Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[mzaharis]

In the Corporate arena Runway Performance and Dispatch Reliability are other very critical consideration when computing "Value"...

Just for reference, MANY of the numbers/info on that AvBuyer site are incorrect... Im my glancing at it, i saw many mis-quoted numbers...

Understood - All my exercise was is to plug numbers. Unfortunately, as I am not an "industry insider", as most of you are, I only can rely on publically reported numbers, which are:

1. Mostly advertising claims
2. only a small part of the full picture, and skewed towards a few simple measurements. For example, I think that Falcons get rated low in my metric due to their shorter cabins, but that width must make them much more comfortable in real terms than some of the "pencil" cabins out there. You are also right that I don't take into consideration:

Runway performance
Reliability
Ability to get above airliner flight levels quickly
Maintenance
Operating costs
Many other measurements of Bizjet performance.

I only performed this exercise to show that the Legacy wasn't an "order-of-magnitude " bargain compared to much of its competition, based on range and cabin volume. The Legacy's best attribute seems to be its cabin volume, but I wanted to demonstrate that its price reflects various performance tradeoffs vis-a-vis its immediate competition.

I hope I've acknowledged some awareness of my limitations

 

[CatYaaak]

Why am I even wading in here? I'm not in the business, and I have no firsthand knowledge to contriute to this. I did, however, plug a few numbers into a spreadsheet, and you might find this interesting. This is a comparison of a number of business jets, from 17.8 million to 28 million, by a performance measure of:

cost/(range*cabin volume*long range cruise mach)

Look, I have no authority in this arena, and I certainly can't compare nuances of the advantages of reaching a certain FL in 30 minutes, finish quality, maintenance costs, or any other attributes not quantified in this measure. I just thought you might find these numbers interesting.

Lower numbers represent better value (less cost/performance delivered)
sources are:

http://www.avbuyer.com/Editorial/Medium_Jets_for_sale_Sept04.pdf
http://www.avbuyer.com/Editorial/Large_Jet_Aircraft_Oct04.pdf

Volume is simply calculated by length*width*height - no allowance for cross sectional roundness, "step down" aisles, or space taken up by radio racks or other stuff. I've sorted for highest value to lowest value. I used .83 for the Citation X's Long Range Cruise.

Price/(range*volume*LRC)
Gulfstream 350 4.371788659
Challenger 800 5.009364902
Embraer Legacy 5.539152192
Challenger 300 5.713996327
Challenger 604 6.217657636
Falcon 2000EX 6.418677141
Gulfstream 200 7.410371556
Falcon 2000 7.573003756
Citation X 9.031459509
Falcon 50EX 9.980422403

Any projection of Value where "volume" alone is factored in without taking into account cabin cross-section is silly..that's where the people are. People determine value, and being comfortable or non-claustrophobic in an airplane is something we all know (or should know) is important to pretty much everyone. People don't pay all that extra money to an airline to fly first class instead of coach because the drinks are free. The weight of this comfort-importance increases as range/time increases, and we're talking about longer-range aircraft here.

That's not really a "nuance"...it's obvious. You need to redo your spreadsheet to make it more realistic. Cabin cross section in a pax area is listed...easy to factor in. The only place you'll find "volume" listed stand-alone is the baggage area where people don't ride. There's a very good reason for that.

 

[mzaharis]

Any projection of Value where "volume" alone is factored in without taking into account cabin cross-section is silly..that's where the people are. People determine value, and being comfortable or non-claustrophobic in an airplane is something we all know (or should know) is important to pretty much everyone. People don't pay all that extra money to an airline to fly first class instead of coach because the drinks are free. The weight of this comfort-importance increases as range/time increases, and we're talking about longer-range aircraft here.

That's not really a "nuance"...it's obvious. You need to redo your spreadsheet to make it more realistic. Cabin cross section in a pax area is listed...easy to factor in. The only place you'll find "volume" listed stand-alone is the baggage area where people don't ride. There's a very good reason for that.

Here are the numbers for price/(range*cross section*LRC) - again, with Avbuyer numbers, and all of their potential inaccuracies

Note how the order changes. Those wide-cross-section Falcons do much better by this measure.

price/(range*cross section*LRC)
Challenger 300 163.4203
Falcon 2000EX 168.1693
Challenger 604 176.5815
Gulfstream 200 181.5541
Gulfstream 350 197.1677
Falcon 2000 198.4127
Citation X 208.6267
Falcon 50EX 235.538
Embraer Legacy 238.1835
Challenger 800 242.4533

Again, this is all just a bunch of navel-gazing on my part. I haven't been involved in the decision process to buy such an aircraft, as many of you have. For me to lecture you on what those decision factors are is ludicrous. Just thought you might find some attempt at metrics interesting.

