[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by duke

I hitched a ride on a G-IV some months ago, it was incredible. At least for me it was. My ex-boss was at the helm and I got a good view of things, including differential pressurization that lets them climb high enough to get directs. the common fallacy is that biz jets fly faster (typically) while they have a higher cruise, it comes with fuel penalties. The biz jets typically have higher service ceiling that allows them to climb above traffic and go for directs than waypoints. example we climbed out of cal to 410 and got a direct to raipur and then nagpur gave us a direct to bombay. Shaved almost 20mins off the normal routing at 350.

Good to hear you enjoyed. What do you mean by differential pressurization allowing them to fly higher. i don't understand. Some of these jets have rbetter cabin altitude pressure then commercial jets, but that is not what allows them to fly higher..

When you fly direct you typically would still fly to a waypoint or similar. What you mean is the pilot doesn't follow the respective airway.

In the USA there are so many hi and low altitude airways that the difference of following the airway or going direct becomes small. Getting a direct to fromATC is more about how busy a particular airspace in, then altitude perse. Plenty of wide bodies make it to FL400 and higher toward the end of a long haul.

Alternative go drop out of class I airspace (below 18000 ft in the USA), cancel your IFR flight plan and fly anywhere you damn well please without even having to talk to ATC.

Jeroen

[sun_king]

Originally Posted by audioholic

I agree with you mate. Its not once that I have seen this plane in Gujrat. I have seen it quite a few times and only once I observed it came to Bangalore, that too during Aero India. Regarding individual or corporation, yes it can be a big business group. But speaking of a leasing company, I would doubt someone in India at least would buy that to rent it out given how much of a prized possession this aircraft is. Will keep an eye on this aircraft from now

In Bangalore it is no surprise, Honeywell owns one of the first G650s and whenever the Chairman comes over to India he brings the beauty. 65 million for the older version and 68 for the extended range one (7500 NM), in path of reclaiming the title of the fastest production civilian jet, it is indeed a proud possession. It is so tempting that http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-this-jet.html

Old Bernie is rumored to have got 10 M as profit in resale of his G650, such is its demand.

PS: Yours truly had the honor of working with its Flight Management Systems till last year.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by sun_king

Yours truly had the honor of working with its Flight Management Systems till last year.

Interesting, just out of curiosity, what sort of work did you do on the FMS? Always found it a fascinating piece of machinery. Im reasonable familiar with the functionality of the Honeywell FMS as found on Boeing.

Jeroen

[sun_king]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Interesting, just out of curiosity, what sort of work did you do on the FMS? Always found it a fascinating piece of machinery. Im reasonable familiar with the functionality of the Honeywell FMS as found on Boeing.

Jeroen

For the G650 it was more of testing the Navigation functionality, especially Flight Planning. Before that it was the crucial PERF (Performance) for BizJets.

The business jet architecture differs from the airline air transport ones(as in the Boeing) and I have no experience with the AT world so I won't be of much help there.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by sun_king

For the G650 it was more of testing the Navigation functionality, especially Flight Planning. Before that it was the crucial PERF (Performance) for BizJets.

The business jet architecture differs from the airline air transport ones(as in the Boeing) and I have no experience with the AT world so I won't be of much help there.

Thanks.
Do these bizjets have functionality to upload flightplans into the FMS from external sources? Or would pilots just enter flight plans in the cockpit. Would you find systems such as ACARS on these or that doesnt make sense?

Why is there a architectural difference? Due to more strict legislation on AT perhaps?

Jeroen

[duke]

I guessed not everyone here is an aviation buff, hence was trying to be as rudimentary as possible.

Most commercial a have a service ceiling no higher than 410 which makes for lesser traffic at that alt.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Good to hear you enjoyed. What do you mean by differential pressurization allowing them to fly higher. i don't understand. Some of these jets have rbetter cabin altitude pressure then commercial jets, but that is not what allows them to fly higher..

When you fly direct you typically would still fly to a waypoint or similar. What you mean is the pilot doesn't follow the respective airway.

In the USA there are so many hi and low altitude airways that the difference of following the airway or going direct becomes small. Getting a direct to fromATC is more about how busy a particular airspace in, then altitude perse. Plenty of wide bodies make it to FL400 and higher toward the end of a long haul.

Alternative go drop out of class I airspace (below 18000 ft in the USA), cancel your IFR flight plan and fly anywhere you damn well please without even having to talk to ATC.

