Global 5000 on Deck!!!

[Diesel]

Was reading an article about the 5000 and the center fuel tank is the same as the global but can't hold the same fuel. There is a code in the computer that keeps from filling it to the globals amount.

I found that pretty interesting.

 

[TundraT]

Its great that the G5000 is on deck. The real test of its metal will be if it can take off again or have to wait on parts or repairs like the Global Express. The test should be like the X Prize, take off and do it again in 10 days. 10 day, the G5000 just might make it.

I wish Gulfstream would go back to Roman Numerals. I can see the confusion coming
G500 - G5000. No way to confuse G-D or G-DL (G-500, G-550 the the latin impared).

 

[GVFlyer]

We looked at all of the above aircraft, the Falcon 7X looks like a great plane until you see the speed required to get that range. Advertised as a 5,700 NM plane at mach .80, bump it up to .85 and she drops to 4,500 NM, this from the Falcon Rep at the show.

I hate to be the guy that comes to Dassault's defence, but Gulfstream Sales Engineering is pretty sure that the new Falcon is going to go 5,100 nm at M 0.85.

... I like the G5000 or a used GXpress, fast, big, long legs, and the guys that are buying these planes are not all that concerned with fuel prices...

I'll give you big, the G5000 is 10" wider than the Gulfstream G500 and a ton and a half heavier, thirstier too, but fast and long legs are another matter. The Gulfstream G500 flys 300 nm farther than the Global 5000 at M 0.85 while carrying over half a ton more payload. As a matter of fact, the G5000 press release states that on their mid-July record flight from San Francisco to London (4816nm downwind) they were able to maintain M 0.85 most of the way. At M 0.85 Gulfstream guarantees the G500 to fly 5,100 nm with 8 pax. ISA, and NBAA Reserves.

M 0.89 is Mmo for the G5000 so I don't think they'll be flying lower payload missions at M 0.89 as Bombardier has repeatedly claimed. M 0.885 is Mmo for the Gulfstream, but the company prudently claims M 0.87 as High Speed Cruise (not that there is much of a drag rise above M 0.87, but who wants to listen to the Overspeed Warning with every variation in temperature or bit of turbulence that takes you momentarily beyond M 0.89?). In any event speed is relative - the G5000 is at it's fastest at 37,000 ft. Due to the aerodynamic limitations of the G5000 and it's larger sibling, the Global XRS, the Gulfstreams are faster above 43,000 ft. Not that it matters, but the Gulfstreams also accelerate and climb more quickly in that they are up to 8% lighter than the Globals, have less parasite drag and enjoy 4.5% more thrust.

If someone just had to have an airplane made by people who speak French, I think the Falcon 7X would provide better performance, more reliability and a higher level of product support than the Bombardier products and could be purchased at a similar price point.

GV







.

 

[2000flyer]

I hate to be the guy that comes to Dassault's defence, but Gulfstream Sales Engineering is pretty sure that the new Falcon is going to go 5,100 nm at M 0.85.

GVFlyer, I'm glad to see there is hope after all!

2000Flyer

 

[mzaharis]

Dumb newbie non-corporate-pilot question (#4, I believe):

If the G550 and G500 are so similar, and the GEX and G5000 are so similar (they sound like the only difference is smaller tankage, and a slightly shorter fuse for the G5000), where are the savings that allow those aircraft to be sold for 6-8 million less than their siblings?

 

[sleepy]

Its great that the G5000 is on deck. The real test of its metal will be if it can take off again or have to wait on parts or repairs like the Global Express. The test should be like the X Prize, take off and do it again in 10 days. 10 day, the G5000 just might make it.

I wish Gulfstream would go back to Roman Numerals. I can see the confusion coming
G500 - G5000. No way to confuse G-D or G-DL (G-500, G-550 the the latin impared).

Excellent point. Our Global has left our CEO stranded way too many times. I don't think we will be buying any more of them. I will be real surprised if the one we have is still around in two years.

 

[GEXDriver]

Excellent point. Our Global has left our CEO stranded way too many times. I don't think we will be buying any more of them. I will be real surprised if the one we have is still around in two years.

Do we work at the same company? That's been our experience with the Global as well.

 

[banned username 2]

I hate to be the guy that comes to Dassault's defence, but Gulfstream Sales Engineering is pretty sure that the new Falcon is going to go 5,100 nm at M 0.85.

I think the Falcon 7X would provide better performance, more reliability and a higher level of product support than the Bombardier products and could be purchased at a similar price point.

GV

{Getting up off of the floor after falling off chair... }

I have also heard 5,100 NM or so at Mach 0.85 for the 7X...

 

[falconpilot]

Did anyone go to the Dassault breakfast at the Hilton last week... If you didn't you really didn't miss anything... The 7X presentation was pretty neat, but you couldn't understand anything the French guys were saying. The 7X is going to be a nice airplane... I'm not sure what I would choose between the G500, Global, or the 7X.. All of them seem to be great airplanes... I know that the Global has had some problems, as far as reliability is concerned. But hopefully they got all those bugs worked out. Im anxious to see what the 7X will really be able to do...

 

[GEXDriver]

airplanes... I know that the Global has had some problems, as far as reliability is concerned. But hopefully they got all those bugs worked out. I.

Not as of this morning.

 

[2000flyer]

Dumb newbie non-corporate-pilot question (#4, I believe):

If the G550 and G500 are so similar, and the GEX and G5000 are so similar (they sound like the only difference is smaller tankage, and a slightly shorter fuse for the G5000), where are the savings that allow those aircraft to be sold for 6-8 million less than their siblings?

mza,

You answered your own question. That is, $6-8 million less. Also, some companies just don't need the extra range the longer-legged brother will give them.

