• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
10:17PM EST


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesWorld’s Fastest Civil Aircraft Gulfstream G650 Reaches Mach 0.995

Back to Squawk list

World’s Fastest Civil Aircraft Gulfstream G650 Reaches Mach 0.995

Submitted
August 29, 2010 - Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. announced that its ultra-long-range, ultra-large-cabin Gulfstream G650 recently reached Mach 0.995 as part of its 1,800-hour flight-test program. Accomplishment establishes G650 as world’s fastest civil aircraft. (www.avstop.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


riddfly
riddfly 0
Way to go!
johnmaclaren
John MacLaren 0
I wouldn't say the fastest. The Falcons & Citation X are capable of supersonic speeds without any problems. As a matter of fact (long ago & far far away), salespeople used to demo the Falcon 50 that way. They would go out over the water, pull the mach warning CB, put it in a dive so you could see shock wave.
clarkewil
Will Clarke 0
Mach 0.995 in an 18 degree dive. Why is this impressive?
andywakem
andy wakem 0
This is NOT impressive. I want to see straight and level speeds at Mach .995....Not in a dive.
kevinbest
Kevin Best 0
Its nice that Falcons are "capable" of supersonic speeds. Thats why we run them over in Gulfstreams all the time. Why would you demo an airplane to someone and show them something the airplane is not allowed to do?? In my previous demo days that would have not been tolerated. BTW the G5 did M 1.07 in flight testing back in 1995, with the same guy flying the 650 now. It was local supersonic airflow but good enough for me.
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Wow.. Marketing ploy. Buy our $65M airplane. It can go .995 in a dive. Kinda like a C750 that can't legally go supersonic. Good for them.
airclaxon1
Paul Claxon 0
Let's be real, just reading in Flying Mag about the Citation X with a limit speed of Mach .92 and
that's level flight. To get those speeds they have to fly at lower altitudes and burn a lot more fuel. Hope you have 22M. LOL
upchucked
Fantastic! Great!! WOW!!! I'll take two, please. Do you take Mastercard?
DTIN
DTIN 0
did it have tailwinds
Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 0
Only 0.995? Citation X reached Mach 1.18 during the same dive testing, costs half as much too. I know which I'd buy...
vincentvan
vincentvan 0
Just some food for thought, as opposed to uninformed ranting :). Link to a dicussion on the G650 vs. CitationX and which is the "fastest" business jet.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/264864/
billbfs
Bill Belk 0
Just ask a WII fighter pilot why he was happy, and still alive after a dive to mach 1. Something to do with the elevator locking up.
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
The issue here is not that they purposely expanded the speed envelope and applied an artificial frequency to the skin to produce resonance (what most engineers call flutter resonance). This is part of standard flight testing and is required by the Federal Aviation Regulations for certification of the aircraft. What gripes me is the way that Gulfstream constructed the press release. For those of you who think the "article" linked above was written by AvStop.com, just have a look here: http://www.gulfstream.com/news/releases/2010/gulfstream-g650-reaches-mach-0.995.htm

This was a Gulfstream press release. They wrote it up in a way that makes it sound at first glance like the plane is capable of doing Mach .995 on a regular every day basis. Then to say, "Accomplishment establishes G650 as world’s fastest civil aircraft.", is almost fraudulent in nature and misleading to potential customers. The aircraft, like the Citation X at Mach .92, will rarely if ever fly at that speed.

That is why I said this is a marketing ploy. You advertise something the aircraft did but will probably never do in regular service. Sure makes it sound like a great aircraft to me.
STEELJAW
STEELJAW 0
What's all the jabberjaw about Mach speed? No one is going to buy this plane just because it can barely break Mach speed in a test flight. Hey, you remember the episode at the end of the movie TOP GUN when Tom Cruise(Maverick)said he was going supersonic (Mach speed) to engage an enemy plane 100-150miles away. Ladies and Gentlemen, in the real word, he would have been out of gas when he made it to the fight. Surely no one is this gullible with the price of fuel as high as it is.
jfife
Jeff Fife 0
Obviously some log more keyboard time than C750 time as I regularly fly them at speeds above M.90 at altitudes above FL390. I suppose those would be "lower attitudes" to an SR71 pilot, but not most of us. Does MS Flight simulator have an SR71 module??
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Jeff,

