Gulfstream G600 review

Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
15,662
Location
Jupiter, Florida
I thought I'd post a few pics and talk about the all new Gulfstream G600, which is also confusingly known as a GVII (G7). It's a large cabin, fly-by-wire business jet, about the size of a G550, with a little bigger (fatter) fuselage, Pratt & Whitney 815 engines and loaded with a really nice mix of modern cockpit +cabin features along with the robust, capable Honeywell EFIS.

My first flight was on the "green" airplane, no interior. I simply rode along to make sure there were no glaring engine or air data problems prior to purchase. The second flight was the "cold soak" flight where we spend hours at altitude just to see what goes wrong. The third flight was the delivery flight.

The Pratt engines are interesting, they are a non geared medium bypass turbofan, the bypass ratio is 5.5-5.6, and for those who care, that's a lot of bypass for a high speed business jet easily capable of M0.925 cruise speeds. To get the performance necessary, Pratt uses 2 turbines to drive the core engine and a stunning 5 turbines to drive the non geared fan. As you might expect, takeoff and low altitude performance is stunning. Acceleration is even better than the mighty G550 as is initial climb. Quite simply, it's stupid-fast and you know it. Keep in mind, these are long range aircraft and can (if needed) carry fully half their weight in fuel.

And that's where the "engine tuning" issue comes in. For all it's power, the plane struggles at it's service ceiling, more so than Rolls Royce powered Gulfstream's. Rate of climb nearing FL510 was down into the nil range, and I'm not at all sure the Pratt engines are up for that task. We were shy on speed and climb rate, and AOA (nose up) was well into the yellow. You can see it in the pic from the tail camera. The engine was near no RPM/Temp limits and I'm fairly sure Pratt could "tweak" the software for better high altitude performance.

Down at more reasonable altitudes, this thing's a screamer. Climb speed is solidly M0.87, and man do you cover a lot of ground in climb. As an added bonus, air temp is warmer during climb, and therefore the indicated Mach number results in fantastic airspeed. This thing is faster over the ground during climb than nearly any normal jet aircraft is in cruise! Flat out amazing. Many pilots will note that a higher cruise mach number really does not significantly shorten a 2 hour trip. But they fail to calculate ground covered in a M0.87 climb and a M0.925 descent. FL to NJ this thing saves 20 minutes.

Life at 51,000 feet:
aDmAWD4.jpg


A good view of the cockpit:
TeQcOHi.jpg









And a cool view of the wing:

KyiU1W5.jpg


H7PSoBD.jpg


ogxK1D5.jpg


Gulfstream-G600-interior.JPG
 
Last edited:
What is the fuel consumption, in various terms, such as per hour at cruse, and FL to NJ?

What is the single engine performance like?
Fuel burn ranges from 1150 pounds per hour per engine to 1500, depending on altitude and speed.

The G600 has a 36 degree wing sweep (very swept back) and therefore is not designed to cruise at slower speeds. Low speed cruise is 0.85, normal cruise is 0.90 and high speed cruise is 0.925.

So, in normal cruise, FL450, the engines should be about 1300 pounds per hour, each, although I've not seen that particular combo yet. I saw 1450 at FL410 0.90 and 1100 at FL510 0.88. By way of comparison, an old Gulfstream GIII (low bypass engines) would burn 1150-1250 per hour at M0.82 FL450.

Single engine climb is about 2500 FPM.


You may notice in the cockpit pic, there is a phone in the middle of the pic. That's a pull out table, where the control yoke would normally be. It's a sidestick control aircraft.
 
Last edited:
So why is the G650 a G6 but this is a G7? Also assuming someone was comparing the two (I like to dream) what would be the better choice?
Gulfstream really confuses everyone with their "Cessna-esqe" numbering scheme. The upcoming G700 is also a G8, ugh.

The G650 (G6) came before the G600 (G7). The G650 is bigger, heavier, carries more fuel, just as fast, and has more range. It's also equally efficient. Really, the G650 is a higher end and more capable aircraft.

However, the G600 is "the right size", it is plenty big inside. It's under the magic 100,000 pound limit, which is a runway weight factor in many locations. It's also under the 100/95 foot wingspan limit at 95 feet. So it can go into airports like Aspen, that impose a 95 foot wingspan limit. Maybe even more importantly, the G600 can operate out of slightly shorter runways. (under 6000 feet at MGTOW) . In the end, I believe it's those airport "limits" that make the G600 just the right size.

G550 range is 6750NM
G600 range is 6600NM,
G650ER range is 7500NM.
 
That is amazing! At minimum weight and fuel, could that thing out climb a Lear 60?
A Lear 60 is a known great climb performer and can make it to over 40,000 feet in less than 19 minutes at max weight. But it does not carry much fuel it's a 2000+nm mile aircraft, vs a true 6600nm. I'll have to get a feel for the G600's 2000+ mile fuel load climb performance. The G600's 32,000 pounds of thrust and highly swept wing along with stupidly fast ground speeds during climb will result in a lot more ground covered during climb, that's for sure. And if light, the initial climb rate is impressive. I suspect climb rates are comparable.

But as I mentioned, the high altitude climb performance is lower than we expected. Even with both throttles all the way up, the engines are running in the high 80% RPM range at altitude. There is a lot more to be had if Pratt allowed it.
 
It's just the lens he used
While the phone does have a wide field of view, the image is not distorted or curved. So, that's not completely the case. The horizon does visibly curve down to each side. The easiest way to see it is to put your nose near the window to have a wide enough field of view. The phone simply does not need to look left and right to notice it, due to the wide field.

Same thing for the tail camera view. It shows the horizon as flat when lower.

Here is another pic. Different camera, same result. Had I though of it, I would have included a straight line, such as a piece of paper, to negate claims of any lens distortion.

You can see in the cockpit pic that the window lines and sun-shade are straight. The lower window ledge is a compound curve and that shows accurately too.

The fact is that at FL510, you are way the hell up there, and it's pretty evident to anyone willing to look.

sFBBtQW.jpg


8g7v7Ul.jpg
 
Last edited:
Very cool! I didn’t know Gulfstream went to sidesticks. Smart move with the range/endurance these have. It’s a big reason pilots prefer the A320 series massively over the 737.
 
Last edited:
Gulfstream always does such a supremely elegant wing. No canoes, no leading edge complication, fast .... Art.
 
who makes the displays, control system? Honeywell , Rockwell?....
 
Back
Top