Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Great Picture of Steve Wynn's New Gulfstream G650 - Gorgeous Airplane...

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
So, he's got 6 or 7 or 8 years to kill?

The 7000/8000 is nothing more than 1's and 0's in a computer at this point. I don't see that airplane flying for a looooong time.

Here's the major problem: The 6000 is a 99,000 lbs+ airplane. To compete against the 650, the 7000/8000 will need to add at LEAST 1000 miles in range. Where are they going to put the fuel? They HAVE to stay under 100,000 lbs to operate at TEB. Otherwise, it just ISN'T viable as a bizjet.

If they go clean-sheet on the design, it will add YEARS to the development schedule. I just can't see Bombardier delivering on the marketing promises of the 7000/8000 by the end of this decade.
We have a new 6000 coming online in about a month. The demo was to see if the 650 was an option for us. As in does it do a lot more for us than we can do with our 6000. The 7000 is 10 feet longer inside and will weigh in around 120,000 MTOW. TEB is not a concern for us as we also operate a BBJ.
You may be correct the 7000/8000 may never come to fruition, however when it comes time to buy the new one we should have a better idea.
I see a few years from now winding up in a 650. Whatever the plane is I don't really care just as long as I am the one flying it.
 
I like the fact that your boss isn't afraid to spend the money for the latest and greatest. Wish there were more like him out there.

The 650 is going to be the "must-have" for the folks who don't even blink at a $65 million price tag, at least for the next several years. Wish my company had continued the relationship with Savannah for at least a SHOT at flying the 650. But our last CEO burned that bridge. After he blew it up. And then he paved over the wreckage.

Good luck with the 6000 and let us know how it turns out.
 
I like the fact that your boss isn't afraid to spend the money for the latest and greatest. Wish there were more like him out there.

The 650 is going to be the "must-have" for the folks who don't even blink at a $65 million price tag, at least for the next several years. Wish my company had continued the relationship with Savannah for at least a SHOT at flying the 650. But our last CEO burned that bridge. After he blew it up. And then he paved over the wreckage.

Good luck with the 6000 and let us know how it turns out.

Gulfstream is going to have to get it's most high profile customers to lobby for a weight and wingspan exemption in ASE, or the 650 is going to lose a few sales.
 
Total shakedown by Pitkin County. Just like the RNP Approach debacle a few years back.
 
So, he's got 6 or 7 or 8 years to kill?

The 7000/8000 is nothing more than 1's and 0's in a computer at this point. I don't see that airplane flying for a looooong time.

Here's the major problem: The 6000 is a 99,000 lbs+ airplane. To compete against the 650, the 7000/8000 will need to add at LEAST 1000 miles in range. Where are they going to put the fuel? They HAVE to stay under 100,000 lbs to operate at TEB. Otherwise, it just ISN'T viable as a bizjet.

If they go clean-sheet on the design, it will add YEARS to the development schedule. I just can't see Bombardier delivering on the marketing promises of the 7000/8000 by the end of this decade.

I called TEB airport when we placed our order for a 7000 back in 2010. As long as you send a copy of your weight and balance to to the tower advising you are not operating above 100K pounds, there will be no problem flying the 7000/8000 in or out of TEB. Considering the planes will have a 7300 and 7900 nm range with full tanks, I wouldn't think you would top off all that often. ASE will be an issue because of the wingspan as it is with the G650.

Also, I met with our Bombardier salesman this past week, and he assured me the program is still on schedule. First deliveries are expected to take place in 2016. I'm not sure if you can call it a completely clean sheet design as they are adding a plug to the existing airframe for the 7000, and the tube for the 8000 will be the same as the Express/XRS/6000. Also, I'm sure they will keep some of the systems. The new planes will have a new high speed wing, new more efficient engines, fly by wire, and carry more fuel. Why are you so sure the program will be delayed 4 years? I've seen nothing from Bombardier in the 7000/8000 quarterly updates to support that theory.
 
Last edited:
Because every Bombardier large cabin airplane has met the initial specs published? I'm still waiting for the 6000/XRS to do 6500NM like it was supposed to. Considering that the XRS is a 96K airplane that does 6100NM how do you think that the 7000 will go 1000NM further while weighing 10K pounds more? I would imagine only 3K of that will be fuel..
 
Max fuel on the 7000 is 47450 compared to 45100 on the 6000 for a difference of 2,350 lbs.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Because every Bombardier large cabin airplane has met the initial specs published? I'm still waiting for the 6000/XRS to do 6500NM like it was supposed to. Considering that the XRS is a 96K airplane that does 6100NM how do you think that the 7000 will go 1000NM further while weighing 10K pounds more? I would imagine only 3K of that will be fuel..