 

[CatYaaak]

Fair enough.

I have been being honest. I have never claimed our airplane does 5000NM at .85M or anything of the sort. But it is a legitimate airplane for the mission it is marketed for and it has some very real advantages over other airplanes out there. If you do a lot of stuff in the 3200-3400NM range area or less with occasional trips to Europe then the Legacy is the plane for you.

.

If I remember correctly, first you were claiming it was an "alternative for a Gulfstream" (which would indeed be kind of like claiming it did 5000 miles at .85 or so). But now you're down to 3200-3400 miles, with occasional trips to Europe.

Well, if that's the case, why would anyone trade in their Challengers or Falcon 2000/EXs for a Legacy? How is it superior for that mission, let alone being "the plane for you"? In fact, all I've heard in terms of comparison are these vague, unproven assertations about superior reliablity and "outcycling" everything else, because it was developed from an airliner (and having ridden in plenty of ERJs, even the "airliner" bit is a stretch). Usually by the next paragraph, however, you're defending it by saying its "nothing like the airline version at all". In the end, you base these claims on nothing more than your feelings.

And just where did you get the idea that all corporate airplanes sit grounded in unscheduled mx, and on the same token, that airline ERJs don't get continually inspected and have squawks fixed by mx techs most nights they sit at a domicile?..or mx contracted for and done on the road?....or MELs aren't used? Dispatch reliablity in the airline world does NOT mean that things aren't breaking or getting fixed! All it means is that the aircraft departed, even if the techs worked all night, or it took-off with so many bright neon INOP stickers plastered around that the cockpit lighting was redundant. This is what you're basing the assumed WSCoD reliability on?

There's a huge difference between an airplane merely being "capable of a mission", and an airplane being "more capable than it's competition". Forget Gulfstream...I don't think Bombardier or Dassault have much to worry about either.

 

[suen1843]

The 2005 Subaru Legacy comes in with a 5.4250646. Well, that makes it number three, but with the new software changes and turbo outflow valve changes coming in the '06 model I am sure it will move up the list.
(Run the numbers if you wish, but that is a REAL number at long range cruise of Mach .12)

 

[banned username 2]

If I remember correctly, first you were claiming it was an "alternative for a Gulfstream" (which would indeed be kind of like claiming it did 5000 miles at .85 or so). But now you're down to 3200-3400 miles, with occasional trips to Europe.

Well, if that's the case, why would anyone trade in their Challengers or Falcon 2000/EXs for a Legacy? How is it superior for that mission, let alone being "the plane for you"? In fact, all I've heard in terms of comparison are these vague, unproven assertations about superior reliablity and "outcycling" everything else, because it was developed from an airliner (and having ridden in plenty of ERJs, even the "airliner" bit is a stretch). Usually by the next paragraph, however, you're defending it by saying its "nothing like the airline version at all". In the end, you base these claims on nothing more than your feelings.

And just where did you get the idea that all corporate airplanes sit grounded in unscheduled mx, and on the same token, that airline ERJs don't get continually inspected and have squawks fixed by mx techs most nights they sit at a domicile?..or mx contracted for and done on the road?....or MELs aren't used? Dispatch reliablity in the airline world does NOT mean that things aren't breaking or getting fixed! All it means is that the aircraft departed, even if the techs worked all night, or it took-off with so many bright neon INOP stickers plastered around that the cockpit lighting was redundant. This is what you're basing the assumed WSCoD reliability on?

There's a huge difference between an airplane merely being "capable of a mission", and an airplane being "more capable than it's competition". Forget Gulfstream...I don't think Bombardier or Dassault have much to worry about either.

EXCELLENT POST!

 

[CatYaaak]

Here are the numbers for price/(range*cross section*LRC) - again, with Avbuyer numbers, and all of their potential inaccuracies

Note how the order changes. Those wide-cross-section Falcons do much better by this measure.

price/(range*cross section*LRC)
Challenger 300 163.4203
Falcon 2000EX 168.1693
Challenger 604 176.5815
Gulfstream 200 181.5541
Gulfstream 350 197.1677
Falcon 2000 198.4127
Citation X 208.6267
Falcon 50EX 235.538
Embraer Legacy 238.1835
Challenger 800 242.4533

Again, this is all just a bunch of navel-gazing on my part. I haven't been involved in the decision process to buy such an aircraft, as many of you have. For me to lecture you on what those decision factors are is ludicrous. Just thought you might find some attempt at metrics interesting.

