12 Nov 2025, 01:07 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300  Posted: 26 Sep 2018, 16:35 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 07/01/17
Posts: 64
Post Likes: +32
Location: Irvine, CA
Aircraft: DA-42-NG
|
|
|
1. "Personal Security / Privacy" (for you Celebrity, Arms Dealer, or M&A Master of the Universe Types)
2. Mistress(es)... (Mister-esses?) in different center coverage areas...
3. ???
Hell I can't even name 3. Certainly you aren't going to avoid the state tax man or IRS with this, believe me they will find out whether you really have been using it for interstate commerce (or business vs. personal use in the IRS scenario) and by how much, regardless of if you block or not.
I seem to recall the origination of the blocking option occurring after a congressmen got caught with his cookie in the mistress jar via private aircraft tracking, but that might just be an urban myth.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 26 Sep 2018, 17:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/01/17
Posts: 64
Post Likes: +32
Location: Irvine, CA
Aircraft: DA-42-NG
|
|
There is a signal to noise ratio, but one can learn some interesting things. Like real world P300 weights and performance profiles (although the .76 mach mentioned I think is more like .66 mach...). Oh and PiAware ... how did I just now hear about this?!?! Another great tidbit lodged within a classical BT thread derailment. I'm like a hog digging for truffles in the Black Forest  Username Protected wrote: This gets boring. An interesting topic gets started, some interesting things get said, Jason puts in his opinion, then the Jason haters come out of the wood work and the thread devolves into a bunch of quibbling over some insignificant thing.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 26 Sep 2018, 18:03 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
I run a system that scans the skies for all airplanes, I observe the results and compare to flight aware and notice a large discrepancy
I didn't come here to educate you on how the tracking world works or the merits of privacy, my original input was simply to point out the flaw in your numbers, others have agreed, I rest my case
Placing the burden of proof on others and engaging in circular logic just erodes the conversation
So why not post your numbers? Where's your "burden of proof"? I've said many times in this thread that the FA data isn't perfect. I agree. But I think comparing P180's to E55P's... the story is more than clear. But hey, prove me wrong.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 26 Sep 2018, 18:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 1. "Personal Security / Privacy" (for you Celebrity, Arms Dealer, or M&A Master of the Universe Types)
2. Mistress(es)... (Mister-esses?) in different center coverage areas...
3. ???
Hell I can't even name 3. Certainly you aren't going to avoid the state tax man or IRS with this, believe me they will find out whether you really have been using it for interstate commerce (or business vs. personal use in the IRS scenario) and by how much, regardless of if you block or not.
I seem to recall the origination of the blocking option occurring after a congressmen got caught with his cookie in the mistress jar via private aircraft tracking, but that might just be an urban myth. Those things are all the same the same thing. The problem is, as you already stated, you're not hiding at all. The tax man knows how to track you and so does your crazy GF. I still have plenty of ink in my pen.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 26 Sep 2018, 18:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: This gets boring. An interesting topic gets started, some interesting things get said, Jason puts in his opinion, then the Jason haters come out of the wood work and the thread devolves into a bunch of quibbling over some insignificant thing. Glad I'm not the only one who sees it. All I ever said was "P180's don't have a support network because there are no P180's". Somehow the haters turned that into "well there are more 172's than any plane and therefore there's no support network for anything other than 172's". WTF? where are their heads? They argue over the dumbest %#$@.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 26 Sep 2018, 21:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/09
Posts: 1017
Post Likes: +825
|
|
[quote="David Madding"]There is a signal to noise ratio, but one can learn some interesting things. Like real world P300 weights and performance profiles (although the .76 mach mentioned I think is more like .66 mach...). Oh and PiAware ... how did I just now hear about this?!?! Another great tidbit lodged within a classical BT thread derailment. I'm like a hog digging for truffles in the Black Forest —— Have you have ever flown or even been in one in flight? I assume that your speed comment of .66 Mach is just a guess, I have nearly 700 hours in them and can say unequivocally that you are wrong. I also don’t think that they would be the highest selling light jet for the last 4 years being misrepresented as a .78 airplane in the sales literature and only doing .66. You may want to rethink what you “know”. Brad
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 26 Sep 2018, 22:18 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/04/13
Posts: 2790
Post Likes: +1408
Location: Little Rock, Ar
Aircraft: A36 C560 C551 C560XL
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I miss Todd! And Brannigan!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 27 Sep 2018, 00:07 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 7671
Post Likes: +5047
Location: Live in San Carlos, CA - based Hayward, CA KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My father in law texts me and my wife every time my N# comes up on FA. He gets a text alert. He wants my wife to know that he’s keeping an eye on me. I should block mine just to screw with him.... My wife wants me to block my tail# because she doesn’t like her father in law tracking us either! The in-law thing seems to be a common theme....
