Talk:Gulfstream G200

Requested merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as "No contest". - BillCJ (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Gulfstream G250 → Gulfstream G200

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

Rationale - Company PR claims to the contrary, the G250 does not appear to be strictly an "all-new" design. While it does appear to be more than a simple stretch or update, Flight International refers to it as an evolution of the G200.[1] Given the the G200page is little more than a stub itself, I think both designs would be better off on the same page. - BillCJ (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support - Per my nom. - BillCJ (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Close enough to group in one article. This should help improve the G200 part also. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -

Discussion

No opposition so far. Maybe give it another 2-3 weeks and then go ahead with it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What about merging the other way (G200 -> G250)? The G500 is covered in the G550 article, although I don't believe there was a merge involved. Does not matter much. The other one will redirect to the right place. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No replies. Eventually no one gives a rat's <whatever>. I'm leaning to merge this to the G250 article.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's well passed time we closed this as "no contest". Since the G250 is not in production as yet, I'd go with G200 for now, and move the page to G250 once production of the G200 has ceased, and the G250 is in full production. - BillCJ (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. G250 content has been copied here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

G200/G250 differences

Many of the specs are the same for the G200 and G250 now. The G250 is longer and has wider wingspan and higher cruise speeds. With the new engine, I expect the G250 range will improve after flight testing. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

G200 design and Yakovlev involvement (?)

Yakovlev was supposed to design the GS200 (then Astra) fuselage in 1995, but then the contract was cancelled. Fnlayson, Can you provide detailed reliable online source that support actuall involvment of Yakovlev in the design of GS200? Regards--Gilisa (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Online sources are not required. The book references are reliable sources. However, here are a couple articles from Flightglobal.com (Flight International): [2] [3]. I'm sure more can be found if you do some google searches on "IAI Galaxy" and Yakovlev. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said a book is not a reliable source, but at the moment I don't have it at arm's length and I just wanted to see it myself. Hopfuly, I will provide soon evidence that infact Yakovlev wasn't involved in the design, even it was supposed to.--Gilisa (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fnlayson both sources you provided can't support Yakovlev actuall involvment in the design. First, both are refering to the manufacturing of the fuselage by it-which eventually didn't happen to be. Second, one of your sources specifically tells that the cooperation was called off. Third, one of the sources is from 1995, when the GS200 was still on paper sketches. So, at the least, even if the book state otherwise, Yakovlev involvment is doubted.--Gilisa (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• You should read closer then. The second link states: "Keret says. Yakovlev has completed all drawings for the fuselage and "...provided us with an excellent design that met all our targets", he says.". In other words Yakovlev did fuselage design work before leaving the program. The wording in the article concerns designing Galaxy, which is done before manufacturing. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• No need for closer inspection, none of the sources you probided states that IAI actually used Yakovlev fuselage design after they broke up. Infact, this source [4] specifically detail that a French company manufactured both fuselage and tail section for the IAI GS200. So, all claims for involvment of Yakovlev both in the dsign and manufacturing are original research and will be removed from the article.--Gilisa (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't original research, as it is based on a reliable print source. You are welcome to challenge the source with a {{verify source}} tag, but you can't unilaterally dismiss a source simply because you believe it is wrong. - BilCat (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Challenging the source wouldn't be enough as even if the specific source argue for Yakovlev involvment in the design there are plenty of reliable sources on the web that state otherwise. So, in this case, even if the citation from the source is correct, we have other sources that claim otherwise and they are at immediate availability for all of us. So I think that for now we better avoid controversial or even falsified statments like that Yakovelev designed the GS200 and the IAI only decorated its windows. --Gilisa (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not the way competing claims from reliable sources are handled on WP. If reliable sources disagree, then both claims are to be presented. Second, what is the GS200? This page is about the G200. I've seen no reliable sources that call the aircraft the GS200, there many hits come up on Google for scanners, camcorders, etc. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another company actually manufacturing the hardware does not mean Yakovlev's design work was thrown away. That's just speculation to make such a claim. Again Yakovlev ["...provided us with an excellent design that met all our targets" is pretty clear. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is all the links above indicate the Yak designed the fuselage and tail but then couldnt for some reason manufacturer it. An aticle in Flight [5] for 1996 says Yakolev were a risk sharing partner to design and manufacture the forward fuselage and empennage at Saratov in Russia with final assembly being in Israel. In 1995 IAI said it would relieve Yakolev of its production responsibility for the Galaxy fuselage to quote was falling behind the original schedule. IAI has produced the early fuselages in Israel. IAI is considering possible location for fuselage production. And later in [6] it states that Sogerma is to build IAI Galaxy fuselages. It appears that Yak had the IPR for the design as it was to be also built with russian engines and avionics and sold by Yak as the Yak-48 MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but from here to the statment that the GS 200 is a version of the Yak-48 there is a long way. Moreover, I doubt that Sogerma have used the fuselage design of Yakovlev.--Gilisa (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what a GS200 is but the references certainly indicate the Galaxy and Yak-48 are related. Although it indicates that the Yak-48 would have been a russian-engined version of the Galaxy and not the other way around. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no indication in the sources that Sogerma designed the fuselage itself. As to the Galaxy/G200 being basically a Yak-48, we've found nothing in the sources that backs this up. It was added to the Yak-58 articel by Ken Keisel, as user who also added dubious info to the eF-35 page that claimed it was based on/designed by Yakovlev. This was a long drawn out controversy. This is why I have wanted the actual text in the Gunston book verified, as the editor has gotten things wrong before, especially in asserting Yak's role in projects. Again, the fuselage design is born out by the other sources, so that has been verified. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MilborneOne, there is no source that you can count on which state that Sogerma actually used the fuselage design of Yakovlev or under what terms the IAI and Yalovlev cancelled their collaboration. By no doubt, the fuselage and the tail are not lightweighted in the design of a commercial airplane, but there are still many other important components and based on the fuselage only you can't say that the GS200 is Yak 48.--Gilisa (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

