Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace

Reorganization of aircraft aricles

Most of the Gulfstream aircraft articles are in great need of reorganization, and in most cases wikification. Even the article names are non-standard and haphazard, For the main 5 models:

• Grumman Gulfstream I - text primairly covers C-4 military versions; was not produced by GA
• Grumman Gulfstream II - brief coverage of C-11, no mention of who produced the model and when
• Gulfstream III - redirects to C-20 Gulfstream; covers military GIII and GIV variants only
• Gulfstream IV - redirects to Gulfstream G400/G450, coverage only after rebranding
• Gulfstream V - redirects to Gulfstream G500/G550, good coverage after rebranding; C-37 Gulfstream V article also exists (fair coverage); these two are probably the best articles in the bunch.

- BillCJ 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

With the (possible) exception of the Gulfstream I, I propose renaming the other artiles Gulfstream II through Gulfstream V, and include both civil and military articles in the coverage.

In addition, the rebranded articles could remain as they are, and foucus on development since rebranding, while the earlier articles would cover up to rebranding. The articles that are now rebranded have decent coverage, so I think there will be enough content from before to fill out the articles. If not, then the old brands (GIV, GV), can redirect t the new.

Any suggetsions? - BillCJ 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My recommendations:

• Grumman Gulfstream I - Expand
• Grumman Gulfstream II - Expand
• C-20 Gulfstream - move to Gulfstream III and expand in a fashion similar to what we did with North American Sabreliner
• Gulfstream G100/G150 - Expand
  • Merge in C-38 Courier
• Gulfstream G200 - Create and expand
• Gulfstream G300/G350 - Create and expand; though it may be that since the G300/G350 are based upon the G-IV, they could constitute one article
• Gulfstream G400/G450 - Expand
• C-37 Gulfstream V - Merge into Gulfstream G500/G550 and expand —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. Any recommendation on which names to give preference too? - BillCJ 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Machstream?

Didn't Gulfstream plan a supersonic bizjet? With Sukhoi, IIRC. Trekphiler (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As of right now Gulfstream is Supposible planing 2 new Bisness jets, I wide body G550 and a possibly a small supersonic one as well. This is all speculation at this time, as Gulfstream has not annouced officaly the introduction of either. Gulfstream is currently expanding it Savannah plant for the manufacturing of a new busness jet, and the parent company General Dynamics has stated to expect a big announcment at the end of the first quater of this year from Gulfstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavin 101 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Gulfstream is still in the process of R&D for a supersonic business jet, this information is proprietary and under patent.ACG Sept 16 2009 24:00 hrs

"Tarnish"

"the Gulfstream image was seriously tarnished in 2009 when automakers chose to use private jets to reach Washington DC for discussions about government loans - prompting a public relations response called "No Plane - No Gain" by the National Business Aviation Association.[2]" I think this is overstated. Is there any evidence that it tarnish Gulfstream in particular and furthermore that the supposed "tarnish" was anything more than a short term fad of criticising private business jets. The downturn in business was obviously affected by the general downturn in the economy. 82.46.49.45 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I never heard Gulfsteam mentioned during the press frenzy and if it was ever mentioned no common sense American would have related the CEO's of car companies to an aircraft. I'm deleting it because it's just slander, probably a joke from Airbus lads. Fadedroots (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed that addition to the article, and the note here. I concur with its removal. - BilCat (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No G700 article?

Hi,

I have been looking through Wikipedia's Gulfstream aircraft and have seen that there is no G700 page -- Where is it?! It's been showcased since October 2019!!!!!!!! --HK2267 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a link at the top of the current products list in this article, in the Template:Gulfstream aircraft navbox, on the G700 disambiguation page, and at Gulfstream G700, which all point to Gulfstream G650#G700, where the G700 is covered in detail. How did you miss all that? - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Gulfstream American

The article completely ignores their Gulfstream-American light aircraft division and light aircraft model history. Maybe insert a placeholder section for that topic. 73.35.181.254 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

World's First Trans-Atlantic Flight on 100% SAF

Gulfstream completed the world's first trans-Atlantic flight using 100% SAF on Nov. 19, 2023. The article is missing this information under 2020s. It is a milestone for Gulfstream and the business aviation industry.

Gulfstream Media (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gulfstream Media Can you supply a reliable citation to a news media source that does not come from your company, please, or that does not just parrot what your press release says?

I also need to advise you that corporate names are not permitted as Usernames because they suggests shared access by anyone from your department to that account. We run a one person-one account policy. For that reason, "George at GulfStream Media" would have been quite ok. You may find your account "soft-blocked" for that reason - but simply create a new account that confirms with THIS POLICY and continue to declare your conflict of interest there, too, please. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/28/transatlantic-flight-sustainable-jet-fuel-virgin-atlantic-saf I think this is a source for it (t · c) buidhe 21:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've updated my username. Here is another source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2023-11-20/gulfstream-completes-first-transatlantic-flight-100-saf AWashington at Gulfstream (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Small hands orange buffoon stirs bizjet

Article needs to be updated. MAGA is throwing a tantrum because Canada refuses to certify Gulfstream bizjets until they perform the full icing resistance test suite, instead of trying to fly through FAA exceptions. MAGA makes Twitter post saying he bans all Bombardier (Made in Canada) planes. ~2026-66789-0 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Community Involvement section

I have removed the "Community Involvement" section, for two reasons:

1. The section consists of two parts written by different authors. The first part is written like a press release, showing the reader a positive aspect of the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (its philanthropy). The second is written like a rebuttal, giving the reader context for the first part that paints Gulfstream in a more negative light (the fact that their seemingly large donation was only a very small portion of their gross income). Neither the "press release" nor the "rebuttal" have a place in a Wikipedia article (WP:Soapbox).
2. The author of the "press release," User:Lsilbermaster11, has only four contributions to their name, all of which occurred on 27 January 2019, and three of which were related to the addition of the "Community Involvement" section to this article. The author of the "rebuttal," User:Kennybennyrootertooter, has just one contribution, which was adding that rebuttal to this article. Who these users are and what their motivations are is unclear, but to me it does not seem like either user is here to build an encyclopaedia (WP:NOTHERE).

St4r1ight (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

My motivations are in good faith. Since you brought them up, and since I'm never one to leave a perfectly adequate soapbox unstood-on, I'll clarify them.

There is an ongoing political/cultural war for control of the information paradigm. Wikipedia's desire to remain agnostic to it is admirable, but agnosticism can't be naivete or you get played.

That section was very obviously either a rabid fan of a corporation or, unfalsifiably speaking, an agent of that corporation itself. They wanted to imply, in a laudatory way, that this company, which makes billions of dollars selling environment-destroying vehicles for the ultrarich, was some kind of prosocial force for donating a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point of their revenue.

Deletion of the entire section is, by far, the better option. If it stays, it needs context. Better that it goes entirely.

Cheers. Kennybennyrootertooter (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)