Ding!

Winner, winner. Chicken dinner.
 
The GE Passport 20 engines are supposed to deliver at least 8 percent more fuel efficiency. If you look at the leading edge of current Globals, you'll notice that is one big ol' fat boy wing with huge canoe flap tracks. Seems to me there is room to improve the fuel efficiency. I don't know if they will meet the 7300 and 7900nm range numbers, and I really don't much care. The huge majority of our trips are 5000nm or less. Anything approaching 7000nm combined with the much larger cabin of the 7000 will be just fine. I don't see any possible way the 8000 won't significantly surpass the G650's range numbers.
 
I don't see any possible way the 8000 won't significantly surpass the G650's range numbers.

With lawn chairs in the back during flight test just like XRS certification, they might come close to surpassing the 650 on range with the 8000. With a REAL interior installed? Real world operation? It will be EXACTLY like the XRS versus the 550. The Bombardier won't even come close to matching the 650 on range, speed, time to climb and required runway. Gulfstream is BEATING pre-certification estimates. The Global program has never met their promises in the past.
 
Last edited:
With lawn chairs in the back during flight test just like XRS certification, they might come close to surpassing the 650 on range with the 8000. With a REAL interior installed? Real world operation? It will be EXACTLY like the XRS versus the 550. The Bombardier won't even come close to matching the 650 on range, speed, time to climb and required runway. Gulfstream is BEATING pre-certification estimates. The Global program has never met their promises in the past.

So, You're on record saying Bombardier will miss by 900nm or more? I'll take that bet.

You can't compare a 550 to an XRS. The XRS is a much bigger plane, It's even just a little bigger than the 650. Gulfstream went with 25 year old technology in the BR700 series engines on the G650. Undoubtedly, they are improved versions, but not nearly cutting edge technology. I'm not saying the new Bombardier planes will meet their advertised range numbers. I will say, the 8000 will have better range than the G650, and I would be surprised if the program ends up as delayed as your mighty G was.
 
Quoted range? It will be close. Real range? It will miss by a country mile. Does anybody in the XRS or 6000 fly it 14.5 hours like a 550 does routinely? Not hardly. If the past is any indication, I'm not expecting the 7000 or the 8000 to meet advertised book either.

And the 650 was right at a year late only because of a tragic accident that was NOT the fault of the airframe or its systems.

And one more thing. Gulfstreams are a pilot's airplane and Globals are a passenger's airplane. Since I'm a pilot....

Yea, yea. I know. The passenger pays the bills. Just so long as we ALL get paid to keep driving them no matter what the brand name is.
 
Last edited:
And one more thing. Gulfstreams are a pilot's airplane and Globals are a passenger's airplane. Since I'm a pilot....

Yea, yea. I know. The passenger pays the bills. Just so long as we ALL get paid to keep driving them no matter what the brand name is.

Hear - hear.:beer:

For what it's worth, my boss asked me to find him a new plane and gave me no restrictions. I could have chosen anything including the G650, BBJ, ACJ or Liniage. I too am a pilot. To be fair though, I see my job being more about making sure my boss is happy than driving any particular airplane. I think this one will fit our mission well and give him a bit more room to stretch out in. If you're right, and it ends up being four years late, maybe you can help me find a job flying a Gulfstream. :)
 
Total shakedown by Pitkin County. Just like the RNP Approach debacle a few years back.

Do tell about the RNP approach debacle. I've been trying to get a straight answer but no one wants to talk about it.
 
I have lots of time in both Gulfstreams and Globals. As a pilot there really is not much of a difference except in avionics, however the 6000 closed the gap. And performance wise off of or into a short field the global is hands over fist better with the wing and slats being far superior.
 
Saw N711SW taxi off the runway after landing at LAS yesterday and I took a couple of pics with my iphone. Damned if I know how to post them here though.

Honestly? I know it will outperform any civil airplane ever built but it just looks....odd. The 550 is a way sexier looking airplane.

Yeah, when observed on the ramp the wings bend upwards, rather weird looking.
 
anyone know what it says on the tail? Is that the textual version of the lucky kitty?

LTTP, but the letters on the tail are are the name of the Wynn corporation - "Winglei" in Cantonese. A literal translation of the two characters would be something like "perpetual profit".
 

Latest resources

Back
Top