Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[hellas]

Why dont you worry about this issue when you can afford either airplane (never). F#%^in nerds.....

 

[LegacyDriver]

"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.

I hit the enter key 11 times by mistake on this PDA's microscopic keyboard. Even with the error I am still underestimating the interest by millions..

The average rate of return for the Dow is TEN percent (I ran the numbers with a conservative seven percent for error).

Thus the 13M I save is worth 33.71 M over ten years. Legacy wins.by anywhere from 5M to 8M dollars.

 

[banned username 2]

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.

Still absolutely no facts given... Only generalizations and personal opinions... Again...

 

[Diesel]

This thread is driving me nuts.

Legacydriver keeps coming up with "real world numbers". Who really cares? When your planning a flight and the book says you can't do it do you still just go? I think not. So who really gives a flying F about what you say it can do.

GV keeps pulling out hard core facts and numbers. I'm sure his real world numbers beats his books but he doesn't need to drag those out. The book speaks for itself.

I haven't flown either plane so i don't have a dog in this fight. Facts are facts. Legacy driver please start providing some facts.

Real world numbers don't make a plane fly

 

[some_dude]

Let's tote up what you've accomplished so far, LegacyDriver:

1. Convinced virtually all of the corporate pilots on this board to write positive things about Gulfstream products.

2. Succeeded in having your own aircraft tagged with an unfortunate nickname it will never live down (WSCOD).

3. Convinced no one of anything positive regarding the Legacy, and in fact probably influenced some opinions negatively.

Good job! I think your work here is almost done!

 

[semperfido]

I am not going to dis your plane and I am sure I would enjoy flying one as well.
BUT hey, there is no getting around the fact that the Gulfstream is the first choice among those that can afford one. "There can be only one". End of story.

This thread is dying a very slow death and it has been a lot of fun.

 

[AcroChik]

Really?

"The average rate of return for the Dow is TEN percent (I ran the numbers with a conservative seven percent for error)."

Over the past five years, today's date over date, the rate of return on the:

DJI = almost exactly 0%

S&P 500 = approximately -3%

NASDAQ = approximately -50%

In the current economic climate it might be unwise to expect a sudden market reversal in the near term.

The usual comparitor when making the sorts of investment assumptions you indicate is the risk free rate. That is, the rate currently available on long term US government securities. This rate is aproximately 4%.

I've had fun reading this and associated threads. There are some very bright aviators posting here and I always learn a lot.

Thanks to all.

 

[LegacyDriver]

First of all, from one mad Marine to another, Semper FI, Fido.

1) Anyone considering the purchase of a Legacy or Gulfstream doesn't give a bleep about what anyone on flightinfo has to say on the subject, particularly the anti-Legacy establishment... You give yourselves way too much credit.

2) Just because I have not been able or willing to reprint the AOM for you does not mean that what I have said is untrue.

FACT - the production Legacy II is a lighter, cleaner, longer-ranged airplane than the Legacy I (many of which went to Options I believe) and the prototypes used for flight test and performance,

FACT - Those airplanes all weighed in excess of 30000 lbs BOW. My Legacy weighs a shade over 29000 BOW (and each Legacy built has incorporated drag and weight improvements over the one before it).

FACT - Virtually every pound of weight saved went to payload. Changes internally to the airplane have added significantly to the fuel capacity over the Legacy I and the prototype.

FACT - The interior on the last airplane (I saw 809) is superior to those previous esp. The I and the prototype.

FACT - The II is quieter. Insulation and wiper removal have significantly toned it down up front. No more DCs.

FACT - FL410 capability will improve the numbers on the airplane a great deal more over the book values.

These are the facts. Just the BOW weight reduction alone amounts to roughly three percent! Any idiot can see this will help the airplane perform better even ignoring the drag reduction program.

As for going when the books say we won't make it... I base that decision on accumulated performance data and then make judgment based on what hapens when we get up there. If it looks like I will be able to skip a fuel stop because of a greater than expected tailwind I keep going and vice versa. Who doesn't? As yet the full performance data has been dead on accurate--and better than the book. That is good enough for me.

 

[LegacyDriver]

The historical annualized rate of return for the Dow 500 is ten percent over ten years. This is easily achievable using index finds like Vanguard and SPY(der). I used seven percent in my first example to point out that having money in hand is more important than resale value.

 

[AA717driver]

AeroChik--Stop with the numbers talk! You're makin' me hot!

