Phenom and TR's

[rajflyboy]

From what I can tell the phenom has no TR's. What do you think of this? Is it an issue? or not? or is it just pure rinky dink?

I know that TR's are not counted in the stopping distance on most part 25 certificated aircraft.

What about those few days a year with a wet runway, snow covered runway, etc. when it would be really nice to have TR's?

 

[Pervis]

Landing distance at MLW is only 2600 ft, according to Embraer's web site. Even 135 60% margin is only 4300 ft. I have no idea what the contaminated numbers look like, but performance w/o TRs looks pretty good.

 

[jonjuan]

It's another potential maintenance issue with TRs. Don't need really them, although they (ERJ) saved quite a bit of money not putting them on.

 

[Jolimon]

The CJ3 doesn't have them either.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

The CE680 has them and doesn't need them.

 

[Praetorian]

The C-152 doesn't have them either.

 

[jonjuan]

Nor CJ4.

 

[waka]

What in the hell does transformer/rectifiers have to do with stopping distance?!

 

[ProFracPilot]

What in the hell does transformer/rectifiers have to do with stopping distance?!

:laugh:

 

[say again]

Some hawkers don't have them. Really aren't necessary for many aircraft.

 

[rajflyboy]

Until its raining, 10 knot tailwind at kase, ice covered runway thats not reported, brake failure, etc

 

[guido411]

My engines have fire extinguishers. Never have to use them, does that mean they're not needed?

 

[rajflyboy]

My engines have fire extinguishers. Never have to use them, does that mean they're not needed?

Bingo

 

[say again]

deleted

 

[OPECJet]

Until its raining, 10 knot tailwind at kase, ice covered runway thats not reported, brake failure, etc

Don't go there then.

 

[say again]

My engines have fire extinguishers. Never have to use them, does that mean they're not needed?

We are talking about planes that are not equipped with TR's, so you're comparing apples to oranges. There's a reason why some aircraft have no TR's, and that's because they are simply not needed. If you have TR's, use them. I've flown a/c without them and did just fine. (knocks on wood).

 

[rajflyboy]

Don't go there then.

Can you read?

 

[OPECJet]

Can you read?

Can you think?

I'd prefer reversers, but I can live without them.

 

[Pervis]

It's all about economics. Installing several hundred pounds of equipment, hydraulics, cables, and other assorted hardware reduces the useful load on a light jet by more than one pax. yes, TRs are preferable. So would hooks and barriers at every airport. That ain't happening either.

If conditions are not conducive to safe operations, don't go or pick another destination. I've never had a passenger second guess my decision, nor has company given me any backlash.

 

[jonjuan]

It's all about economics. Installing several hundred pounds of equipment, hydraulics, cables, and other assorted hardware reduces the useful load on a light jet by more than one pax. yes, TRs are preferable. So would hooks and barriers at every airport. That ain't happening either.

If conditions are not conducive to safe operations, don't go or pick another destination. I've never had a passenger second guess my decision, nor has company given me any backlash.

A 60 has TRs. A CJ4 doesn't. Which stops in a shorter distance, TRs included?