This is not atypical of most Beechtalk threads and and spun out of control, can we please stop comparing wiener sizes, put them away and provide data to the OP.

Sometimes the OP just wants data relevant to their question without it going into a Chip vs Mike argument.

Thx

Brad

Or data from Mike C even though its off topic. And not penis size either.

Anthony:

I just did a three leg trip in the 300 and thought that I might at least be able to provide fuel burn numbers, maybe give you a idea:

1. Evansville, IN to Eagle, CO - 2:28 air time, 931 miles. 6 minutes total taxi time - 2930 lbs of fuel, 40,000 ft

2. Eagle to Hays, KS - 1:03 airtime, 397 miles, 8 minutes taxi, 1481 lbs of fuel, 35,000 ft

3. Hays to Evansville - 1:26 airtime, 565 miles, 8 minutes taxi, 1820 lbs of fuel, 41,000 ft

Overall, 4:57 if my math is right, 931 gallons, block to block of 187 GPH (rounded to 5 hours) not including the taxi time. The 300 burns 200# per side per hour for taxi.

If you have any questions about the 300 specifically, let me know. I have a little over 2000 hours in the airframe over a lot of different trips. I will run any numbers you want for specific legs..

Brad

Good numbers.

For anyone following along and interested, the P180 fuel planning I have (planned for whatever winds are right now) says 3484 lbs (520 gal) in 5.5 hrs, or 95 GPH. That’s not quite as accurate as measuring reality, but it should be close. Effectively the jet is 200% of the fuel to save 10% of the time, at least on these legs. Time saving would be better if you take a long enough trip to be beyond the range of the P180 but within the range of the jet. These are all aviation truisms, just thought I’d put numbers on this comparison.

I very much want the Op to get the info he asked for, Corey did a masterful job of laying out 525 op cost, I explained that the Phenom cost was harder to map because of the 10 year gear and inspection.

For the record, this is where the thread went off the rails.


Or be involved.

I'm doing a lot better than these numbers despite using more fuel in my V, but I'm very involved in the care of the airplane. If you take the plane to a factory service center and hand them a blank check, it will cost you a lot.

A 172 would cost a lot more to operate if you took it to a Textron service center, too.

I find the cost of operating an airplane seems to be more sensitive to the ecosystem around it than the actual type it is.

Mike C.

I still say Cessna needs a CJ5. Phenom pretty much whips them. Honda’s next? Sure to be much improved version.

Nice to see real world numbers. Jeez those P180 numbers are awesome!. Too bad the company is sorta funky.

And one day maybe we get Mike C’ real numbers. They say the V is hard to beat.

Mike started a new thread:
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=221386

I can't, because the title of the thread includes "operating costs." They're not cheap.

BUT - they do everything extremely well. Long range, strong climbers, great comfort in the front and the rear, huge load haulers, quiet, easy to fly, short fields, good speeds...

Yes, there is a plane that beats them in each one of the things I mentioned above. But no plane beats them in all of those categories. They are exceptionally good all-arounders and the cabin is second to none.

I love my B200, but when people are talking about pinching pennies I have to keep my mouth shut.

The thread is awesome and I am getting info I desired.

Jon C - thanks for reminding me how efficient Piaggio is for my mission!

Mike C - I always appreciate your thoughts and opinions.

I continue to learn more about aviation from the BT brain trust than all other sources combined and love me some good thread drift. Keep it coming.

Fixed it.

I get where you’re coming from but Cessna has skipped over the niche the P300 owns and moved to the Lattitude and Longitude.

The XLS/ XLS+ now Assend is their workhorse closest to the P300 space.

Piaggio isn’t a jet

Turbo prop wise the dispatch rate and build quality on the PC12 blows the doors off the piaggio

But this is about jets

There are pros and cons to the CJ3 and the Phenom 300, I can make a real strong case for either, and unlike most owners / pilots / brokers, we acquire both so I’m really not biased…

To me it’s a question of image, the Phenom 300 has a lot more ramp appeal, it’s a more impressive looking aircraft. If that big airstair and the ramp presence matters… you go Phenom.

If ease of operation and op cost are more important, you go CJ3.

It occurred to me that a couple of photos might go a long way when talking about the difference in ramp appearance and airstairs, here’s a Phenom 300E and a CJ3 that we acquired recently.

PS- that’s our clients Cody and Megan in the Phenom photo… I don’t own any blue sneakers!