In response to respond to Networ-King's statements concerning the 145:
I fly the 145. Apparently you did too. I will admit that the airplane is not in the same class as the Airbus. However, the plane is not the "Beer can" POS that some people imply that it is.
The engines could definitely use some more climb thrust between FL180 and FL310. Interestingly, the engineers have programmed the FADEC's to hold N1 more or less steady, down in the high 80's, between those altitudes and then suddenly increase the N1 values above FL310 substantially. Therefore, above FL310, the airplane will easily hold 1000 fpm all the way up to FL370, the service ceiling, while climbing at .77. However, first one must struggle to get the airplane through FL310 at a reasonable speed - I'll start off at 300 Knots and about 1000 fpm, slowing to about 270 to hold that same 1000 fpm up at FL310. So, yea, the airplane does not perform in the climb relative to the Airbuses or the Boeings, but compared to other aircraft in the plane's category, it does just fine.
In terms of speed, while it doesn't do .80 like the bus, it will cruise at .78 at any weight and at any altitude. That's not bad for the short missions it typically flies. And its normal cruise speed is faster than the normal cruise speed of the CRJ 100's and 200's (I know, I know - their limits are higher than that, but I also know from talking to friends of mine who fly those airplanes that their normal cruise speed is somewhere around .75). It's all relative anyway. The .80 speed of an A-320 or B-757 is relatively slow compared to the Long-range birds like the 747, 777, and A-340, which cruise at .85 or so.
It DOES have a loud cockpit. However, from what I've been told, the Biz jet version of the airplane has a very quiet cockpit supposedly comparable to the 757. I've been told that the noise is mostly a function of the amount of, or lack of, cockpit sound insulation installed at the behest of regional airline managements trying to save a buck everywhere.
The radar is limited due to its 12-inch dish. If the airplane didn't have such a pointy little nose, they could've gotten a bigger dish in there. Supposedly Embraer is, or was, working on retrofitting larger dishes to the airplanes but the airlines (my airline at least) are not willing to ante up the extra dough for the retrofit in these tough economic times.
Honeywell is only now finally getting a handle on some of the autoflight system bugs, like capturing the localizer with a 1/4 scale offset every time and then correcting the offset quite aggressively after a 20 second delay. The latest EICAS software update, 18.5, eliminates that glitch, among other things. As far as the cockpit being "dirty", I'm not really sure what is meant by that. The overhead panel looks like a Boeing product - because Embraer went to Boeing and asked them to help design the systems and systems interface, i.e. - the overhead panel. It is very user friendly. The Universal UNS-1K FMS's that our airline has installed are easy to use and fairly capable. While there are a few functions that I would like to see added, I am happy with the boxes overall. They make my life much easier.
The airplane's handling characteristics are fine, IMO. Granted, I have not flown the Boeing or Airbus products but the Embraer is a nice flying airplane. It goes where you point it. It exhibits very little Dutch roll. It lands very nicely and easily, even in rough weather. In short, it is an easy airplane to fly.
The airplane is small - what can I say. It's true. However, once again, size is all relative. The Bus is tiny compared to any widebody. However it doesn't serve the same mission as the widebodies out there. Same idea for the Embraer. While it would be nice to have a larger cabin, for what it does - 45 minute to 2-hour legs max - the cabin is adequate. The new generation of Embraers solves the size problem however.
As far as durability, I'll simply offer up the fact that the fuselage is directly descended from the EMB-120 Brasilia, which started service in the mid 80's. Many of those airplanes, which have led a tough commuter life down in the weather and have endured many more landings than any comparably aged big jet are still serving day in and day out 16+ years after they entered service. Many of these same aircraft are now being retrofitted for new careers as cargo haulers. So anyone who says the airplanes are poorly built "throw away" beer cans is simply misinformed. Its extended service record speaks for itself.
IMO, I think the biggest stigma this airplane carries is that it was designed and built in Brazil. The overall feeling seems to be "How could those third world Brazilians possibly make a decent airplane? They are obviously inferior to us in the 'First World'". Just listen to the derogatory nickname used for the airplane - Jungle Jet. The implication is that natives from the jungles of Brazil somehow decided to wander out of their forest and build an airplane.
I certainly do not think that the 145 is the greatest jet ever built, far from it, (for that matter, neither is the Airbus) but I also do not feel that it is nearly the piece of junk that some people say it is. Overall, it is a fine bird and I am happy to fly the thing.