_________________
-Jon C.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 27 Sep 2018, 00:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/01/17
Posts: 64
Post Likes: +32
Location: Irvine, CA
Aircraft: DA-42-NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Have you have ever flown or even been in one in flight? I assume that your speed comment of .66 Mach is just a guess, I have nearly 700 hours in them and can say unequivocally that you are wrong.
I also don’t think that they would be the highest selling light jet for the last 4 years being misrepresented as a .78 airplane in the sales literature and only doing .66.
You may want to rethink what you “know”.
Brad At FL450 you are saying it does Mach .76? Or are you saying at the optimal altitude (which is what at what fuel burn?) it has a max cruise of .76? I humbly defer to your experience and am genuinely curious, I should have been more specific "@ FL450 in economy cruise" in my comment. A data point for FL 450 long range cruise (which seems close to Mach .66): https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA ... csheet.pdf
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 27 Sep 2018, 05:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 929
Post Likes: +472
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: C525,C25A,C25C,CL604
|
|
I haven’t flown the 300 but have a bunch the CJ2 and it does .72 all day at FL450. There is no way a 300 is a .66 plane. This blog shows photos at 450 doing .77 http://jetaviva.blogspot.com/2011/01/im ... m-300.htmlAlso FP guide page Andrew
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 27 Sep 2018, 08:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/09
Posts: 1017
Post Likes: +825
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Have you have ever flown or even been in one in flight? I assume that your speed comment of .66 Mach is just a guess, I have nearly 700 hours in them and can say unequivocally that you are wrong.
I also don’t think that they would be the highest selling light jet for the last 4 years being misrepresented as a .78 airplane in the sales literature and only doing .66.
You may want to rethink what you “know”.
Brad At FL450 you are saying it does Mach .76? Or are you saying at the optimal altitude (which is what at what fuel burn?) it has a max cruise of .76? I humbly defer to your experience and am genuinely curious, I should have been more specific "@ FL450 in economy cruise" in my comment. A data point for FL 450 long range cruise (which seems close to Mach .66): https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA ... csheet.pdf
Now you have stated at least some correct information with your qualifying statements:
1. Long Range cruise is .66 but that is a choice, not "normal" cruise power and not limiting
2. Optimum altitude is low 30's - depending on temp typically 300-330. This will give you the highest speed not the optimal fuel burn. Once above that altitude the engines begin to wheeze a bit.
3. The chart posted by Andrew is an ISA chart and it is almost never ISA any more, it is usually ISA+. As I said, at ISA+ @ 400 or 410 (typical cruise altitudes) .75-.76 is very doable. In order to get to MMo which is .78, it will need to be ISA or ISA- at those altitudes.
4. At 450, ISA/ISA- it will be .74-.75, at ISA+ it will be .73-.74 all day long. In the cruise "detent" that will be 131-135 GPH. If it is ISA+ it will be .73-.74 unless it is ISA+++.
The only reason to be at long range cruise, typically, is to avoid a fuel stop. That is where the book is optimistic, you have to be at LRC to get the 1900 NM stated range, no question. I can tell you, 1900 miles in a 300, unless you have 4 pax or less, will not be much fun due to the cabin size - it is a light jet. It can be done, and will do it, I think most would prefer high speed cruise and a fuel stop if you are going 1900 miles.
I hope this helps to clear up to confusion between .66 and .76-.78, depending on the clarifying statements, both can be considered correct.
Brad
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Phenom 300 Posted: 27 Sep 2018, 09:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/01/17
Posts: 64
Post Likes: +32
Location: Irvine, CA
Aircraft: DA-42-NG
|
|
|
Thank you for the info. Multiple people were commenting on the OPs video where the pilot chose FL450 and what appeared to be an economy cruise setting (although later mentioned perhaps it just hadn't sped up yet at altitude).
I'm guessing he down-fueled given the pax and luggage, and was probably trying to be as conservative on fuel as possible, given being new to the airframe, and realistically a minimum 1150-1200 nm leg to an international destination, etc.
One of the things that makes the P300 (and CJ4 and PC24...) so interesting vs some others is that ~2000nm long range capability. I hate fuel stops when on long trips in somewhat of a hurry. They always take longer and can be more hassle than advertised. I would rather do 370-380 ktas and not stop than 430+ ktas and a stop.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
