This is a pretty common jet so I'm curious as to why there are none available?

Gulfstream Aviation (or however they word it) are fiercely protective of their images and all else that might be useful for developing flight sim models.  Many corporations have taken this position, in other businesses as well, not just the aviation world.  It is nothing new, simply their idea of making sure their aircraft are not falsely represented.

Gulfstream is unhappy with the idea, so I heard.

Sad. But understandable.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

Petty! IMHO

Petty! IMHO

 

Well, not really. 

 

Protecting registered and trademarked logos is an expensive and time consuming process.  Have you ever heard of the following items:  kerosene??  linoleum??  These were, at one time, trademarked names that the owning companies did not follow up and challenge in court when the names became so common a usage that the courts allowed the names to become generic terms.  Do you google (small g) an item or do you Google (large G) an item??  There's a distinct difference.  I am sure that Google spends large amounts of money making sure that as far as humanly possible that g(G) remains an upper case letter.  Same with Coca Cola when they pursue making sure that we drink Coke, not coke.

 

And too, believe it or not, Gulfstream may be concerned (justifiably in my (not so) humble opinion) about product liability.  Although I cannot see how concerns about liability could extend into the flight sim world, I am sure so lawyer out there would be more than pleased to try the issue in some court-for a substantial fee I am sure.

I find it a strange position for them to take. I know the flight sim community is small but in terms of brand awareness I don't see why they don't want to reach a passionate aviation audience. Who knows how many current and future aviation industry decision-makers are in our ranks?

 

Maybe they're worried about quality but I think a poor fsx model reflects on the software developer and not the RW aircraft manufacturer. No one whinges about Cessna when they can't get the default 172 to spin properly.

 

I really have to agree with your post, but Gulfstreams position is exactly that--their position.

For one thing, its General Dynamics.

I find it a strange position for them to take. I know the flight sim community is small but in terms of brand awareness I don't see why they don't want to reach a passionate aviation audience. Who knows how many current and future aviation industry decision-makers are in our ranks?

 

Because Gulfstream doesn't need 'brand awareness'.  Anyone that is in, has interest in or involved in aviation knows who Gulfstream is.  Additionally, it is safe to say that no one playing Flight Sim is going to be buying a Gulfstream.  Therefore, to allow models into FSX is only a risk to their brand with no benefits.

I don't know about Grumman, but many companies make significant amounts of money through licencing. Boeing has set up its own department to handle licences.  http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/ipm/

 

It's likely that FSX developers can't afford to match the licencing fees that others are prepared to pay. Licensees paying significant sums for their licences are not going to be pleased  to find others are getting a cut-price. Also, there's likely be a minimum income from a licence before it's even worthwhile   the licensor even considering one.

 

 

 

Who knows how many current and future aviation industry decision-makers are in our ranks?

 

No one knows. That's why it's not worth even considering.

Going with Greg's logic, I'm glad the Concorde was allowed to be in the sim. Now I wanna buy one.

 

Here's some freeware Gulfstream. I haven't tried it so far though. http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/6266/fsx-gulfstream-g550/ I'D welcome any biz jets in FSX by the way. :smile:

Been hearing this speculation for years, and I bet not one single person has ever actually contacted GS to get the real story  :-)

Going with Greg's logic, I'm glad the Concorde was allowed to be in the sim. Now I wanna buy one.

 

Yeah.. except there is a large difference between 'want' and 'can'.

Who knows, rather than threatening to sue the pants of people, perhaps one day Gulfstream will grasp the real benefits from allowing developers to simulate their aircraft.

 

Training, demonstrations to potential customers etc. Cessna have no issues, along with many other manufacturers, so I don't see why Gulfstream should.