Talk:Gulfstream V/Archive 1

Archive 1

Confusion over Gulfstream V SP and G550

The Gulfstream G550 is the production name for the Gulfstream V SP. The GV SP name was used during flight test but marketed as the G550. The G500 is a variant of the G550 model. There are significant differences in Max Ramp and TO weights of the G500 and the G550. If your goal is to keep the GV and G550 separate, you should eliminate reference to the GV SP on the GV page. Specialmissions (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The G-V and G-V SP are are covered by this article. The G500 and G550 are the current production versions and are covered in G500/G550. The variants in these groupings are similar enough. The weights only differ by less that 10%. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• May have missed the point. There is NO G-V SP it is the G550 as in production.Specialmissions (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yea, I guess the G-V SP got renamed. I can't find any mention of that name on the Gulfstream page. There's no content on the G-V SP in this article anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• from the Gulfstream web page under history...

In October 2000, Gulfstream announced the next-generation Gulfstream, the GV-SP, ... the GV-SP prototype made its first flight on August 31, 2001, four weeks ahead of schedule. In September 2002, Gulfstream introduced its new product line and the designation for this aircraft became the Gulfstream G550. ...

TSpecialmissions (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Great, I was looking under the G550 section. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Operational History

Is this relevant? Quote: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s ownership of a G-V seems to be authenticated by recent budget requests.[7] Its use has drawn controversy where FBI director Robert Mueller is said to be using the jet 25% of the time, when the jet was originally requisitioned for use for transporting those suspected of terrorism.[8][9]"

Seems to be a bit of political trivia for this article, not "operational history." Furthermore, "seems to be authenticated by recent budget requests" suggests original research, likely done by someone with an agenda.

I just noticed this when looking up the G5 because of the news of Speaker Pelosi's aide ranting about one not being available for her use. Not that I think that is relevant information in this article either! Of course, if people want to make this informational article have a political slant to it, I'll be happy to add the Pelosi bit...just sayin'... --68.209.191.158 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could have been reworded better with another source, but it does not matter much. The section is supposed to be about operational use, not possibilities and stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A318 [Elite] is a "similar aircraft"? Are you kidding me?

I believe that a ~100 seat airplain (the A318) is NOT similar to a ~12 seat airplane. Does anyone see a reason to have the A318 removed from the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.10.193.24 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The A318 Elite is a business jet configuration and seats up to 18. Seems close enough here.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The business jets are normally grouped by range (ultra-long, long, medium, short), cabin size (bizliners, large, super-mid-size etc.), MTOM (max take-off mass). The GV is an ultra-long range (6,500 nm), large cabin (1,669 cub. ft cabin), heavy (MTOM 90,500 lb) business jet. The A318 Elite is a long-range (3,800 nm range) bizliner (5,300 cub. ft cabin and a MTOM of 149,913 lb). Forget about pax capacity. It is irrelevant when talking about business jets. The GV (and obviously G550, G500) is comparable and competes with Bombardier Global Express (and Global Express XRS) and Dassault Falcon 7X. That's all. A318 Elite is comparable to... nothing, as it has the shortest range and cabin of known classic "bizliners" (BBJ, BBJ2, BBJ3, ACJ, A320 Prestige, Lineage 1000). Closest comparable a/c is probably Lineage 1000. The.rud (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Gulfstream V NASA.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gulfstream V NASA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gulfstream V NASA.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Unique wing design?

An image caption says, A Gulfstream V landing at Melbourne Airport, showing the unique wing design. We should explain what's so unique about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

main image change

• 
  current, busy background, doesn't show well the wing
• 
  proposed: clean background, better illustrates general configuration
• 
  subsidiary, inflight, nice light, but pointing right

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

GV/GV-SP merge

The GV-SP (G550) is a tiny difference variant : updated flightdeck and engine, few aero tweaks, 1 more window pair. Airframe, mtow, performance are nearly the same. They should be merged for clarity : too much information is duplicated between both, they have a common history, it should be easier to distinguish between both variants in the same article (and limit errors). --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having the later G550 variants separate from the earlier G-Vs is a good dividing line. Too many variants in one article can be confusing. WP is not paper, so we aren't limited in how many variant articles we can have. Quite frankly, I'd like to see more of the Gulfstream aircraft articles broken up, so what we have now is probably a good compromise between the two extremes. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course WP isn't paper, but there is very small differences between both (6500 vs 6750nm range due to tweaks, same airframe, same engines). Themselves haven't real variants, as the 4 G500 are a reduced mtow paper variant, and the other are military designation of the same AC. There are less differences between those than between a 1995 PC-12 and a 2015 one. Right now the G550 article is poor, perhaps it could be re-split if its paragraphs became large? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree - While the GV aircraft has undergone many revisions and serves as the base airframe for several military platforms, this is not unique. Both the 737 and 777 serve to show how a single article page can be written to describe an aircraft with long history and multiple variants. Furthermore, I believe the Bombardier Global "platform" is treated with a single page. As the Global XRS/5000/6000 platform is arguably the closest competitor to the GV platform, it seems appropriate to combine the GV pages. 134.216.26.217 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Also note the GIV/G450 is a combined page. This certainly suggests that the split format for the G550 is somewhat odd. 134.216.26.219 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Done --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

What are you doing? You do not have a consensus here to merge [yet]. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1 month of open discussion without movement since 3 weeks, 2 for, 1 against : it wasn't going further.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• There are only 2 votes above now; you should add a "as nominated" vote for yourself to be clear. Consensus is supposed to be determined by the weight of the arguments, not simply by vote count (general statement). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)