Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[JetBlast2000]

You are just not getting it are you?

DUDE! Who’s not getting it…? Who are you trying to convince. ? You’re acting like a door-to-door salesman who won't take NO for an answer when the guy inside is selling the same thing on E-Bay.

You’re giving the rest of us a bad name. Leave it alone.

 

[Valkyrie]

Embraer recognized its mistakes with the Legacy, but they keep improving it, with service ceiling now @ FL410, increased range, London City airport operations approved etc...
They said it is hard to sell Legacys just on value and branding helps a lot.
So Embraer have decided to produce clean-sheet corporate jets.
Let's take a rendez-vous on this forum in 2010 and we will see if they were successfull.

 

[G100driver]

No offense, but your boss is just uninformed. Glad to see he hires like-minded folks.

Comparing the 135/145 to the Legacy in terms of noise, interior, etc. is like comparing a Citation II to a G-IVSP. The differences are night and day.

People who fly our jet rave about it. Put down the crack pipe and go back to your high school homework.

None taken. If he was truely uniformed, using your logic, he would have purchased a G-200 instead of a Falcon. After all, it is less expensive, right. You get the same range and cabin size for 4 million less therefore it must be better.

Perhaps we were trying to hold as much value on our aircraft as possible. By purchasing a Falcon instead of a G-200 we have still have an airplane that we could sell at retail new because of market demand.

BTW good one on the homework and crack pipe. That was original. I have tried not make this personal. Anyone who has a good job flying, whether it be a G-200 or WSCofD is OK as far as I am concerned. Let us just be honest about airframes.

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

BTW good one on the homework and crack pipe. That was orginal. I have tried not make this personal. Anyone who has a good job flying, whether it be a G-200 or WSCofD is OK as far as I am concerned. Let us just be honest about airframes.

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.

It is a very good airplane. It's just too bad that Embraer was "learning on the job" so to speak. The early airplanes were definitely inferior and that's all anyone cares to remember. They're a good company, however, and they have made, and continue to make, dramatic improvements to the airplane in all areas.

Those of us who fly it like it. Those who have bought it like it. It does a really nice job. I don't see anything dishonest about the above.

We have heard about the "options" and the "orders filled on the side"...

but really, WHO has BOUGHT one? - as in paid for it, completed it, and is flying it??.

.

Guess Im just not getting it either..

I did not pry into the Embraer Rep's salesbook, sorry. But I did meet the guy who bought the last one and he seemed happy with the airplane.

By your logic I should expect all of you G-String and Falcon lovers to quote me the names of every single person who has bought one of those for the next five years before I believe it... Please.

There are enough quotes in trade pubs that detail the Legacy orderbook. If you don't believe me, go look there.

DUDE! Who’s not getting it…? Who are you trying to convince. ? You’re acting like a door-to-door salesman who won't take NO for an answer when the guy inside is selling the same thing on E-Bay.

You’re giving the rest of us a bad name. Leave it alone.

*shrug*

Just a friendly discussion. No bad names here.

 

[banned username 2]

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.

Well first off, the Embraer web site claims 3,250 NM range at Mach 0.74 (basically LRC), most people don't want to tool around at LRC... And we all know how marketing gets involved when quoting ranges, so yeah, it can probably do 3,250NM under ideal conditions and land with NBAA Min fuel (I don't know too many people who regularly land with NBAA reserves)... If you "do a lot of stuff in the 3200-3400NM range area" I would say you would want at LEAST a 3,800 NM airplane (G-350 / F2000EX / CL-604). You would be better to say "do a lot of stuff in the 2500-2700 NM range area or less" the Legacy MIGHT be the plane for you (if you need the extra cabin space and always use airports with longer runways)... Please, nowhere on the manufactures site do they claim this thing will go anywhere near 3400 NM non-stop... Let alone do it at a reasonable speed...

 

[LegacyIIDriver]

Well first off, the Embraer web site claims 3,250 NM range at Mach 0.74 (basically LRC), most people don't want to tool around at LRC... And we all know how marketing gets involved when quoting ranges, so yeah, it can probably do 3,250NM under ideal conditions and land with NBAA Min fuel (I don't know too many people who regularly land with NBAA reserves)... If you "do a lot of stuff in the 3200-3400NM range area" I would say you would want at LEAST a 3,800 NM airplane (G-350 / F2000EX / CL-604). You would be better to say "do a lot of stuff in the 2500-2700 NM range area or less" the Legacy MIGHT be the plane for you (if you need the extra cabin space and always use airports with longer runways)... Please, nowhere on the manufactures site do they claim this thing will go anywhere near 3400 NM non-stop... Let alone do it at a reasonable speed...

We do it all the time. Why Embraer has not published different numbers is beyond me. We get 3200NM at .785 to .795 easily with reserve. I have no reason to lie. I don't sell the plane and have nothing at stake in it financially.

We are getting basically LRC numbers at Max Speed out of it. My contention again is that they are not basing the numbers in the book on actual test flights of the airplane with the aerodynamic improvements and added fuel, but rather, using "interpolations" of what existed with the first batch of Legacy jets.

The newer jets have better everything... BOW, motors, interiors, fuel load, aerodynamics, everything. They won't catch a G-IV in cruse, but they beat the book numbers. I don't know why they haven't revised them, but I can't imagine they won't. Maybe after the FL410 takes effect they will post revised stats.

Allow me to indulge in a hint of sarcasm when I say we *all* know that a website always has the most current information. Clearly that isn't the case.

Embraer has always been very conservative. Better to exceed expectations than to fail to meet them I guess.

From Embraer's WEB SITE:

- Range may vary according to the aircraft configuration.
- This data is for general information only and is subject to change without prior notice.

Also I am not sure what website you are looking at but the following shows OVER 300NM WITH RESERVE at .80M with 8 pax at FL390:

http://www.legacybyembraer.com/english/content/executive/payload.asp

When we get FL 410 this will improve.
__

And again, the website does say 3,200NM plus diversion to a 200NM alternate with 8 pax at FL410:

http://www.legacybyembraer.com/english/content/executive/mission.asp


We regularly meet or exceed these numbers at FL390. When we get FL410 I am sure we will do even better.

 

[hellas]

Hmmm...

We regularly meet or exceed these numbers at FL390. When we get FL410 I am sure we will do even better.

Just FL410 when you finally "get" it?

 

[banned username 2]

When we get FL 410 this will improve.

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...

 

[mzaharis]

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

 

[banned username 2]

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)

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...