Jeroen

[sun_king]

Originally Posted by Ravindra M

You mean the technology is advanced than Boeing and Airbus ? I always thought Boeing and Airbus have the financial muscles for development and deployment of all the technical advances. Can you please enlighten us more - in which technical areas of aviation Gulfstream is ahead of these giants ? Is it something like this ?- Gulfstream is like a Rolls-Royce and 747 / A380 is like a Mercedes or Neoplan bus.

A B747 or an A380 is designed as mass carriers, their design purpose is to carry a large number of passengers over long distances. A business jet is for a much smaller contigent. The G650's luxury mode can take 10 passengers while a B747-400 can ferry between 400 to 650 passengers depending on its configuration. Smaller passenger count means smaller fuselage and a smaller fuselage directly translates to way less drag and weight. Combine the smaller drag and lesser weight with a very powerful engine, you get something that has the potential to fly faster and higher. The thrust-to-weight ratio of a high performance business jet will be much higher than a commercial airliner.

As for technological advancements, it is usually pretty even. Almost anything related to safety is usually made mandatory across all classes of airplane as early as possible. But when it comes to changing the capabilities, the business jets change more rapidly. This is because airlines are reluctant to change things in the cockpit as these mean additional trainings needed for the crew and that translates to more money. So they tend to be satisfied with a working configuration that meets airworthiness standards. Business jets can spend more on enhancing the airplane's capabilities since it will be projected as making the airplane more safer and more capable. While the avionics technology content is more or less equal, the presentation is more elegant in a business jet. The Gulfstream PlaneView http://www.gulfstream.com/technology/planeview flight deck is one of the most advanced ones in civilian world. And on the airframe and propulsion perspective, the higher speed and altitude capabilities of a business jet means more advanced aerodynamics and metallurgy.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Thanks.
Do these bizjets have functionality to upload flightplans into the FMS from external sources? Or would pilots just enter flight plans in the cockpit. Would you find systems such as ACARS on these or that doesnt make sense?

Why is there a architectural difference? Due to more strict legislation on AT perhaps?

Jeroen

Yes, the flight plan can be loaded from an external device (Floppy Disk or an USB), uploaded via datalink or can be retrieved from onboard storage. All the fun of keying in from the MCDU/Touchscreens is retained with airway, Departure and Arrival procedures stringing capabilities. Who would want to manually key in dozens of waypoints each time on cumbersome MCDUs?

I cannot elaborate about the architecture, it may encroach on the confidentiality. Differences often arise from the nature of the hardware on these airplanes and sometimes just plain insistence from the OEMs.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by sun_king

Combine the smaller drag and lesser weight with a very powerful engine, you get something that has the potential to fly faster and higher. The thrust-to-weight ratio of a high performance business jet will be much higher than a commercial airliner.

True, although even a 747 max speed is 0.92M and a ceiling of 45000ft. And if you ever had the pleasure of flying an empty 747 with little fuel, you would be very surprised at what sort of vertical speed you get. The difference between a full and near empty 747 is huge. So its designed to get the full maximum weight into the air, it also means that if not loaded you get incredible performance as the thrust to weight ratio for such a configuration is just phenomenal.

Years ago. before 9/11 I was invited to come along in the cockpit for a ferry flight on a 747-400 from Amsterdam to Luxembourg. We had well over 7000 feet per minute on the vertical speed indicator.

Originally Posted by sun_king

As for technological advancements, it is usually pretty even. Almost anything related to safety is usually made mandatory across all classes of airplane as early as possible. But when it comes to changing the capabilities, the business jets change more rapidly. This is because airlines are reluctant to change things in the cockpit as these mean additional trainings needed for the crew and that translates to more money. So they tend to be satisfied with a working configuration that meets airworthiness standards. Business jets can spend more on enhancing the airplane's capabilities since it will be projected as making the airplane more safer and more capable.

Thanks, that tallies with my understanding is as well. An additional issue is certification which for commercial jets is more complex, costly and lengthy. I have a few friends back in the USA who deal with various aspects of aviation electronic system. When for instance, through incident/accident investigation reports their kit is in question; They tell me they would much rather update the manuals and procedure in showing what can't be done rather then to add new functionality/features. Quicker and cheaper.

Originally Posted by sun_king

While the avionics technology content is more or less equal, the presentation is more elegant in a business jet. The Gulfstream PlaneView http://www.gulfstream.com/technology/planeview flight deck is one of the most advanced ones in civilian world.

Too true, the Garmin G1000 Cockpit in the Cirrus I fly is more impressive and in many ways much more user friendly than the 747-400 panel and it's respective Honeywell FMS (i.e. Pegasus). But then again that system is well over 10 years old.

