Global 8000 vs Gulfstream 800 v Gulfstream 700 vs Dassault Falcon 10X – aircraft comparison


EBACE 2022: Bombardier has announced the Global 8000, but how does it compare with its main competitors for price, range, speed and cabin size.

Comparing aircraft before they are delivered to customers is always a risk. In the past manufacturers sometimes failed to live up to promises. Now, except for first deliveries which can get delayed, aircraft often perform better than predicted at launch.

For existing customers, brand loyalty is likely to be the biggest decider between them. Few happy Gulfstream customers will choose a Global 8000 over a G700 or G800 for the sake of 500nm which they will probably never use. Existing Dassault customers will no doubt choose the Falcon 10X and love the cabin.

New customers can just enjoy choosing between what looks set to be four fantastic aircraft.

First delivery
Bombardier Global 8000: 2025
Gulfstream G800: End 2023
Gulfstream G700: Q4 2022-Q2 2023
Falcon 10X: 2025

Gulfstream wins this. It has warned that FAA approval may push back the first delivery from the end of this year to mid-2023. With the G800 set to be certificated six months later. But, if you have not ordered yet you could be looking at a late 2024/early 2025 slot.

Bombardier has already started testing the Global 8000 – although, until now, the test aircraft did have G7500 written on it. On May 18th, 2022, its flight test vehicle number five flew and broke the speed of sound.

Dassault Aviation’s has started building parts for its Falcon 10X. It plans to start assembling the first aircraft in 2023. The company has built a brand new smart factory in Seclin in northern France and a new production hall in Biarritz where the all-composite wing will be made.

All three manufacturers have strong backlogs on their existing aircraft so there could be the opportunity to get an early slot with the just launched Global 8000.

List price
Bombardier Global 8000: $78m
Gulfstream G800: $72.5m
Gulfstream G700: $78m
Falcon 10X: $75m (at launch)

Gulfstream’s G800 wins here, but you are not getting as much cabin. This could be important on longer flights when you are in the aircraft for more than 12 hours.

Falcon 10X

Maximum Range (nautical miles)
Bombardier Global 8000: 8000
Gulfstream G800: 8000
Gulfstream G700: 7500
Falcon 10X: 7500
All for eight passengers and four crew.

Buyers always look a maximum range even if they rarely fly anything close to it, so this is an important category. The Global 8000 draws this prize with the smaller G800 for now.

But Gulfstream likes increasing ranges after delivery. When Gulfstream launched the G500 in 2014, it said that the aircraft would fly 5,000 nautical miles/9,260 km at Mach 0.85. Now the G500 can go 5,300 nautical miles at this speed. The G600 also 400nm further than when launched (it has raised the maximum range three times). With the G650, it originally announced 5,000 nm of range at Mach 0.90 and delivered 6,000 nm. The G280 flies 200nm further than first promised.

These are theoretical ranges for eight passengers and four crew – with fuel reserves. Actual flights will, of course, be affected by air traffic control delays, the speed the aircraft flies at, weather (especially head winds) and other issues. In real life most missions will also be significantly shorter.

Maximum Speed – Maximum Mach Operating – Mach/mph/kmph
Bombardier Global 8000: 0.94/721/1160
Gulfstream G800: 0.925/708/1142
Gulfstream G700: 0.925/708/1142
Falcon 10X: 0.925/708/1142
All for eight passengers and four crew.

These are all very fast aircraft, but Bombardier’s Global 8000 – which has already flown at M1.015 – edges this. Although only by 11.5 miles per hour or 18.5 kmph. This gives owners bragging rights but can easily be eaten up by air traffic management delays  or traffic getting to the airport.

Many customers will never fly this fast preferring to fly slower to save fuel and maximise range. But it is a nice selling point for Bombardier.


Gulfstream G800

The Falcon 10X – with a volume of 2,780 cubic feet – wins this category. A few inches of width or height may not sound like a lot but does make a big difference. But none of these aircraft are small. All have lots of windows and are designed to make flying comfortable.

Bombardier Global 8000: Up to 19 (sleep up to 13)
Gulfstream G800:  Up to 15 (sleep up to 7)
Gulfstream G700: Up to 19 (sleep up to 13)
Falcon 10X: Up to 19 (sleep up to 13)

Cabin Height:
Bombardier Global 8000: 6ft 2in/1.87m
Gulfstream G800: 6ft 3in /1.9m
Gulfstream G700: 6ft 3 in /1.9m
Falcon 10X: 6ft 8in/2.07m

Cabin Width
Bombardier Global 8000: 8ft
Gulfstream G800: 8ft2in
Gulfstream G700: 8ft2in
Falcon 10X: 9ft 1in

Cabin length
Bombardier Global 8000: 54ft 5 inches
Gulfstream G800: 53ft 7in
Gulfstream G700: 56ft11in
Falcon 10X: 53ft, 10in

Cabin volume – cubic feet
Bombardier Global 8000: 2,637
Gulfstream G800: 2,138
Gulfstream G700:  2,603
Falcon 10X: 2,780 cubic feet

The First Fully Outfitted G700 interior


On paper the Global 8000 is impressive. It has fantastic range, speed and a great cabin (you just need to go on a Global 7500 to try it out). The other three aircraft, however, are also very good. It really comes down to which brand you want.



  • Christopher Edmondson says:

    Interesting comparison. To the listed points you could add running costs per mile, as these aircraft are not cheap to operate, and then there is the cost of how far per gallon of aviation fuel you would get, as I have read the G8000 GE engines are more state of the art then the G700 and 10X RR Pearl engine, but 🤷‍♂️.

    Also as they have a global range for their UHMW customers, and global corporations who’s c-suite members need to be globally mobile, an established world wide maintenance and space part infrastructure needs to be on the tick list for potential customers so any problems at the destination can quickly be fixed, i.e. the person in the cabin who pays the bills doesn’t have to worry about the problems the person in the cockpit comes across, and of that Gulfstream has a lead given its customer base size.

    So which of these aircraft would I buy for my corporations fleet? It’d be the aircraft that is reliable, smooth flying, has good communications for keeping in touch with my corporate HQ and regional offices, has a pool of experienced pilots and ground crew, and is affordable to run and maintain.

    But what do I know.

  • Captain Anwar khan says:

    Nice comparison.
    I agree with above listed comment. Comparison of Cost/Mile is a good idea, I think the difference would be marginal.
    some more comparisons can be added to the comparison table. you never a what a prospective Buyer is looking for in a plane.
    Please keep me posted regularly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *