Talk:Bombardier Global Express/Archive 1

Archive 1

Specifications

I added a bunch of specs. I found them at the Bombardier web site. I tried to put as many useful figures from that site onto this page as i could.

However, a few of the "standard" specifications were not provided, so i calculated him. THese are the ones in question:

1. Rate of climb: 436m/min (1433 ft/min)
2. Wing loading: 468.4 kg/m² (95.9 lb/ft²)
3. Thrust/weight: 2.95 N/kg (0.301 lbf/lb)

For rate of climb, i used the bombardier figure of 43,000 ft in 30 mins, and just calculated per min.

For wing loading and thrust/weight, i used the maximum weight figure in the calcuation.

Additionally, the thrust/weight is often expressed (on other pages) as kg/N or lb/lbf, which is weight/thrust. I am not sure which way is correct.

If anyone can correct me on this, or have any suggestion, go for it.

-- Fudoreaper 01:35:42, 2005-08-16 (UTC) Typically the Global Express will yield a rate of climb bewteen 3,000 to 4,000 feet per minute through 18,000 feet provided air traffic does not restrict the climb. After that 1,500 to 2,500 feet per minute to the mid 30's and 800 to 1,000 feet above that. -- FlyMatt2Bermuda 17:54:00, 2007-06-13

--I have deleted the "rate of climb" section. Although the 1433 ft/min is an average, technically rate-of-climb figures are given using Vy (and Vyse for multi's) @ MTOW and ISA. That's just aviation jargon for maximum rate-of-climb after takeoff under standard conditions with full fuel while not loosing any airspeed (usually the airspeed is kept constant and the VS is recorded). If someone has the actual figure (I can't seem to find it on the internet) please don't hesitate to undo my deletion. Thanks.AmanUwellCant (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ALSO DeHavilland Canada does not build the rear fuselage and vertical tail. Mexico does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.24.1 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

--I noticed that there is an some improper text showing up in this section. It was added with this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombardier_Global_Express&action=historysubmit&diff=391504796&oldid=391416551

It results in the text "Template:Prose-section" showing up in the article. I couldn't find the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Global Express owner error

Greetings: I would like to alert you to an error on Global Express owners list. You have Oprah Winfrey listed as an owner. I checked the F.A.A. website a while back in the aircfaft registry section and according to their records. Miss Winfrey by way of Harpo Inc. owns a Gulfstream-4. Iv'e included the address to the page below. I would make the change myself but dont feel it is proper, and I would prefer not to as I am not that bold. I hope this helps.

Page address http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=540W

Go in Peace. Echo1084

The Harpo Inc registration lists two aircraft, one unamed. The other is a BD-700. (global Express)--74.104.48.172 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC) http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=54SL

Proposed page name change

Bombardier calls this range the "Bombardier Global Family" and not all the range have "Express" in their name. I therefore propose renaming this page to "Bombardier Global Family". Any objections? Piquante 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Owners list

There are several serious problems with the "notable owners list":

1. It's totally unsourced. How do we know these pople actually own the aircraft? They may lease, rent, be part of a fractional ownership plan, or have nothing to do with the type.
2. There is no source attesting to the notability of the aircraft's ownership by any of these people. This is an encyclopedia, not a celebrity watch site. In addition, WiIkipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists.
3. It is not the usual practice in WP:AIR ariticles to list individual owners, except in very notable cases. John Travolta's ownership of a 707 is a well-known, notable example, as this type of aircraft is not generally owned by individuals.
4. It is up to the contributor to both add sources and prove notability of additions. How long the items have been here is not to be factor.

While it might be reasonable to keep the list if it only failed to meet one criteria, that fact that it fails all of them is the reason I did not simply add approriate tags. You are welcome to discuss the general subject of such lists in aircraft articles at the WP:AIR project talk page, as I have brought it up there. - BillCJ 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur on every point. Heaven help us if anyone ever decides to try to do the same for the Cessna 172. When I saw this mentioned on the WP:AIR talk page, I initially thought it might be a good candidate for Airframes, but without registration/construction number details, it's not even good for that. --Rlandmann 03:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of those cases where listing the citations to the tail numbers/ownership records is probably overstepping the mark in terms of privacy—which I guess is the dilemma. Most of the planes are not actually owned directly by the individual, but by their publicity engine/venture capital and investments groups, which is in turn owned by the individual. I definitely agree about the volume of planes in the Cessna example; however for the GBLX there's eighty airframes—a number lower enough to "know where they all went"; they are not your everyday ubiquitous Gulfstream V.