Wow, I've gotta hand it to ya. When you navel-gaze, you really go all out. Thanks for re-working the numbers. Hey, wanna do my taxes?

 

[GVFlyer]

...and I don't have to worry about Gulfstream's wonderful (apparently not) MX network because I know my jet won't break unless I taxi it into something.

In the US, Gulfstream has five factory service centers , five General Dynamics Service Centers and Pentastar which is a factory approved service center.

Internationally, Gulfstream has 10 service centers ranging from Cape Town, South Africa, to Singapore, to Switzerland, to Australia, to Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Additionally, Gulfstream will provide no-cost flight following to any destination in the world.

Gulfstream also has Airborne Product Support, A G100 on 24/7/365 standby to fly parts to Gulfstream aircraft throughtout CONUS and the Carribean. I checked with Customer Support and there is no record of a GV/G550 being AOG for a wingtip light cover.

It will outcycle anything Falcon or Gulfstream will *ever* build in your lifetime, too, BTW.

Sure it will, that's why the Legacy has a five year warranty and Gulfstream has a 20 year warranty on primary and secondary structures.

Sure, G-Strings and Falcons conquer the world when they aren't in MX...

Righto! Gulfstream GV/G550 dispatch availibility for the last 12 months is 99.80%, the only aircraft to exceed this availability during that period of time is the Boeing BBJ which reported 99.9% for the month of March.

GV

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

Let me say that I am glad the civil tone has returned.


Now... 99.8% Reliability. Yeah, and we all know what Gulfstream reliability means. It means it works every time you fly it between MX stops....

You cannot seriously tell me that the Gulfstream fleet flies as many cycles/day/week/month as the Legacy fleet with a 99.8% reliability rate. There is just no way.

As for the warranty issue... We've been over this before. Warranties are not so simple as duration alone. When you break a Gulfstream (which will most certainly be more often than a Legacy) it costs more to fix it so you had better have a fantastic warranty.

That aside, things either break when they are very new or very old. (This is why extended warranties are a scam.) Any bugs or gremlins will be found within the five year envelope and beyond that anything you replace is typical wear and tear for the most part. If you want a 20 year warranty by all means spend the extra $25M. Obviously not everyone in the world thinks this is important.


As for routine MX in the RJ fleet, of course they're doing MX at night. They're wearing out tries and such rapidly in that environment. But a minor outstation MX workover is nothing compared to what you'd have to do to get a Gulfstream or Falcon to take that kind of pounding every day. They wouldn't hold up--it's beyond their design parameters, i.e. they were never expected to do high cyclic rate operations.

The Legacy most definitely is an option for someone who wants a big airplane but doesn't need 5000-6000NM range and enjoys low costs and high reliability. It fits the mission.

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

Just FL410 when you finally "get" it?

Yes. The FL410 certification is scheduled to take effect May 1, 2005. We are currently restricted to FL390.

Don't expect there to be a significant difference in performance/range going from FL390 to FL410, the air density/drag/engine efficiency difference is extremely small... a 4,000 ft difference in cruise alt makes a more significant difference than a 2,000 increase... The only benefit you will gain from FL410 certification is it will give you 2 more potential FL's to use (FL400 & FL410) if you can get there...

As FC said, I realize the changes drop dramatically above FL250 in terms of performance boost, but I still believe there will be an additional 100-300NM range to be gained by going to FL410 from FL390.

Still, I can't help but laugh at the incredibly obvious conclusion here (no offense):

... a 4,000 ft difference in cruise alt makes a more significant difference than a 2,000 increase...

I wouldn't expect a 4,000 ft increase to make a LESS significant difference than a 2,000 foot increase, Falcon.

 

[banned username 2]

Let me say that I am glad the civil tone has returned.

Now... 99.8% Reliability. Yeah, and we all know what Gulfstream reliability means. It means it works every time you fly it between MX stops....

You cannot seriously tell me that the Gulfstream fleet flies as many cycles/day/week/month as the Legacy fleet with a 99.8% reliability rate. There is just no way.

As for the warranty issue... We've been over this before. Warranties are not so simple as duration alone. When you break a Gulfstream (which will most certainly be more often than a Legacy) it costs more to fix it so you had better have a fantastic warranty.

