Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AcroChik said:"13 m compounded 7 percent over 10 years equals 27.54 million."
The supposed ten~year compounded savings from buying his ride as opposed to one of those piece of junk Gulfstreams.
Flag on the play!
13 million compounded at an annual interest rate of 7% over a ten year term actually equals 25.573 million.
Based on the thesis that:
So: GIV total outlay 35.
Resale of 35 * .75 is 26.25 m
EMB outlay 21m - 21m depreciation is zero.
13 m compounded 7 percent over 10 years equals 25.573 (correct number).
The EMB is now under water by $677,000.
As everyone here knows, I'm in no position to judge these particular airplanes, but I can do math.
This is not a significant error, only a couple million of some billionaire's money. But this fellow is also calculating how far stuff will fly before all the kerosene is converted to hydrogen dioxide and chem trails.
Still absolutely no facts given... Only generalizations and personal opinions... Again...LegacyDriver said:First of all I wonder where you are pulling out those DOC/hour costs. Secondly our min direct alt is going to be 410 in January (I believe). That wipes out that argument. Thirdly, that extra 7m bucks would earn quite a lot of interest if invested or pay for a lot of gas.
Not worried about it. The plane will sell just fine.
As for being cheap on the manuals I honestly never considered that. That could very well be the case. What I *am* telling you is the airplane I fly (must be a fluke, it can't be for real) beats every number in the book by a fair margin (range, ROC, runway, fuel burn). The airplanes that were used for performance (particularly PT-SAB) had 70 gallon water tanks (you don't need that much for 13 ppl that's for 37!), windshield wipers, beefed up wing structure that was later determined excessive (gave us more gas than listed for Legacy I numbers) lacked fairings for wheels and avionics bay intakes, had more fire suppressive foam in the forward tanks than were needed (that gave us several hundred pounds of gas right there) etc. etc. etc.. They were heavier and draggier. Not sure if they used the "E" engines or not but if they didn't that is a big change, too. I don't think they used E-CLB thrust (which we have now) and am sure they followed the old RJ 240/270/290 climb profiles which are not what we use in the Legacy.
The performance boost from the winglets was also tuned down even though it does work out to about 5-7% (they used 2.5% or something).
I hate to break it to you but I don't carry an AOM around with me. It's off in the airplane and I don't have the patience to type it all into a PDA any way. When I get my computer up and running then we'll talk. Hopefully someone will beat me to it.