LD--I agree with some_dude and fido. I was inclined to view the Legacy favorably prior to this thread but now it will forever be the WSoD! BBD took a good corporate jet and turned it into a well-respected regional airliner. Reversing the process is, at best, difficult. It would take years of successful operations by the Legacy to establish itself as a top-tier corporate aircraft.

It's like trying to screw with a limp dick--you just can't push it.

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT EVERYBODY!TC

 

[banned username 2]

FACT - the production Legacy II is a lighter, cleaner, longer-ranged airplane than the Legacy I (many of which went to Options I believe) and the prototypes used for flight test and performance,

FACT - Those airplanes all weighed in excess of 30000 lbs BOW. My Legacy weighs a shade over 29000 BOW (and each Legacy built has incorporated drag and weight improvements over the one before it). OPINION!

FACT - Virtually every pound of weight saved went to payload. Changes internally to the airplane have added significantly to the fuel capacity over the Legacy I and the prototype. OPINION!

FACT - The interior on the last airplane (I saw 809) is superior to those previous esp. The I and the prototype. OPINION!

FACT - The II is quieter. Insulation and wiper removal have significantly toned it down up front. No more DCs. OPINION!

FACT - FL410 capability will improve the numbers on the airplane a great deal more over the book values. OPINION!

These are the facts. Just the BOW weight reduction alone amounts to roughly three percent! Any idiot can see this will help the airplane perform better even ignoring the drag reduction program. OPINION!

As for going when the books say we won't make it... I base that decision on accumulated performance data and then make judgment based on what hapens when we get up there. If it looks like I will be able to skip a fuel stop because of a greater than expected tailwind I keep going and vice versa. Who doesn't? As yet the full performance data has been dead on accurate--and better than the book. That is good enough for me.

OPINION!

 

[GVFlyer]

First of all I wonder where you are pulling out those DOC/hour costs.

The Direct Operating Costs are from Conklin & de Decker Fall 2004, the acknowledged source for business aviation data. The data from the engineers in Gulfstream Sales Engineering / Technical Marketing is more accurate, but a.) It is proprietary and b.) I doubt you would believe it anyways.

Secondly our min direct alt is going to be 410 in January (I believe). That wipes out that argument.

Conklin & de Decker gives you an initial altitude of FL370 with the AE 3007 A1E engines rated at 7,953 lbs thrust.

The Embraer website says the Legacy has to spend 2 hours at FL390 before it can step up to FL410.

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

Thirdly, that extra 7m bucks would earn quite a lot of interest if invested or pay for a lot of gas.

Listen up this time; as I told you before a 100% capitalized lease is available from GFS or GECAP if that better meets your financial requirements. What that means is that there is no initial capital outlay. You just start paying the lease.
To make it more simple, there is no $6.35 million for you to wisely invest, nor the $21.15 initial expenditure you would make to buy a Legacy.


By the way, did you notice the substantial performance, size and comfort advantage you acquire with the Gulfstream for the $6.35 million differential in price between it and the Legacy? I would call it money well spent.


GV

 

[GVFlyer]

"The average rate of return for the Dow is TEN percent (I ran the numbers with a conservative seven percent for error)."

Over the past five years, today's date over date, the rate of return on the:

DJI = almost exactly 0%

S&P 500 = approximately -3%

NASDAQ = approximately -50%

In the current economic climate it might be unwise to expect a sudden market reversal in the near term.

The usual comparitor when making the sorts of investment assumptions you indicate is the risk free rate. That is, the rate currently available on long term US government securities. This rate is aproximately 4%.

Smith Barney is history, my investment account is going to be managed by AcroChik!

GV

 

[AcroChik]

Who's Your Mommy?

"I hit the enter key 11 times by mistake on this PDA's microscopic keyboard. Even with the error I am still underestimating the interest by millions.."

13 million compounded at 7% over an 11 year term is 27,363 million, not 27.54 million as you claim.

Again, just 180,000 of some billionaire's money, but critical when playing with other people's cash. And key to the credibility of the arguments you make for your airplane.

CFOs with critical impact on purchase decisions will not appreciate your magical thinking. EMB sales and financing people might even wish you'd go away.

Further, when valuing assets in the way you propose, the impacts of depreciable life, PITI (principal, interest, taxation, insurance), and numerous other variables are part of the modelling.