Originally Posted by sun_king

Yes, the flight plan can be loaded from an external device (Floppy Disk or an USB), uploaded via datalink or can be retrieved from onboard storage. All the fun of keying in from the MCDU/Touchscreens is retained with airway, Departure and Arrival procedures stringing capabilities. Who would want to manually key in dozens of waypoints each time on cumbersome MCDUs?

Floppy? Are you sure? I've been able to upload my flight plans from my iPad directly into the Flight Management System as old as the Garmin 430 series? Again, I think there is a huge difference between GA and Commercially certified planes. iPads have only made their entry in the commercial aviation cockpits in the last few years. As I stated earlier, and I think you are saying the same, you will see more innovation, or at least continuous innovation, in the GA aircraft than in Commercial Aircraft.

With the possible exception of auto throttle systems, no single engine airplane has been certified with an auto throttle system, whereas just about every other innovative system came to these planes before they made their entry to commercial jets.

Originally Posted by sun_king

I cannot elaborate about the architecture, it may encroach on the confidentiality. Differences often arise from the nature of the hardware on these airplanes and sometimes just plain insistence from the OEMs.

Sure, I'm no expert in this area, but I just like to understand how these boxes work, stand alone and in systems. Many years ago, early on in my career, I was sort of involved in some of the development work for flight management computers for rockets. In those days, digital Telecom switches had pretty advanced CPUs. Parallel processing, hot stand bye etc was all available and in commercial use. But all done through proprietary technology, hardware (in those days Telecom vendors developed their own chipsets, PCB etc).

Some of the flight computers on the early Ariadne rockets are derived from telecom switch CPUs.

A friend of mine here in Delhi is building his own full size 747-cockpit Simulator and all his kit comes straight out of real 747-400s. So I get to see a lot of the electronic boxes and stories how he interfaces and wires them into his PC's that run the simulation software. Although of course, plenty of 747 and thus respective Honeywell FMS in use today, this technology is becoming a bit outdated with what Honeywell puts out in the market today. Still, lots of fun figuring out how stuff works!

Jeroen

[Nucliomaniac]

Originally Posted by D33-PAC

Can these be financed too like a regular car or is it all 100% cash down ? I find it difficult that any company in the world would want to dump 70 million in one go for one asset that serves so few. I mean that's just a huge number on any balance sheet unless we're talking about some goliath corporation.

Thanks for you input, please share your thoughts on the Dassault Falcon if possible too. I see that this is the most common aircraft used by the elite of this world. I noticed that anyone who's a someone in big business has one.

Numerous financing opportunities are available. Its a huge industry in the US, with many touts/agents etc, who will gladly fly down to India at the prospect of a sale. Incidentally, as wait times are longer, second hand jets can often be more expensive than brand new ones. Retail prices for Bombardier Global Express XRS was about $55 Million in 2009, and a second hand version (albeit new - 2-3 years) was available for $70 Million.

The Dassault Falcon is actually an awesome aircraft. The second choice to the Bombardier Global express, of many users.

The main pitch of Dassault, is the fact that the aircraft has 3 engines, and business owners can enjoy the peace of mind that comes with having an extra engine when flying over the Atlantic.

Nice, compact but wide-bodied, luxurious, and silent. A fantastic aircraft.

I for one, If I ever get the opportunity to buy one, may just buy something cheap such as the new Honda Jet. http://www.hondajet.com/

Many years ago, the Eclipse occupied the same space, of a cheap, but a reliable business jet. http://oneaviation.aero/

- Nucliomaniac

[Tuner]

This aircraft is most certainly not coming to India, unless a new buyer gets it here. The picture with the Indian reg was probably shot at Savannah/gulfstream completion center. The aircraft entered into service late September 2015 and is now sitting at a hangar in Charleston in the US with just ferry hours and is still on its US registration N615GD. It was commissioned by an Indian owner who has now decided to look for a buyer before bringing it to India. This aircraft is one of the finest examples of the G650 easily identified by its unique livery and has options worth nearly $4 million at current price.

[D33-PAC]

Originally Posted by Tuner

Attachment 1428115

It was commissioned by an Indian owner who has now decided to look for a buyer before bringing it to India. This aircraft is one of the finest examples of the G650 easily identified by its unique livery and has options worth nearly $4 million at current price.

Attachment 1428116

Could this be a case of scalping , like ticket scalping ?

ANyhow if you could PM the owner's name that'd be awesome. I am a very curious cat.