G-IV/450 have Fédération Aéronautique Internationale records for class for carrying a 1,000 kilogram payload to an absolute altitude. The GV made it to 55,068 feet (16,784 meters) with a 2200 lb payload, while the G-IV made it to 47,351 feet (14,432 meters). Without the payload the G-IV has been over 50,000 feet. As far as I know, no one has found any requirement to take the GV over 55,000 feet.

GV

 

[EngineThunder]

How much fuel do the 45 wings hold? 60 wings are 1450 a side plus a 5000 lb rear tank for a total of 7900 lbs.

I see the 45 has a total fuel of 6000 lbs but BAS doesn't give the break down.

If you could get the total fuel up to 9000 or 9500 on the 60 with a wing-change, that would be excellent. A good 3000 nm airplane.

There is 1678# in the wings and 2708 in the fuselage tank for a total of around 6062#

 

[ultrarunner]

There is 1678# in the wings and 2708 in the fuselage tank for a total of around 6062#

Hmmm....

So, a 60 with that wing would have an additional 456 lbs... an extra 30 mins at the most.

Maybe a touch more as the plane likely would fly higher initially and be more efficient.

At high weights, the 60 burns more above 390 and 410 unless your under 20000 lbs.

If you could operate initially at 410 or 430 initially, maybe you'd get an effective range increase of an hour.

That would let the 60 do the west-coast in the winter. BAS would likely need to increase the GW of the 60 to above 25000 lbs to account for the increase in fuel weight, as well as the increase in wing-structure weight.

23,500 wouldn't cut it and have any payload at all.

 

[banned username 2]

Both the GV/G550 and the G-IV/450 have Fédération Aéronautique Internationale records for class for carrying a 1,000 kilogram payload to an absolute altitude. The GV made it to 55,068 feet (16,784 meters) with a 2200 lb payload, while the G-IV made it to 47,351 feet (14,432 meters). Without the payload the G-IV has been over 50,000 feet. As far as I know, no one has found any requirement to take the GV over 55,000 feet.

GV

Is the G-450 still limited to FL450 like the G-IV?

 

[GVFlyer]

Is the G-450 still limited to FL450 like the G-IV?

Yes, maximum operating altitude for the G450 is 45,000 feet. For most Gulfstreams maximum altitude is not determined by any mechanical limitations of the jet, but rather the physiological limitations of the passengers.

Determining maximum operating altitude begins with a negotiating session with the FAA. You determine the size of a hole in the pressure vessel whose size will not be exceeded at a frequency greater than 10 to the seventh power. You then simulate that sized leak by rigging the outflow vavle to release the comensurate amount of air. Next, you dive from the desired max operating altitude and you have to reach the thick air before you put anybody to sleep in the back.

GV

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

You've been watching SPECTRAVISION, again...

Hope and pray that he doesn't go vertical on you and squeeze one off on that pretty G-String of yours:laugh: . So to speak.

I know, I know, it's your soap and you can wash it as fast as you want!

 

[pilotmiketx]

I agree that the 60 is a nice airplane, but, like any aircraft, it has its own issues (brakes, high ref speeds, etc). My experience with Bombardier has been on Challengers and they are lost when it comes to supporting 601s.

601s? Are you Mexican? I hear Saberliner and Jetstar parts are getting hard to come by, too.

 

[cosmotheassman]

Just heard word that the new airplane will be a Lear 70. Similar to a lear 60 but with enhanced "everything".

 

[fokkerjet]

The next Gulfstream will have more interior volume than the Global XRS and Fly-By-Wire. By value I meant not only quality, and current technology as opposed to last generation technology found on the Global Express (have you seen the 8" displays on the XRS?, no auto descent mode, no automatic fuel heating, the uncooled EVS - ad infinitum ad naseum) but also retained value, GV's on the pre-owned market are pretty much selling at their original new purchase price. Have you checked the price of a used Global lately?
quote]

You didn't mention the Pratt and Whitney engines

What are the range comparisions when you operate both with the same payloads, lets say 6 passengers with bags, and a crew of 4?

Didn't Gulfstream discount the G350's "heavily" for our friends on the west side of the runway? IMHO, Gulfstream needs to make that same offer to the people on the east side, but then what do I know:nuts:

 

[HawkerF/O]

601s? Are you Mexican? I hear Saberliner and Jetstar parts are getting hard to come by, too.

Are companies that built the Saberliner and Jetstar still in business selling corporate aircraft? Think about what you say next time before you ask such a shallow question. If you think that 601s are being bought up for pennies on the dollar (like Sabre and Jetstars) and going to Mexico for use down there, you should put the crack pipe down.

 

[h25b]

Didn't Gulfstream discount the G350's "heavily" for our friends on the west side of the runway? IMHO, Gulfstream needs to make that same offer to the people on the east side, but then what do I know:nuts:

I think I know who you work for, I worked for a company that sold engines to you guys and we'd occasionally bring pax to your hangar. Did I hear correctly that your current leadership got yid of all the Gulfstreams immediately when he took over in favor of Falcons ??? Used to see your shuttle planes at SDF frequently as well...

 

[2EASYPilot]

I think I know who you work for, I worked for a company that sold engines to you guys and we'd occasionally bring pax to your hangar. Did I hear correctly that your current leadership got yid of all the Gulfstreams immediately when he took over in favor of Falcons ??? Used to see your shuttle planes at SDF frequently as well...