All of the people listed are notable enough to have pre-existing wikipedia articles. One option is to add the information to those person's articles. Of the three options (delete, cite, fan out to existing articles and cite) the non-deletion options come down to the issue of whether to intentionally make stalking easier; something I guess contributors haven't been comfortable with so far. What's the thoughts on that particular issue alone? —Sladen 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the privacy/stalking issue need careful handling. But you said the info was already publically available my point on sourcing is simply to cite where it's already publically available. THat is what alot of sourcing on WIkipedia involoves anyway. Even in cases where something is very-well known publically, it is still useful to have a good source, because they usually contain info not recorded here, and hence are good for those seeking further info on a topic. At least that is the way I read, and it's one reason Wikipedia has internal links to other articles, besides the simple fact that it's possible.

However, that still leaves the issue of Notability: not of the owners themselves, but of the fact they own the aircraft. I agree it is different than listing Cessna owners by virtue of cost and numbers. However, the GBLX is designed for use by VIPs and businesses, so these ownerships/usages are not really unique, as, again, is Travolta's ownership of a 707. Now if a celebrity LIVED on their GBLX, or otherwise did something unique with it, like park it in the garage of their home, THAT type of thing might be worth mentioning. - BillCJ 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Questionable External Links

I think there's a problem with three of the external links.

The one to SmartCockpit is to a page where, if you click their links, you get a message stating "Smartcockpit.com has been requested by Bombardier Inc. to remove all the extracts of their Copyrighted Aircraft Operations Manuals Extracts from its servers. We apologize that we are not able to provide this material anymore." I don't think we want to be linking to a site with copyright issues - and if the material is no longer there, the link is pretty much useless now.

The two links to buying and chartering the aircraft are pretty much advertising.

(Disclaimer: I work for Bombardier, so will not edit the page.) MadScot (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I had already removed the two adverts before I saw your post, and I pulled the Manuals link afterwards. WP does not link to copyvios as policy, which is one reason most You-tube links are also pulled. Thanks for the heads-up on that on, as I had not checked it out as yet. Also thanks for voluntarily observing the COI guidelines, and being open about it. If you have any issues with this page, feel free to mention them here or on my talk page, and I'll do my best to address them, or find someone who can. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The range error!!!

According to range of Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft "Range: 6,325 nm (7,080 mi, 11,390 km)"

The Global Express can fly intercontinental ranges without refueling (e.g. New York–Tokyo) or between most two points in the world with only one stop.

I just checked the equator data: The Equator is about 40,075 kilometres (24,901 mi) long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator)

If you do a math, The Global Express can NOT fly intercontinental ranges without refueling or between most two points in the world with only one stop.kongshengxin (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

According to http://www.sinoprivateaviation.com/images/stories/pdf/global_express_xrs_factsheet.pdf the XRS has a range of 11390km, New York to Tokyo is about 10850km so wouldnt be a problem and that is from the US west coast. Not sure what the equator has to do with it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

By "equator", I think kongshengxin meant "around the world". But the longest travel is not this but going to the antipodal point. Note that only a geographic meridian would have to be travelled, 20,000km/10,800nmi by definition. The equator is a bit longer because the earth is bulged. So any plane with at least 10,000km/5,400nmi range can go anywhere in the world with one stop, unless you are unlucky enough to have the midway great circle without any stops, but it is unlikely as there is no purely oceanic great circle. This could define intercontinental as the farthest apart continents excluding islands: Australia is 5300 nmi apart from Europe at the closest, or 5000 nmi to South America if you consider Europe is just a part of Eurasia. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2018 (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/bombardier-global-6000-business-jet-canada/

  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 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dubious claim

The President of the Republic of the Philippines does not own a Bombardier Global Express. The link used as a source is a false news story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjelodc (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Typo?

(I can’t check as the citation has restricted access.) In the final para of the Global 5000 section, it says major inspections every 180 months. Is that right? 18 months? Boscaswell talk 00:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Registration is free, source states "Major inspection intervals have been stretched from 96 to 120 and 180 months". Bizjets have a very low utilization ("In February 2015, over 600 aircraft accumulated more than 1.5 million flight hours and 570,000 cycles" in 18 years since 1997, thus an approximate average of 106 cycles and 278 h per year, 2.6 h per cycle). Operating a global express is certainly costly, but $1M inspections every 18 months would be outrageous. Major inspections are the the D check, not line maintenance.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The clean-sheet design

"The clean-sheet design".

Can you please explain this phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:4900:FF65:8E5C:FE58 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clean_sheet--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)