Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[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...

 

[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.