Your ignorance of Corporate Aircraft is blatently obvious... I think you should prepare for a spanking from GVFlyer, I'm sure he'll be back shortly to straighten you out on this...

As FC said, I realize the changes drop dramatically above FL250 in terms of performance boost, but I still believe there will be an additional 100-300NM range to be gained by going to FL410 from FL390.

Spoken like someone who hasn't spent much/any time up high... If you got 50-75NM range increase I would be very surprised...

I figured the G-550 AOG because of the wingtip lens being broken was BS... As with most stuff that has been said to try and elevate the WSCofD...

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

Your ignorance of Corporate Aircraft is blatently obvious... I think you should prepare for a spanking from GVFlyer, I'm sure he'll be back shortly to straighten you out on this...

Spoken like someone who hasn't spent much/any time up high... If you got 50-75NM range increase I would be very surprised...

I figured the G-550 AOG because of the wingtip lens being broken was BS... As with most stuff that has been said to try and elevate the WSCofD...

Nope. It happened. They taxied him into a fence post.

I asked the pilot if Gulfstream had a replacement lens for him and he said, "Of course not!" Kinda' sarcastic (but still smiling and being nice toward me). He was clearly implying that Gulfstream's support network isn't as good as you people claim. I took a picture of it with my digital from long range but you can't really tell the lens is missing so you'll probably have to take my word for it...

Left wing...bent metal broken glass, no replacement parts for it. Looked like it would have been easy to fix. Ask around. There aren't that many G-550s out there, yet.

As for the range increase, I can only tell you what we are hearing and what I am guessing with just some short and simple calculations on fuel burn. The 100NM in my 100-300 estimate isn't far from your 75NM either way and depends upon weight among other factors.

 

[CatYaaak]

As for routine MX in the RJ fleet, of course they're doing MX at night. They're wearing out tries and such rapidly in that environment. But a minor outstation MX workover is nothing compared to what you'd have to do to get a Gulfstream or Falcon to take that kind of pounding every day. They wouldn't hold up--it's beyond their design parameters, i.e. they were never expected to do high cyclic rate operations.

The Legacy most definitely is an option for someone who wants a big airplane but doesn't need 5000-6000NM range and enjoys low costs and high reliability. It fits the mission.

The thing is, nobody here is trying to sell Falcons and Gulfstreams to regional airlines, and you keep insisting that Falcons and Gulfstreams and Challengers break all the time, unable to fulfill their CORPORATE missions. You've given nothing in terms of proof, just assertions. In your latest example, however, I notice you omitted Challengers in your comparison which focused on airline ops, which is no suprise.

But unfortunately for you and your selective comparisons, those of us not living on Mars and thus completely cut off from planet Earth and it's aviation developments have noticed there's a very popular something called a CRJ that's been flying about the regional airline world in great numbers for the last decade or thereabouts...so in fact there IS a corporate-derived aircraft doing exactly what you say can't be done, and it's been doing it longer than ERJs.

I'm very curious as to how you'll wrap your head around that (but oh, do I know by now the rationalizations are on their way like pellets from a shotgun!)

Now I can sit here all day long telling everyone they should buy Challengers because "nothing ever breaks on CRJs they do airline ops we just replaced the tires and such...really.". People can ask me to prove it's better, and I'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over....It doesnt break, mx techs for it are really just tire-changers, its way better than yours even though I don't know anything about yours.

When you challenge this with your WSCoD, I'll just toss in my trump card...."Not only can nothing stand up to your abuse like an airline-proven Challenger, but adults can stand up in it without wrenching their necks."

On performance issues, I'll stick with the Falcon.

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

I am saying that the CORPORATE mission that the Legacy fulfills is one the Falcon and Gulfstream could never do. It's more demanding and requires more reliability than those airplanes can manage. Doing the long-haul, one-cycle leg mission like Gulfstream and Falcon is not as hard as doing six legs a day six days a week.

When you challenge this with your WSCoD, I'll just toss in my trump card...."Not only can nothing stand up to your abuse like an airline-proven Challenger, but adults can stand up in it without wrenching their necks."

I can't stand up in it and I'm an adult. That's a lame argument any way. The people who are buying the ERJ have the option for a standup cabin section and they always turn it down. It's just not that important. If you want a standup cabin buy a 737BJ.

If you ask me, the CRJ is junk, BTW. It certainly doesn't have the reliability of the ERJ fleet. It also likes to flip upside down and do other crazy stuff at high altitudes.