When financial analysts propose alternate application of capital in fixed asset valuation models, US Treasury securities are the benchmark comparitor, not something as variable as an equities index such as the DJI. Among the many reasons for this, a fixed asset has predictable, stable value, more similar to the predictability of a fixed income security such as T Bills, though of course not as liquid.

As I said earlier, though I have a lot of hours for my age, I'm just a puke CFII and know my place on this board. I've never flown a Gulfstream or a WSCOD ~ but I hope to one day. On those topics, I ask questions and let the captians speak.

When it comes to mathematics and financial analysis, my suggestion to you is, "Down boy." You're just hurting your arguments.

 

[CatYaaak]

And the Spankfest continues..

"... EMB sales and financing people might even wish you'd go away..."

Wow AcroChik, I don't understand half of what you just wrote, but I know a severe spanking when I see one administered.

And if, for a moment, you'll allow yourself to represent the other "chiks" of your caliber I may have been in close proximity to in the past, let me take this opportunity to apologize for all those times I tried to copy your test answers in class and thank you for the times I was able to. Like them, you should have been issued at least 2 diplomas.

 

[LegacyDriver]

*Yawn* My PDA still comes up with.my number not yours be it ten years or eleven. Anyone who doubts one or the other break out a calculator. The point remains.

As for the "opinion" rant, these are facts. That you refuse to acknowledge them says more about you than it does about me.

There were changes to the fuel system that are documented in the AOM. I do not recall the S/N offhand but can easily look. Fire suppressive foam was removed from the forward tanks providing weight reduction and added capacity. This is fact.

The wipers were removed and insulation added to the cockpit reducing noise. This is FACT. It was a measured and significant change.

The weight saved went directly to payload--fuel for the insulation and wing changes. If it did not go to payload/useful load, where did it go moron?

The Legacy I weighs a thousand pounds more than my airplane. My understanding is 809 (the last one built that I am aware of) weighs 29,460ish. This is lighter than PT-SAB which was 30,500 range. FACT.

Also, perhaps I misunderstand the definition of min direct altitude. I go to 390 direct every time I can get it. I see no prohibition against it in the AOM at max gross weight.

 

[fokkerjet]

*Yawn* My PDA still comes up with.my number not yours be it ten years or eleven. Anyone who doubts one or the other break out a calculator. The point remains.

As for the "opinion" rant, these are facts. That you refuse to acknowledge them says more about you than it does about me.

Also, perhaps I misundersdtand the definition of min direct altitude. I go to 390 direct every time I can get it. I see no prohibition against it in the AOM.

Yeah........what ever!

AcroChik. You own any leather?

 

[banned username 2]

*Yawn* My PDA still comes up with.my number not yours be it ten years or eleven. Anyone who doubts one or the other break out a calculator. The point remains.

As for the "opinion" rant, these are facts. That you refuse to acknowledge them says more about you than it does about me.

There were changes to the fuel system that are documented in the AOM. I do not recall the S/N offhand but can easily look. Fire suppressive foam was removed from the forward tanks providing weight reduction and added capacity. This is fact.

The wipers were removed and insulation added to the cockpit reducing noise. This is FACT. It was a measured and significant change.

The weight saved went directly to payload--fuel for the insulation and wing changes. If it did not go to payload/useful load, where did it go moron?

The Legacy I weighs a thousand pounds more than my airplane. My understanding is 809 (the last one built that I am aware of) weighs 29,460ish. This is lighter than PT-SAB which was 30,500 range. FACT.

Also, perhaps I misunderstand the definition of min direct altitude. I go to 390 direct every time I can get it. I see no prohibition against it in the AOM at max gross weight.

You aren't providing any documentation or sources of your information, just your own opinion...

Everyone else is using facts and figures from manufactures web sites...

Still waiting...

 

[LegacyDriver]

13 million compounded at 7% over an 11 year term is 27,363 million, not 27.54 million as you claim.

Again, just 180,000 of some billionaire's money, but critical when playing with other people's cash. And key to the credibility of the arguments you make for your airplane.

I cannot believe I even have to post these #s...

Simple interest at seven percent compounded annually:

13
14.883
15.925
17.040
18.233
19.509
20.875
22.336
23.899
25.572
27.363

These are the numbers I have used from the get go. If you saw something else it was a typo.
Not that these facts will cause anyone to jump on you for being a moron. Jump my case and you get a free pass on making stupid mistakes with this crowd.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Quote soirces?? How about the w/b data from the airplanes themselves and the AOM???? You do not get any more definitive than that!