Well, at least Falcon will not give aircraft away like the G company when the market turns sour...it must have been tough to explain to the big guys why their new 40m investment was worth less than 35m so soon.

 

[h25b]

I think I know who you work for, I worked for a company that sold engines to you guys and we'd occasionally bring pax to your hangar. Did I hear correctly that your current leadership got yid of all the Gulfstreams immediately when he took over in favor of Falcons ??? Used to see your shuttle planes at SDF frequently as well...

Well, at least Falcon will not give aircraft away like the G company when the market turns sour...it must have been tough to explain to the big guys why their new 40m investment was worth less than 35m so soon.

I was just curious how the whole thing went down. We were seeing practically brand new G-V's in the hangar and then out goes Jack Nasser and poof, out go the Gulfstreams and in come the Falcons...

 

[GEXDriver]

I think I know who you work for, I worked for a company that sold engines to you guys and we'd occasionally bring pax to your hangar. Did I hear correctly that your current leadership got yid of all the Gulfstreams immediately when he took over in favor of Falcons ??? Used to see your shuttle planes at SDF frequently as well...

Well, at least Falcon will not give aircraft away like the G company when the market turns sour...it must have been tough to explain to the big guys why their new 40m investment was worth less than 35m so soon.

The voice of professional envy speaks...


By the way, the average price for a used $26.15 million dollar Falcon 2000EX in todays premium market is $17.7 million.

 

[fokkerjet]

Two pairs........

Which model F2000EX was it? I found two F2000's for sale on one website, one was 10 years old for $17.9m and the other at 5 years for $21.0m; didn't see any EX's.

 

[pilotmiketx]

Are companies that built the Saberliner and Jetstar still in business selling corporate aircraft? Think about what you say next time before you ask such a shallow question. If you think that 601s are being bought up for pennies on the dollar (like Sabre and Jetstars) and going to Mexico for use down there, you should put the crack pipe down.

Maybe I should have said "Are you flying checks?" Or maybe auto parts.

Manufacturers aren't obligated to support products indefinately. The economies of scale for aircraft manufacturing are practically nonexistant due to the small production runs and high costs associated with certification. The same is true for parts. Manufacturers will cease to produce parts when it is no longer economically feasible to do so either due to actual manufacturing costs or product liability concerns. The only reason you can get old Hawker parts is because they are the same as new Hawker parts. Nothing like flying around in "new" 40 year old technology.

 

[cosmotheassman]

Well looks like the cat is out of the bag. Or should I say catS? The new aircraft are the learjet 60XR and a new challenger 605. yes, a 605. check out the bombardier web site for pics...

 

[h25b]

I looked over the 60XR on the web site and here's all I could figure...

1. Extra rotor on each brake set (i.e. Better brakes)...
2. Redesigned interior (hope they came up with a toilet with a wide enough opening to accommodate large fecal matter )
3. Upgraded Avionics...
4. Still the same wing...

 

[RS6]

I looked over the 60XR on the web site and here's all I could figure...

1. Extra rotor on each brake set (i.e. Better brakes)...
2. Redesigned interior (hope they came up with a toilet with a wide enough opening to accommodate large fecal matter )
3. Upgraded Avionics...
4. Still the same wing...

1. Brake upgrade is a SB avail. for all 60's and std. on sn 270 or so and on. Naturally no new numbers.

2. Yes, new lav and they moved the vanity so you have two windows in there. Hopefully the hole is bigger.

3. PL 21....new goodies for the pilots to play with.

4. Same wing yes. As it's the same plane. No more fuel, no more perf. No more range, etc...

All the things we wanted are still a different plane away.

 

[broken spoke]

60xr!?

Dissappointing. Reviewed the site about the new 60XR. Interior changes and, as previously mentioned, cockpit improvements, but the same wing. WOW. I was really hoping that they would stick a better wing on the plane. Hell, the flippin' brakes are fine. The Pratts would sure run out with the best of 'em, if given the opportunity, i.e. a better wing, but, to no avail.

Cossmo, lead on!!

 

[ultrarunner]

Dissappointing. Reviewed the site about the new 60XR. Interior changes and, as previously mentioned, cockpit improvements, but the same wing. WOW. I was really hoping that they would stick a better wing on the plane. Hell, the flippin' brakes are fine. The Pratts would sure run out with the best of 'em, if given the opportunity, i.e. a better wing, but, to no avail.

Cossmo, lead on!!

Yeah, bummer. But, the big picture is that if they did put a good wing on the 60 the plane would have very similar, if not better numbers than the CL-300.

No point in competing with it's own products.

 

[Flyingdog1]

Yeah, bummer. But, the big picture is that if they did put a good wing on the 60 the plane would have very similar, if not better numbers than the CL-300.

No point in competing with it's own products.

The landing and TO numbers of the CL-30 are very close to that of a LR-31. They'd have their work cut out for'm.

 

[broken spoke]

Yeah, bummer. But, the big picture is that if they did put a good wing on the 60 the plane would have very similar, if not better numbers than the CL-300.

No point in competing with it's own products.

Good point, my friend. Still . . .

 

[ultrarunner]

The landing and TO numbers of the CL-30 are very close to that of a LR-31. They'd have their work cut out for'm.

I was thinking more of the range numbers, and not so much runway figures.

With a high-perf wing and just a touch more fuel, the 60 would compete directly with the CL-300 in every respect except cabin space.

IMO, that would take away sales from the outfits that don't want to drop 20m on the bigger cabin.