Talk:Gulfstream G650/Archive 1

Archive 1

Official Page

Here is the official Gulfstream G650 page with technical specs and stuff: http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamg650/ swaq 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cool. I found that myself and added it to the External links section. The web page uses the flash graphics/animation. Better have a fast connection to easily navigate it. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• I added the specs from there and press release. I guess the crew of 4 includes 2 pilots and 2 attendants. I'm used to listing only flight or mission (military) crew. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to that, Jeff. My comp had trouble loading the specs page, so I nevr good add that myself. I added this page in a hurry, as often pages on newly announced aircraft get put up by editors who aren't familiar with WP:AIR's layout, and it becomes difficult to make changes. Also, as soon as anyone thinks we have enough info from the available sources, go ahead and remove the {{underconstruction}} tag - I added mainly to keep over-eager recent changes patrollers from deleting it before I had my ducks in a row, especially on sources. - BillCJ (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• The 12 configurations available for the standard executive cabins range from 11- 16 passengers with up to 6 crew including attendants. The minimum flight crew for this class of aircraft is 2. I changed the specs to reflect this. Technically, since the press release mentions the possibility of three-abreast seating and Gulfstream sets seat pitch to coincide with windows, 24 passengers is a possible but not likely configuration.24.6.198.12 (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Since you edited the page to 18(!), I'll assume you found another source besides Gulfstream. In any case, I said including attendants for a reason. On long stage lengths, of 12-14 hours, part of the crew compliment will be one or two relief pilots. Personally, I think "2 - 6, including attendants" is more descriptive, but then, I wrote it. :~) 24.6.198.12 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added the Flightgloabal reference to the top of the table for the 18 passengers part. The G650 page on the Cabin tab says 11 - 18 as well. Typically the minimum flight crew number is listed. So I don't think relief pilots would count there. Sorry, the 2 - 6 wording didn't seem that clear before. Not sure if the Spec references cover the crew details. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The cabin is only regulation certified for 18 passengers, so thats the maximum number of seats certified for takeoff/landing. Sometimes these planes will have seating that can only be used in flight that wouldn't count towards that number.
• Where does it say 6 crew? Part 121 regulations call for pilots to fly a maximum of 10 hours per segment so you could fly up to the G650's maximum range of about 15 hours with 3 pilots. They aren't going to carry a second flight attendant, they're going to have to deal with the long flight. Thats why Gulfstream's estimates for its max range of 7000nm say that they assume FOUR CREW and eight passengers. Four crew being 3 pilots and a flight attendant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.127.160 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Building a team

Honeywell and Goodrich are on the program as subcontractors. Probably are or will be several other major ones. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce is designing the BR725 engines, but I don't know if they are considered a partner, ot just a subcontractor. RR had a announcement today too. - BillCJ (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking of adding a subcontractor list type sentence similar to the one here. That and add some general design info from the press release/articles seem to be only things that can reasonably be added now. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• That would be a great idea. I know Thales is working on the 3 axis fly-by-wire (http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=832087), I have also heard, Parker (actuators), Rockwell Collins (Flight Deck, stab ecu, http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page10463.html). Need a source for Parker, can't find it.24.37.129.54 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Related designs

I put the G550 as a related desing in the "See also" section, but I've not seen anything that clearly states whether the G650 is derived from the G550, or if it is a clean-sheet design. Almost all of Gulfstreams pervious designs are at least based on preceding ones, so I would guess this in the case here. - BillCJ (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the News Release on the Gulfstream website their flight decks share the "same basic layout" and "the G650 retains the G550 heated fuel return system but adds a new Fuel Quantity Monitoring System (FQMS)". I would imagine there are other shared components too, but it's hard to say if the design is based on the G550. swaq 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Page 15 of the official G650 brochure states "clean sheet design". It has a new fuselage cross section, new wings, new flight controls (GS's first FBW), the empennage is built with composites. The only bit that isn't new is the engines, the 725s being an evolution of the 710s on the 500/550. I'd vote for removing the related design bit other than the fact that it looks like a Gulfstream.24.6.198.12 (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While we shouldn't put the G550 or any other Gulfstream aircraft in the Infobox fields ("Developed from" or "Variants" field), I do think there's enough of a connection in the ino you listed to keep it in the "Related designs". That section is for more than just directly related designs, so I think the G550, with its similar cockpit and related engines, is fine for now. - BillCJ (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This link: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/14/222221/gulfstream-raises-the-bar-with-g650.html states that this is a clean-sheet aircraft (the first for Gulfstream since the G2).192.93.163.1 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any connections to the G550 mentioned in aviation articles? The G650 has a larger fuselage and new wings (or largely new). These articles don't mention any solid connections: [1], [2], [3], [4] One does mention it will have a common type rating with the G550. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cross-section