Cessna has been doing this for years. Look at the slight difference (ranges, performance, etc) between a CJ, CJ1, CJ2, CJ3. A little more range / speed with each, but each subsequent at a higher dollar amount. Same holds true for the Ultra/Encore to XL/XLS. You can have a 420kt, 1000 mile (real world) Encore or for a couple million more you can have a 420kt, 1000 mile (real world) XL, the only real difference is the XL gives you a stand up cabin. Yes, there are a few avionics and APU options on the XL that the Encore doesn't have, but not enough, IMHO, to split hairs over in this comparison.

Falcon Jet is doing the same thing with the 900DX and 900EX. Same airplane, but the DX has less fuel and cost less. I'm betting folks who like the EX but don't need the 4500nm range will line up for the DX.

2000Flyer

 

[mzaharis]

I understand the savings for the buyer. Spending 6-8 mill less for an airplane with the same spacious interior (or very close to it, in the case of the Global 5000), but without the range you won't use anyway 99% of the time, makes great sense. If I was a buyer, and nonstop Asia trips were not high on my list of priorities, it would seem like a great way to save money, assuming that I needed the other capabilities, such as 4,800-5,000 NM range, G500/GEX comfort, etc.

What I am really wondering is, how is it that much cheaper for Bombardier or Gulfstream to manufacture these aircraft? It seems like a minimal change to result in a 15-20% decrease in manufacturing cost. I mean, the G500 has the same engines, in pretty much the same airframe as the G550, but with a bit less tankage (GVFlyer, I'm sure you'll correct me on this one). Likewise, the Global 5000's only easily apparent airframe difference from the GEX is a foot or two of length, and possibly a bit less fuel tankage.

So why does it cost 15-20% less to manufacture a G500 than a G550, or a G5000 as opposed to a GEX? I find it difficult that they're simply cutting their margins very much (although I could be wrong!).

Sorry - didn't make that clear in my original question.

 

[banned username 2]

So why does it cost 15-20% less to manufacture a G500 than a G550, or a G5000 as opposed to a GEX?

It doesn't, they are charging you a LOT more for the added capability of the GLAX or G-550 (vs. the G-5000 or G-500)... From what I understand, the G-5000 has the exact same fuel tanks as the GLEX and a simple computer program change in the fuel system limits the fuel to the lesser value... That and about a 3 ft fuselage plug they pulled and you have a G-5000...

 

[P3-Adub]

GV Flyer

Not knocking the Gulfstream product at all, unfortunately the big guy demo'ed both and he likes the cabin better on the Bombardier product. Oh, and the 5M less price tag. Much to the dismay of our regional Gulfstream Rep. Gas hog, terrible dispatch reliability, and made by the Suedo French, all good points. However, tell any flight attendant that size doesn't matter, 10 inches is 10 inches! As for me, I'll take either one, happy to be flying the top of the food chain. Waiting patiently till it happens now. I hated to give up my 1968 GIISP, I liked it even better than the GIII as far as flying qualities. Avionics wise the Challenger 601-3R we currently fly is light years ahead of those planes and is a dinosaur compared to the G500 and GX series planes. This is where the boss gets the idea he likes a wider cabin. The Falcon 7X numbers came from a Falcon rep at the show that seemed in the know, standing right in front of the big model. I am also sure Gulfstream has done their due diligence, 5,100NM. Looks like a nice plane, just hate to see it be so far away. With my range comments, even if the numbers I hear are correct, it would be nice to have the ability to choose the extra range when needed, even if it is at mach .80

GV Flyer, you flying those for Uncle Sam ?

Would like to hear from some of those that are actually flying the Global Express, are they mainly software problems and what kind of fixes have the new build 4 packages done to address these ? What other problems have caused you cancellations ? We talking about airframe/engine/avionics or completion related? Is the artical in the latest BCA pretty representative of the problems you are seeing ? If too much for this forum, please PM me. Thanks

 

[Gulfstream 200]

The GLEX cabin does sell the airplane. It sold Globals to the company I fly for.

I think the pilots wanted GV's (550s whatever..) but when it comes down to it - as much as they ask your opinion....they make thier mind up on the demos - the 12 hr legs, Asia runs, etc...and then make the decision. Pilot input means nothing (but dont try and convince a pilot of that....his/her expertise is paramount) But the decision makers like the room in back - and lets face it - even a GLEX or a G550 is g'dam claustrophobic after 12 hours...

I dont think we have ever cx'd a trip due to a Global breaking. but I dont keep track so thats a guess...

All the faults are software/boot up issues. There are "fix procudures" floating around to solve most weird common faults with the push of a few buttons..and under the worse conditions simply shutting it down and rebooting (CTRL-ALT-DEL) usually works. The biggest headache is if you get some odd message that you must deal with after you land by hooking up the laptop and talking to mx techs...just what you want to do after a long leg, huh?

Many, many of these fault messages are self-induced. This is not an airplane to hop in and fire up and go. It takes time to let it boot-up and do its thing. Sit on your hands for a few minutes and it all works fine.

Build 4 did fix some software issues. It is unknown if it has created any new ones yet! - wouldn't doubt it.

I personally think its a very nice flying airplane. The cockpit is very roomy, performs great...what more can a pilot ask for?? --

then again I will fly whatever they throw at me...so long as the paychecks keep coming...