Global express

[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: