Jump to content

Talk:Gulfstream G650/G700/G800

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Something is wrong with the speed figures

[edit]

The article mentions that the top speed of the G650 is Mach 0.925 (530 kn, 610 mph, 982 km/h). I don't know what the speed of the G650 actually is, but Mach 0.925 does NOT equal 610 mph or 982 km/h. Mach 0.925 equals 710 mph or 1130 km/h. That conversion is verifiable from any source including unit conversion websites, google's search bar, or any one's calculator.

The same wrong conversion is mentioned in the cruising speed and the rest.

Anybody has any research on this? 210.19.220.93 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GulfstreamAimsToSnagFastestCivilAirplaneFromCessna_202501-1.html

the above article seems to have the correct conversion and sticks with Mach 0.925, with the correct figure in mph being 704. Is this a reliable source or do we need something of a stronger reference? 210.19.220.93 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of sound varies based on the medium through which it is traveling as well as temperature. So depending on what altitude they were flying at and the conditions of the day both of those values could be right. In general the higher the altitude the slower the speed of sound is. 67.68.90.213 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same reaction, but some research shows that the figures are pretty close to accurate. According to three different tables I've found (http://www.engineersedge.com/physics/speed_of_sound_13241.htm, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/elevation-speed-sound-air-d_1534.html, http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm) (which, for all I know, may be derived from the same source) the accepted speed of sound at altitudes of about 30,000 up through the 650's ceiling is about 660 mph (295 m/s). (As noted above, the speed of sound depends not only on density, which varies with altitude, but also on temperature, but apparently there's a commonly accepted average temperature at high altitude.) That would yield the figures shown in the article, at least to within about one mile per hour. The source cited in the article lists only mach numbers, not the other figures, so I'm not sure whence they came, but they do appear to be correct. atakdoug (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better photo

[edit]

The infobox-photo that is currently in the article is backlit, low in quality and resolution and a part of the aircraft is cut off. Apart from that, it shows an unpainted and therefore unfinished aircraft.

I took two photos of the type at this year's Paris Air Show and wanted to replace the current one with one of them, but MilborneOne reverted, saying that they were "clearly not an improvement". Since those three photos seem to be the only photos of reasonable quality currently available on Commons (and even on flickr, this is the only one under a suitable license that I could find), I wondered if someone could suggest how to improve one of those photos to make it suitable for the infobox - or if someone has a better photo of the aircraft lying around.

  • Current infobox photo (90°)
    Current infobox photo (90°)
  • 2-shot-panorama, Paris Air Show (45°)
    2-shot-panorama, Paris Air Show (45°)

Thanks. --Julian H. (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original side view at least shows the full aircraft and undistorted. The Paris shots are not that good, the limitations of airshow ground displays, rather than your photographic talents. One just shows the nose and the other one is quite distorted and thus doesn't show the aircraft's arrangement clearly. It would be okay to add these further down in the article, especially since we are short of photos right now, but I think the "green" side view is the best one we have for the lead photo at present. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then let's wait for maybe a flying display somewhere or some other chance for a shot from a bigger distance. --Julian H. (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ideal, but in the meantime I think your photos are worth adding to the article, just further down, which I will do. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I just noticed that I messed up the aircraft identification, the front view isn't even a G650, I apologize. --Julian H. (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

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/gulfstream-g650/
    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 NotifyOnline 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

main picture change

[edit]
  • current : side view doesn't show well the wing
    current : side view doesn't show well the wing
  • proposed : frontside view better shows the wing
    proposed : frontside view better shows the wing

others : commons:Gulfstream_G650#Flying--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it could be better, perhaps File:EC-LIY (14704922413).jpg as another suggestion to show the engine/tail configuration. MilborneOne (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed with the proposed one the rear of the aircraft is a bit hidden, but then the cockpit is less visible ; there is a rear view later in #Design, in clean config. Perhaps this 4K-AI88 could be replaced by EC-LIY?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulfstream G650. 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:

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) 10:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gulfstream G650. 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:

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) 10:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

The recent move of this page is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Gulfstream_G650_moved_to_Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G700/G800 should be separated

[edit]

The G700 and G800 models are of a different type (GVIII) and should be moved to their own article. MB-one (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I think that there is a good case for splitting them, especially as operators and operational history expand over time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As far as I understand, the G700/G800 are minor variants (+2/4% MTOW, +0/10% length), having them both in the same page helps tracking the differences. If one day the G700/800 parts began to spiral out of control, it would be appropriate to split.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - The G700 and G800 are mostly reengined and improved versions of the G650/650ER. At this time, I don't feel there are enough changes to justify a sperate article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If the GV-SP and GV have their separate articles then there is no reason why the G700/G800 should't be separate from the G650. They don't even share the same type rating and the operators section of this article will become increasingly clutterred as the G700, and later G800, are introduced in larger numbers. IDKsmh (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800&oldid=1257915859"