Where did this inference come from about a computer game? Leads me to believe you own a copy yourself as you got pretty specific with the title. ;) All jabs set aside, I'm sure as you said you operate a X above FL390 above M0.90 all day long. But what are your true airspeeds as you continue to climb, and once above 400 or 430 can you sustain those speeds? Not being rated in the X I'll be the first to admit I don't know a whole lot about the craft, but I can say this, if you're doing M0.90+, you're burning a ton of gas, as will the G650 trying to reach the elusive M0.995
kevinbest
Kevin Best 0
All these "experts". If you guys would read or do any research you might find some real answers. The G550 (which I fly now) will go for 11 hours at .85M. We don't even think about slowing it down for anything less than that. The G650 will go 5000 NM at .90M, 7000 NM at .85M. Show me any bizjet or any other plane that can do that! And do it with 44,000 lbs of gas....
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
So what can it do at Mach .995?? I believe you have missed the point of some of the remarks.
gkey
GARY KEY 0
Did the Paint stay ON
vincentvan
vincentvan 0
The whole point to all of this "hype" is what will it's MO speed be. The CitationX has an MO of .920. Grumman predicts the G650 will have an MO (maximum cruise speed) of .925. It isn't about what it accomplished in the testing. It is about what biz jet has the highest MO speed... Thanks to those above who actually fly and can contribute to this..
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Allow me to put some numbers out here since we all seem to be mis-informed, or un-informed.

I will use the U.S. Standard Atmosphere of 1976 for my calculations.

Kevin, as you stated the G550 will fly 11 hours at M0.85
At 41,000 feet this equates to a true airspeed of 487 knots. With zero wind this is 5,357 nautical miles of travel. For the sake of comparison with the G650, allow me to reduce the distance traveled to 5,000 nautical miles by subtracting 357. Traveling at 487 knots per hour this equates to 44 minutes of flying time. Thus, 11 hours minus 44 minutes equals 10 hours and 16 minutes to fly 5,000 nautical miles in a G550. Does that sound about right to you and is that comparable to what you experience in the aircraft?

Now let us compare to the G650, which as you said will fly 5000 miles at M0.90
Using the same cruise altitude of 41,000 (I am sure the G650 will be able to climb higher initially but TAS differences above 41,000 are negigible), Mach 0.90 will produce a true airspeed of 516 knots. Again with zero wind this is 516 knots over the ground. Compared to the G550 this is a difference of 29 knots. Now let us calcuate the time it took for the G650 to fly that 5,000 nautical miles. 5,000 NMs divided by 516 knots equals 9 hours and 42 minutes.

So, compared to the G550, the G650 will arrive at a destination 5,000 NMs away approximately 29 minutes ahead of the G550.
The question is raised however of what did that 29 minutes cost in fuel?

Well, this is simple to calculate in percentage if you take into account that the G650 should be capable of flying 7000 nautical miles at Mach 0.85. That's 2,000 extra miles (or 40% more range) just by slowing down 29 knots (TAS). So if this 5-6% increase in speed equates to a 29% reduction of it's best range it is quite obvious to even the casual observer that this increase in speed is gonna burn a ton of gas. Unfortunately I do not have real world average fuel burns for either aircraft, although I have heard that the G550 burns roughly 3000 Lbs per hour, while the G650 should have a considerably lower fuel burn.

My point with all this is that while the aircraft may be capable of cruising at those speeds it comes at a significant cost. I feel that this latest press release by Gulfstream, while neat, is not impressive when put in context of real world flying. So the aircraft has a dive speed of Mach .995 So what? Can it do that in level cruise? Can it go 7,000 miles or even 4,000 miles at that speed? When we're talking about only 30 minutes shaved off a 5,000 mile trip but a substantial increase in cost , it just is not impressive.

How about Gulfstream tout what the aircraft is capable of doing in the world of realistic expectations and with today's economy (and walets) in mind.

Don't get me wrong, I think the G650 will prove to be yet another "way cool" airplane from Gulfstream, and I'd love nothing more than to get the chance to fly one, I just don't agree with the way Gulfstream is marketing the thing with press releases such as the one above. But then again I'm not a multi-billion a year company or a billionaire!

Blue skies everyone!
billbfs
Bill Belk 0
Flutter Equation of Motion (for the more advanced student)
If modes of structural vibration are used in a dynamic analysis, the below equation can be used to determine a model’s flutter characteristics. This equation is the result of assuming simple harmonic motion {}{}tiheutuω=)( and placing this into the corresponding second order ordinary differential equations that describe the linear dynamic behavior of a structure that is subjected to forces and moments due to fluid flow. Figure 10 shows a flow diagram with the operations to solve the below equation. {}02422=⎥⎦⎤⎢⎣⎡⎟⎠⎞⎜⎝⎛−+⎟⎠⎞⎜⎝⎛−+hRhhhhIhhhhhhuQVKpkcVQBpMρρ
Mhh – modal mass matrix
Bhh – modal damping matrix
Khh – modal stiffness matrix
QIhh – generalized aerodynamic damping matrix
QRhh – generalized aerodynamic stiffness matrix
ρ – air density
c – mean aerodynamic chord length
V – airspeed
k = ωc/2V – reduced frequency
ω−circular frequency
p- iω − (i=1−)
uh – modal displacements
SamIIs
Sam Wynn III 0
You can't go brakin no mach with a Falcon 50. The wings would fly off and hit the sun. someone needs to push in your B.S. circuit braker.
SamIIs
Sam Wynn III 0
You can't go brakin no mach with a Falcon 50. The wings would fly off and hit the sun. someone needs to push in your B.S. circuit braker.
SamIIs
Sam Wynn III 0
You can't go brakin no mach with a Falcon 50. The wings would fly off and hit the sun. someone needs to push in your B.S. circuit braker.
jfife
Jeff Fife 0
I was correcting a gross mis-statement. I believe it was said:

