Does anyone here have first hand, real world experience with either of these aircraft? Please no "I've heard" or a "friend fly's one". No offence, but I'd like to hear from those that fly them, work on them, and or write the checks to support them.

I'm trying to understand what the realistic performance is for these airplanes. How far with will they go with 4 standard people in them with reasonable bags, and how fast will they get there? How much fuel with it burn typically, 1st hour, 2nd hour, 3 hour, etc?

Dispatch reliability? Do they fly reasonably trouble free between inspections? What have been the sensitive issue?

Anything else you'd like to add?

Cheers!

pilot + 4 pax or 4 souls on board? Reasonable 100lbs total?

How far will they go! Depends on the winds and your alternates and fuel reserves.

Best way to answer your question is setup a fltplan.com account with both aircraft profiles. Their performance models are pretty accurate. Plan some flights for different times of the year and it will give you times and fuel burns.

Yes, they are both pretty trouble free. There are some known weak spots - Phenom 100 has had brake issues. Mustang has had starter/generator issues. Each has an active owners association where you can get more details.

B&CA article about the Mustang - http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES/mustang_article_bca.pdf

B&CA article about the Phenom 100 - http://aviationweek.com/bca/pilot-report-embraer-phenom-100e

First Dibs on the turbine Duke

Quick answer - The 100 will take 4 souls 1,171 nm no wind just like the book says it will. Great plane. Goes between maintenance events like a Honda Accord and has a cabin/baggage that are in another class versus a Mustang. 600 hour airliner like MX schedule. You can have 8 seat belts in a 100. I've heard nothing but good things about Mustangs but don't fly one.

I'll post some numbers later but it's basically 3 hours or so and you're on the ground. You can get 390 knots in the 30's but it will be back to 350 KTAS range at FL410.

First Dibs on the turbine Duke

The Phenom 100 is much larger than the Mustang, feels more polished and more mature. It has a cavernous rear cargo area over the Mustang, able to carry much more storage payload. The bathroom / potty seat makes the Phenom a true 7 place airplane. 4 people plus baggage is no problem. The 3 Prodogy screens are larger screens, the PDFs and MFDs are the same size, than the Mustangs 2 smaller PFDs. Bathroom has a divider, which gives greater privacy.

The Mustang has the same 2+4 club layout, however the potty seat is just behind the pilots seats, with no privacy. (The Phenom is at the rear with the vaneer divider). The 4 place club seats are much tighter than in the Phenom, and pax will play footsie in the middle. Pax will not touch each other in the Phenom. Mustang does not have an aisle. Phenom pax seats will slide sideways into the aisle.

The G1000 in the Mustang is more of a generic implementation, but is more integrated and custom for the Phenom. Phenom is a 374 knots airplane, compared to 340-370 for the Mustang. Both fly smoothly with similar v-speeds, but braking is smoother with the Mustang -- the Phenom brake-by-wire feels more "digital" on/off and can be prone to
"Wing walking" on landing if you're not smooth.

Phenom burns more, needs a larger hangar, and more $$$ for maintenance. Early Phenoms had problems with AC units failing early. Phenoms are more maintenance intensive than Mustangs, i.e. more $$$ to maintain.


Warren

FL 400 ISA+0 getting near the end of the trip. 364 KTAS on 288 PPH/side

The prior posts about using FLTPLAN performance tables (not hour burn) for range comparison is a good recommendation. My trips are very consistent on time and fuel burn to what FLTPLAN projects, however, FLTPLAN also adds an extra 100lbs of fuel for long taxi. I typically end up burning exactly as predicted less the 100lbs for taxi. I don't fly a Mustang but I think it safe to assume the FLTPLAN tables are accurate.

The Phenom book numbers are very accurate. I routinely check my fuel burn, IAS, TAS, and %N1 for a given altitude and ISA and am always at book or better.

When I bought the Phenom we looked at the Mustang and CJ1(M2). The Mustang is a touch slower in the climb and cruise but burns a touch less fuel. The CJ1/M2 is a touch faster in the climb and cruise but burns a touch more fuel. In the end they're all very nice aircraft with short legs. We liked the cabin and roomy cockpit of the Phenom. As I spend most of my time in the pointy end having a comfortable cockpit was very important and the Phenom wins that category. We had a few issues early on but Embraer was very responsive and got them resolved. We've flown for nearly 12 months now without an issue (throwing salt over shoulder ). The brake issue that caused so much bad press has been resolved. The brake by wire is a bit different but effective.

Come on up to the flight levels, the weather is fine

One thing you find out pretty quickly is the Mustang/Phenom/CJ1 are SLOW by jet standards. We frequently get moved out of the way or asked to maintain an airspeed much faster then the barber pole allows.

I have been flying a Mustang since the end of March and have over 100 hours in it to date. Came from a TBM. I would agree with Philip on the comparison. The Mustang is less expensive to buy and operate but the Phenom is certainly more plane from a ramp appeal and cabin standpoint.

Mustang range is 1000 nm no wind, 340 KIAS in the mid 30's. At FL 380-390 I see 320 KIAS on 85 to 90 mph.

The G1000 integration is excellent and the plane is very easy single pilot. I'm sure the Phenom is also. Very well designed plane.

As Philip says, both are slow by jet standards. There is always something faster and bigger! But I never expected to own a plane at all, much less jet, so it's all relative.

Thank you all for the input. this is the stuff I was looking for.

Regarding the maint intervals. It's my understanding that the Phenom is on a 600hr maint interval. Is this 600 hrs nothing in between, and not on a calendar such as 600hrs or 12 mos whichever comes first?

Embrear did a great job aligning the maintenance schedules. As you probably know the maintenance is on time and cycles and some calendar. However, they aligned most inspections such that the typical owner flown jet is only down once per year for basically an annual. I have a picture of the maintenance events from the last user conference. I will send it when I can locate it.

Embrear did a great job aligning the maintenance schedules. As you probably know the maintenance is on time and cycles and some calendar. However, they aligned most inspections such that the typical owner flown jet is only down once per year for basically an annual. I have a picture of the maintenance events from the last user conference. I will send it when I can locate it.

I flew an E50P when they were first introduced. Having come from a career in Gulfstreams
maybe I expected too much. The brakes, which I guess, have been fixed were absolutely
the worst ever. The were no speed brakes, ground spoilers or any type of thrust attenuation. Wet stopping distances were enormous. The airplane was like a lawn dart.

There were engine corrosion issues that required repetitive compressor washes. P&W was very difficult to deal with on warranty issues. This lack of warranty coverage goes back to the early 70s. I still get a bad taste in my mouth over their lack of responsibility.

Pressurization was fine and never had an issue. G1000 was great.

Heated DV windows were fine, but no heat on the side windows rendered them useless
in hot and humid ops. Air conditioning and heat were marginal and cold feet were the norm especially at night. Main gear alignment issues caused premature tire wear.

I thought this airplane would have been a great retirement job-part time. I was wrong. In the end I gave up on the toy jet. it just was not a real go most of the time airplane.