I know a guy who is an IP on the CRJ for one of the large regionals that fly it and he says it is borderline unairworthy. I realize it's an exaggeration, but I don't see ERJs crashing left and right. They are also much more reliable and cost less to acquire, fly, and maintain than a CRJ.

If the CRJ were so superior to the ERJ then there wouldn't be over 900 ERJs flying worldwide without a fatality.

The Challenger isn't all that either. One of the guys who recently bought a Legacy told a group of us their Challenger cost them more than $500,000 in unscheduled maintenance last year. They dumped it for the 135BJ. I also don't see ERJs plowing off runway ends with jammed flight controls...

 

[Dangerkitty]

Dude, the CRJ is junk. It certainly doesn't have the reliability of the ERJ fleet. It also likes to flip upside down and do other crazy stuff at high altitudes.

I know a guy who is an IP on the CRJ for one of the large regionals that fly it and he says it is borderline unairworthy. I realize it's an exaggeration, but I don't see ERJs crashing left and right. They are also much more reliable and cost less to acquire, fly, and maintain than a CRJ.

If the CRJ were so superior to the ERJ then there wouldn't be over 900 ERJs flying worldwide without a fatality.

The Challenger isn't all that either. One of the guys who recently bought a Legacy told a group of us their Challenger cost them more than $500,000 in unscheduled maintenance last year. They dumped it for the 135BJ.

OK, OK. Here is where I call BS. I have got almost 1500 hours in the EMB-145. The airplane is an mediocre aircraft at best and a POS in my opinion. The ERJ has only been flying since 1996. Thats not alot of time to prove itself. The only times I have been scared $hitless with reference to the quality of the airframe have been when I was flying the EMB-145. Tail flutter comes to mind.

To say that the ERJ is by far a better aircraft then the CRJ is absolute lunacy.

Why in the hell are you so sensitive when someone criticizes your aircraft? Hell I am a Lear 60 Captain and while I enjoy flying it I understand that it has its faults. So much so that I have been on the phone with Bombardier in the past and have had extensive meetings with their reps to see if they could clear some of them up.

Dude, just get back in your Legacy and let it rest already!!

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

OK, OK. Here is where I call BS. I have got almost 1500 hours in the EMB-145. The airplane is an mediocre aircraft at best and a POS in my opinion. The ERJ has only been flying since 1996. Thats not alot of time to prove itself. The only times I have been scared $hitless with reference to the quality of the airframe have been when I was flying the EMB-145. Tail flutter comes to mind.

Tail flutter?????? Are you exceeding limitations on a regular basis? I have never had anything even remotely approaching flutter in four years of RJ/Legacy flying.

It has been flying for ten years and that isn't long enough to prove itself? I think it has already proven itself safer than the CRJ.

Why in the hell are you so sensitive when someone criticizes your aircraft?

It's just a (mostly) friendly discussion. I enjoy chatting and that's really all that is going on. I thought that was what this board was for...

 

[Dangerkitty]

Tail flutter?????? Are you exceeding limitations on a regular basis? I have never had anything even remotely approaching flutter in four years of RJ/Legacy flying.

It has been flying for ten years and that isn't long enough to prove itself? I think it has already proven itself safer than the CRJ.





It's just a (mostly) friendly discussion. I enjoy chatting and that's really all that is going on. I thought that was what this board was for...

LD,

In the early days of the EMB-145 Tail Flutter was a regular problem. If any Embraer rep tells you it wasn't then they are lying. I had it happen to me more than once and each time it scarred the $hit out of me.

 

[Dangerkitty]

It has been flying for ten years and that isn't long enough to prove itself? I think it has already proven itself safer than the CRJ.

OK, how so?

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

LD,

In the early days of the EMB-145 Tail Flutter was a regular problem. If any Embraer rep tells you it wasn't then they are lying. I had it happen to me more than once and each time it scarred the $hit out of me.

Well I have only been flying it since 2000, but I have never had any type of structural or flight control problem with it. I will take your word for the flutter issue since I have never seen it. I think whatever the problem was it has clearly been fixed.

As for how it is safer than the CRJ... I forget what the fleet flight time total is up to now, but it's at least 10 million hours without a fatality. CRJs and 604s have already had some.

 

[Dangerkitty]

As for how it is safer than the CRJ... I forget what the fleet flight time total is up to now, but it's at least 10 million hours without a fatality. CRJs and 604s have already had some.

Are those problems inherent to the aircraft or could it be pilot error? Remember, you stated that the CRJ was/is junk.