Having sat in one last week, I cant help but be really impressed with the Phenom. Its a big little jet and anybody who picks a mustang over it (notwithstanding the extra $400k) is nuts.
Regarding this "extra" performace are we not gettting confused with pre first flight pledges against certified data. I'd like to think that what the book says is exactly what it will do, no more no less, it would be unusual for the manufacturer to put 2000 hrs on a pair of test frames and not spot a little extra performace that operators have found having put a couple of hundred hours on them. I doubt the FAA/EASA would allow a 5% innaccuracy good or bad in the data
Its also not unusual for FADEC engines to give a little extra thrust at ISA + 1 or +2 as opposed to the ISA figures which are commonly quoted beefing up the rumours that its better than book.
5% seems a little too good to be true from testing to line flying, but from design to certification would seem a little more believable
2 mins on google found this
Embraer seems to have quite a bit to crow about when its pledges for the Phenom 100 are examined against the actual airplane. An Embraer spokesman said the company promised customers a 380-knot aircraft capable of 1,160 nm of range at 41,000 feet, plus a landing distance of 3,000 feet. When it was certified, the Phenom came in at 390 knots and 1,178 nm with a 2,699-foot landing roll. Block fuel for a 1,000-nm trip was initially planned at 1,960 pounds but by certification had dropped to 1,889 pounds. The Phenom’s capacity for baggage is 25 percent higher than originally planned.
Great aircraft by all accounts, whatever the story with the performance