"The aircraft, like the Citation X at Mach .92, will rarely if ever fly at that speed."

and:

"That is why I said this is a marketing ploy. You advertise something the aircraft did but will probably never do in regular service. Sure makes it sound like a great aircraft to me."

The X does it all day, everyday and I'm betting the G650 will as well. Gulfstream doesn't have a reputation of making hollow promises.

At what altitude, depends on Gross weight and ISA deviations as with any jet, but we routinely take off at or near gross weight, ISA+10 and climb straight to FL410 to bring the fuel flow down to a very reasonable 2200-2600 lbs/hr. We still get M.88+. Burn a little fuel off and we are right back to .90+. On some X's you may have to pull the power back as you burn fuel. If you are willing to give up a little speed to top a line of thunderstorms, the X flies very well high into the High 40's.

When we do decide to slow down to save fuel, we only pull back to M.86, which is still running over everyone except the Gulfstreams and the military. Oh, and we also have to slow down for turbulence. Back to M.90.

So, I stand by my original statements. I suppose I get a little annoyed when guys post mis-information as fact.

As for MS Flight Simulator, I'm sure it's a great game and lots of fun, but I do not own a copy only because I see all the sim time I care to see in the course of a year.

But, it's all good. Nothing personal. Bottom line is, we all love to fly or we wouldn't be wasting our time posting on aviation websites!!
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Jeff,

I am more than happy to be corrected by someone who flies the real bird. Believe me I do not take any of this personal, after all it is just the internet ;) At least now I have a bit better of an understanding of what the aircraft is capable of doing. Beats my 30 minute MTOW climb to 35 or 36 and sit there at M.70 for the next hour :D

This week however it's big prop time in the 350. What joy! hahaha. Actually a really great airplane that one is.

Anyhow, just wanted to say that yes I did fire off somewhat prematurely with the M.92 statement, I think I was trying to get across the M1+ dive they did during cert. flying. Whether or not the G650 will be able to cruise at .995, well we'll see! I believe though that most are going to keep it reasonable at M.9 or less to save fuel.

Lastly however I agree with your final remark. I too enjoy the banter. I find the conversations, discussions and debates to be quite engaging. Although many of these (including mine) are infused with opinion and passion I have to say you hit the nail right on the head; We all love to fly, or love aviation in general and thus see absolutely no problem with posting on these sites.

Now, where'd my joystick go? I have a flight sim mission to complete. ;) :D hehehe

Blue skies!
jfife
Jeff Fife 0
Agreed on all points watchdog.
Funny thing is, I will admit that when the X came out, I thought the same thing. Especially given the fact that Cessna was building it. Who would have thought it possible that the same folks that brought us the slowtation
could ever produce a M.92 airplane.
It's been a fun discussion.
I suppose this is the new millineum version of hangar talk.
So Fly Safe, and always have fun! It would be a pleasure to bump into any of you on the road someday!
gftt
gftt 0
Mach .95, .92, you guys are breaking my heart.....
I'm pedaling pretty hard to get my PA32R to fly it's advertised 172kts.
jfife
Jeff Fife 0
For more speed, just add money!
clarencebev
Is there any fuel left after five minutes of supersonic flight?
captmaxx
I think all are missing the point. on the 650 there is a new control called the Greeble Venter which controls the oscillating overthrusters to generate increased boost pressure to the vibro fan blades which in turn creates more lbs per microns of thrust thus propelling the plane faster. however, in using the Greeble Venter you have to turn off the Modulating windscreen wiper motors as they work on the same grizmodic frequencies, simple once you know what to do.
gftt
gftt 0
Maybe I need to get me some of them grizmodic freaky things
for my PA-32R, then I wouldn't have to pedal so hard......
vincentvan
vincentvan 0
Maxx...

You've cleared it all up, for me at least!
captmaxx
Glad I could be of assistance, fly safe