"Gulfstream designers rejected the usual circular fuselage cross-section in favor of a complex oval which uses four distinct radii." Does this mean even left and right sides have different radii? Using three radii for upper, lower and the sides I can understand, but introducing an asymmetry across the vertical... Can someone explain? -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If that were true it would mean they used 4 quarter circles to make the fuselage profile and the curvature would not be smooth where they join. This article shows a simple oval profile with the upper and lower portions having different radii. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The circular sections would not have to be a quarter (90 deg). It is perfectly possible to use four circular segments with smooth connections (being from the definition of an oval). My point is that it does not make sense to have different radii for the lefthand- and righthand-side of the cabin. Using different radii for roof and bottom section is understandable. I think they used three radii and four segments. Unless they went into an elliptical, which removes the circle-radus alltogether. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If you can find a reference with that detail, add it and adjust the article wording to match. Nothing in the Gulfstream pages or the article above go beyond just saying oval. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd like to have some confirmation before editing. The link you gave nicely shows the cross-section, but not the geometrics. I'll take a further look. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cabin Dimensions

For a long time this article has said that the interior cabin dimensions are 8'2" wide and 6'3" tall. Those are incorrect and are actually the cabin dimensions for the Bombardier Global Express. The G650 cabin dimensions, as expressed by the Gulfstream product specification page that is listed as a reference is 8'6" wide and 6'5" tall. I have updated the numbers in the article but I don't know how to change the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.127.160 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Been fixed and referenced. Try to explain in an edit summary in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Far East Movement" pop culture trivia on this page

Do not add content until you have a solid, non-self-researched, reference. Furthermore, consider it more suitable that the song (if it had a page) should have a reference to the airplane, instead of vice versa. Imagine how cluttered a Wikipedia entry would become if it had enough popular culture trivia.

Please refer to the following sections before adding the entry again.

Wikipedia's manual of style on trivia sections, Wikipedia, Popular culture project, Wikipedia: In popular culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poposhka (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, The airplane in the video seems to be a G350(?), not a G650. Plane from the Far East Movement video: Notice the location of the landing lights, Here is some photos of the G650 notice the much more bulbous fuselage by the wing roots, and the location of the landing lights.. The wikipedia article for the G650 states it has 16 side windows, whereas the plane in the video seems to only have 12. G350 on Gulfstream's web site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poposhka (talk • contribs) 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement to my edit, Fnlayson. Anybody not convinced this is an important reference? Who cares if it was a G3 in the music video and not a G6?Stardude82 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a G6 - it's something they writers made up, as several sources bear out. As such, it's not about the G650, which didn't even exist when the song was written. The item should be removed, and I'll try to see that it is. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The group explains in this MTV article that they were, indeed, referring to a state-of-the-art jet, and invoking a comparison with the G4 (a.k.a. Gulfstream 450). What more do you need? - Elaborating (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Still repeat what I said when it was removed in September it is just not notable to the aircraft. Although the aircraft type is not clear they just appear to have added a few digits to G4 to make a made up name. Suggest it is deleted again as not notable to the G650. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur. To answer Elaborating's last question, the CNN Money article "Fly like a G6?" states:

"As "Like a G6" (formerly the No. 1 single on iTunes, currently No. 3) made the rounds online, employees at the Savannah-based jetmaker Gulfstream Aerospace began receiving links to the song. The company's spokesman, Jeff Miller, said that they were "thrilled" about the enthusiasm for the product in the song, and they've enjoyed its wave of popularity. The only problem with all the enthusiasm? The G6 doesn't exist." (Italics mine.)

That last sentence cleary contradicts the statement in the WP article that says "The song "Like a G6" efers to the G650." Even the Like a G6 article only states ""G6" is thought to be a reference to the Gulfstream G650", citing the same CNN Money article. If noting else, we could put a link to the song in the See also section, and let that article do the explaining. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that none of the links provided 'proof' the artist were referring specifically to the G650 in the song. It seems the band/group was trying to come up with a hyperbole to 'trump' a G4 (per Yahoo/MTV News article), and others 'backronymed' it to refer to an upcoming product to capitalize on the song. We should hold the reference or note it as a speculation. Zzsignup (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to an interview with one of the artists. Clearly, the writer knew there was a GI through GV. The question is he was coming up with a hypothetical aircraft which he now identifies as the G650. I don't know how to handle it, but it certainly, I think, now refers to the aircraft.Stardude82 (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is OR but even Gulfstream employees refer to the G650 as the "G6" from my interactions with them. Ferociousatkcat (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture / aircraft that crashed in Roswell, NM

I have uploaded an image of the aircraft that crashed on April 2nd. I took the photo on March 11th. Ferociousatkcat (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft links

Why are the BBJ and ACJ listed as "comparable"? How is an A318 or B737, capable of holding about 100 people in fleet mode, comparable to a G650, smaller than most RJs? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because they are configured as business jets. They seat much less than 100 though, but seating is more like regional jets. The links have been removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The G6 is not smaller than most RJs, it is darn near 100,000lbs which isn't all that far off from what a 737 weighs. Compare it to the big daddy of regional jets the Embraer 175, the G6 outmasses it by a large margin. 69.92.2.147 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The above posts both mentioned the size of RJs in terms their seating, not their dimensions or weights. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)