BilCat, I do thing that verification is needed but also that you lean on it too heavily. As I wrote, even if the source is correctly used there is yet a handful of reliable sources that do no support such overblown statment. I don't think that we have to wait too much for verification as it leave the article on Yak 48 with falsehoods and editor's POV. --Gilisa (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Bill Gunston is a reputable British aviation writer with years of experience. You can't just though his book out as unreliable without ever having read the relevant material in the first place! Let's see what it actually does say before throwing it out. Up to this point, the other sources we have found do back up the claim that the fuselage was designed, at least initially, by Yakovlev. Yet you don't even want to accept that. It is not unreasonable that IAI and Yakovlev split the design and production responsibilities, and that after the agreem ant was cancelled, IAI brought in Sogerma to produce the Yakovlev-designed fuselage. Again, you have no basis for throwing out a source you have not read simply because you disagree with its assertions. - BilCat (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

BilCat, Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to accept it if it's what he says and it's back uped by other sources as well. For instance, if I found a pubilication of IAI itself, with which Gunston is in contradiction, than I will argue that the manufacturer should be considerd as the more reliable one. Of course, this is all hypothetical. More, it's not only about the fuselage, in the article of Yak 48 (maybe we should discuss it on its talk page) one editor stated that GS200 is entierly Yak 48, maybe with different engines, but that's all. You don't have to get so furious about me, I just didn't know who Gunston is (but he still could be wrong) and after you wrote on the suggested F-35 issue with Yakovlev I thought that the same source was used there as well. Regards --Gilisa (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• A little frustrated perhaps, but not furious. To be clear, Gunston is a reliable source, but User: Ken Keisel is not always a reliable editor! That's why I want to confirm what the book actually says. I do agree that direct company info will usually trump other sources, but even then, on WP, third party sources carry more weight that company sources in most situations. I've found the book on Amazon,a nd I'll try to get it in the next few weeks. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you are putting a lot of effort on it..Maybe I'll try to get it from the Technion Aerospace engineering department librery (its website say it's there). I'm not a student there but maybe they will let me to copy the relevant pages.--Gilisa (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, and as I'm not getting answers on user talkpages, just wanted to notice you that there is co author to "Yakovlev since 1924", his name is Yefim Gordon (he co authored another book on MiG company with Gunston) but user Ken Keisel didn't add his name to the reference, raising my suspicion that he didn't even have the book. So, please check this issue a.s.a.p, I feel that both this article and the Yak 48 one are littered with incorrect data.--Gilisa (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{Unindent) I've had no luck procuring a copy of the book in question, and it looks like I'm not going to be able to at all. As to Yefim Gordon, Ken has mentioned him as co-author of the book on some of the other talk pages where this came up. Have you been able to find the book in the library you mentioned? - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I couldn't. Anyway, whether he mentioned him or not -he didn't refernce it corrcetly and most probably didn't cite him correctly as no available source contain such asseverations, and certainly not that decisively. For now I will wait for verfication.--Gilisa (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is question does not cover anything in this article not supported by another reference currently. I fixed the co-author in the cite. The issue with Yakovlev Yak-48 is still there though. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no discussion on Yak 48 talk page, even I tried to engae to one, so instead I'm posting my reservations here. As I wrote, I'll wait for verification, but my patience becoming short for a good reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I was trying to summarize the current status and mention the Yak link there. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

G200 production

Does anyone know if production of the G200 has ceased yet, or at least when that is planned? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tail

Please see the G250 home page photo. I think that is called a T-tail, even when a tiny portion of the vertical stabilizer sticks up above the horizontal tail, as with the F-101 and F-104. Also, given the changed appearence caused by the new tail and engines, it might be time to split the G250 info back to Gulfstream G250. - BilCat (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I'd rather just rename this article to "Gulfstream G250". -fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Gulfstream G200 → Gulfstream G280 – The FAA and Israel have certified the G280. This will now be the aircraft in production. Comments on moving the article? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source for the certification. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This article already covers the G280. It does not matter much to me. But I think you need to provide more reasons for renaming/moving this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the G200 exists, why rename the article? Further, you can construe the "G200" pagename to mean the G200-family. While G280 would seem to exclude the original G200, which is covered by this article and not excluded. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is an article about the G200 of which 250 have been built. If the G250/G280 variant is different enough then it can split into a seperate article in the future. But at this time it is still just a G200 variant. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Info Thank you for catching my mistake. It would seem I used an unreliable source (not the one I posted, a different one) to base my decision to suggest the move. Definitely glad I requested the move and didn't just do it. Yikes! My apologies for the mistake. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

For the admins or third party who wants to close this discussion, I hereby withdraw my request for move. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

G280 not belong in this article

While it falls in the same category as the G200 (super midsize) it include so many changes and additions and have very different performances that it's entirely different model. Attached English-language links[7][8][9]. Not included yet is Hebrew link of interview with the engineers and test pilots of the IAI who tell about the many new systems, fuselage and the entirely new cockpit of the G280.--Gilisa (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The G280 has a different type certificate and is now at Gulfstream G280. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I will try to find free photo for this article then.--Gilisa (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/galaxy/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulfstream G200. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141127092224/http://www.gulfstream.com/downloads/_downloads/product_spec_sheets/G200%20Specifications.pdf to http://www.gulfstream.com/downloads/_downloads/product_spec_sheets/G200%20Specifications.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)