BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2016, 18:02

The Phenom 300 is a great airplane. A tad short on range, and I'm not the biggest Garmin fan, but a good balance of cabin size, features, speed and comfort.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/H7sZD5DCxMU[/youtube]

Warren

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Nov 2016, 20:13

Quote:

The Phenom 300 is a great airplane. A tad short on range, and I'm not the biggest Garmin fan, but a good balance of cabin size, features, speed and comfort.

Yeah, I wouldn't throw it out of my hangar.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Nov 2016, 10:42

Warren, the range is not gulfstream or falcon like, but it's got slightly longer legs than the PC12 with the same payload. Also the cruise is noticeably faster.........

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Nov 2016, 11:10

Michael, have you looked at the performance charts for the Phenom 300 for wet runways, contaminated, ice covered? I haven't seen them, but on most turbo-jet aircraft this becomes an eye opener. even more so on Part 23 aircraft, as the data gets kinda vague.

The low approach and landing speed you get with the PC-12, along with the reversing propeller, makes wet and contaminated runway takeoff and landings a yawner compared to a jet. You being based in mountainous terrain (snow and ice) might want to take a look at how this could impact your operation? It will have an impact, you just have to be realistic about how many days it could be a problem.

I was looking at the Phenom 100 vs the CJ, and the Phenom's wet and contaminated/snow and ice tables, as well as the CJ's are less than inspiring. you may find that making the numbers work will require a reduced fuel load, which may require a fuel stop. All of a sudden the speed and range advantage vaporizes. I know that the 100 is of no comparison to the 300, but they are both Part 23 airplanes, and the performance tables will raise an eyebrow on those exception days.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Nov 2016, 12:12

Brent, I did and the PC12 has not match when it comes to landing distances......the Phenom 300 is not terrible in this manner.

It is however a very, very efficient jet and the per nautical mile costs are excellent.

In a perfect world I'd like both........the PC12 excels (for me) at getting going quickly. The 300 would help in my cross countries which I'm currently doing once or twice a month now.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Nov 2016, 08:02

Michael
You have the station wagon now you need a sports car.

An Eclipse is perfect for the Florida to Colorado run I just did it this past week

Here's a picture of me at 41k above the extreme turbulence in the 20's and low 30's

Attachment:

image.jpeg

Weird the picture is upside down but if you open the image it's right side up

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Nov 2016, 16:24

Andy, yup, it's on my list of thoughts. I like the Phenom because it can carry everything. I'd also like longer legs so that I can go from Pompano to tRide non stop. I can do it eastbound right now in the PC12, but it's a good 5.5-6 hrs of flying.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Nov 2016, 17:58

Username Protected wrote:

Michael
You have the station wagon now you need a sports car.

An Eclipse is perfect for the Florida to Colorado run I just did it this past week

Here's a picture of me at 41k above the extreme turbulence in the 20's and low 30's

Attachment:

image.jpeg

Weird the picture is upside down but if you open the image it's right side up

"Extreme" turbulence? You sure?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Nov 2016, 00:07

Scott
You made me check and I misreported

It was Severe not extreme

I have to say it wasn't comfortable climbing up thru that and a 737 reported severe at 32kand I saw another pirep for severe at 26k

I never saw the wind change direction that much in the climb

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Nov 2016, 00:12

Username Protected wrote:

Andy, yup, it's on my list of thoughts. I like the Phenom because it can carry everything. I'd also like longer legs so that I can go from Pompano to tRide non stop. I can do it eastbound right now in the PC12, but it's a good 5.5-6 hrs of flying.

Michael
A 300 is an awesome plane that will not fit in my hangars and burns 3 times the fuel of an Eclipse

But I would love to be in a position to own one the ultimate single pilot aircraft

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Nov 2016, 19:32

So many on BT have this "It won't fit in my hangar" issue.... Go get another hangar. I did. NJo big deal.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Nov 2016, 20:01

Username Protected wrote:

So many on BT have this "It won't fit in my hangar" issue.... Go get another hangar. I did. NJo big deal.

Not a dig Jason, just a reality for some, but in many cases adequate hangar space is non-existent. Building one may not be a comfortable endeavor for some or financially feasible. I know that $300k-$500k can be deal killer for many, or just inconvenient. I understand your point of view and completely understand and agree if you're on an airport where you have options. But many peeps here on BT are based on airports with fewer options.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Nov 2016, 20:17

Username Protected wrote:

So many on BT have this "It won't fit in my hangar" issue.... Go get another hangar. I did. NJo big deal.

You clearly don't live in a space constrained, populous urban area.... getting a hangar at all took me several years, some of it with under the table deals. It would be stupid to have to move to an airport that's 45 mins (more with traffic) away just to get a bigger hangar when my current one is 10 min from my house. I could never make up the drive time in flight time.

Life is sometimes about choosing the most reasonable set of compromises.