ERJ-140
Whistling $-Can-Fan :)
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Posts
- 170
I guess I am now the third (?) peson to be incorrectly accused of being LegacyDriver? Were I he I would have come up with a more original nickname to hide my identity - like "StickShaker" or "EGPWizzard").
Whoosh goes objectivity!
I am not he (thank God), but I think I will pack my things up and exit this discussion. From my perspective using the "LegacyDriver" argument is much like using the "Hitler/Nazi" argument. When one is losing a debate they'll pull that trump card out of their hat and any hope of a sane discussion quickly disappears.
I sense the rational tone evaporating shortly.
The following is not an attempt to nudge it that direction, but I can feel the heat of the flames already.
The thread's primary debators have not even established a true baseline upon which to objectively discuss the airplane in question. The data being quoted is in dispute. That is quite clear. I would think that if a Legacy is so poor an airplane then use the best numbers available - i.e. those most favorable to it - in order to evaluate it. It is quite clear that the Gulfstream numbers used are most favorable to it coming from a man who is arguably one of their test pilots. To use the best numbers for yourself and the worst for your competition is automatically an unbalanced playing field. All the data I have managed to find - which shows a more up-to-date acquisition of information - exceeds C&DD for the Legacy. Why are some afraid to simply accept that as factual for the sake of the argument? If Embraer were lying about their performance numbers would they not be liable as well? I would think it was a bit more important for the manufacturer to get its numbers correct. Needless to say, nothing I have seen anywhere other than C&DD shows the 3,050NM max. range that was quoted earlier.
On fuel burn alone the Legacy beats the G-350 by 27.7% per hour. And we all know Legacy pilots make much less (being the second class citizens they are treated like here is that surprising to anyone?). EMB parts are cheaper (being made out of tin foil and such), too, so how can the G-350 even approach 25% much less 7%? It defies the laws of physics in my mind.
Cost per mile numbers claimed by Embraer take into account the difference in speed, by the way, and Embraer claims a huge savings over G-Anything. I have yet to hear the cost of MX and parts replacement addressed either, but based on discussions, Gulfstream parts cost a great deal more. Also I am told Embraer's "on condition" engine replacement program is also cheaper based on how it is "charged" to the customer - based on hour credits and other things - to the point that Embraer is claiming a 40% operating savings over a G-350. I am still waiting to hear if my fuel burn calculation is anywhere near reality. Paying $5 a gallon for fuel makes that a very significant number I would think.
Six million bucks is a lot of coin, too, so I don't know that throwing money at something necessarily makes it better.
But digression is not in order so to the point.
As noted previously (to AcroChick) this thread is merit-less, especially when the principles involved can't refrain from name-calling, insults, dog-piling, personal attacks, and accusations-of-identity-theft that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. It seems difficult for people to maintain a civil tone where Embraer is concerned which I find quite puzzling to say the least. Are they such a dire threat to Gulfstream and Falcon that one has to resort to denegration of Embraer and their supporters? (They're Brazilians, after all. Perhaps you don't like brown-skinned folks, is that it? Or is this a classic "you're-a-Nazi" argument and these evil Brazilians are actually descendants of Nazis and are thus to be despised? Help a guy out here I'm trying to understand the hatred, honestly.)
(And yes, I have a sense of humor - I think I am the only person here who actually took the thread title for the tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor that it was.)
Enjoy yourselves, kids! Toodle-loo!
Whoosh goes objectivity!
I am not he (thank God), but I think I will pack my things up and exit this discussion. From my perspective using the "LegacyDriver" argument is much like using the "Hitler/Nazi" argument. When one is losing a debate they'll pull that trump card out of their hat and any hope of a sane discussion quickly disappears.
I sense the rational tone evaporating shortly.
The following is not an attempt to nudge it that direction, but I can feel the heat of the flames already.
The thread's primary debators have not even established a true baseline upon which to objectively discuss the airplane in question. The data being quoted is in dispute. That is quite clear. I would think that if a Legacy is so poor an airplane then use the best numbers available - i.e. those most favorable to it - in order to evaluate it. It is quite clear that the Gulfstream numbers used are most favorable to it coming from a man who is arguably one of their test pilots. To use the best numbers for yourself and the worst for your competition is automatically an unbalanced playing field. All the data I have managed to find - which shows a more up-to-date acquisition of information - exceeds C&DD for the Legacy. Why are some afraid to simply accept that as factual for the sake of the argument? If Embraer were lying about their performance numbers would they not be liable as well? I would think it was a bit more important for the manufacturer to get its numbers correct. Needless to say, nothing I have seen anywhere other than C&DD shows the 3,050NM max. range that was quoted earlier.
GVFlyer said:
On fuel burn alone the Legacy beats the G-350 by 27.7% per hour. And we all know Legacy pilots make much less (being the second class citizens they are treated like here is that surprising to anyone?). EMB parts are cheaper (being made out of tin foil and such), too, so how can the G-350 even approach 25% much less 7%? It defies the laws of physics in my mind.
Cost per mile numbers claimed by Embraer take into account the difference in speed, by the way, and Embraer claims a huge savings over G-Anything. I have yet to hear the cost of MX and parts replacement addressed either, but based on discussions, Gulfstream parts cost a great deal more. Also I am told Embraer's "on condition" engine replacement program is also cheaper based on how it is "charged" to the customer - based on hour credits and other things - to the point that Embraer is claiming a 40% operating savings over a G-350. I am still waiting to hear if my fuel burn calculation is anywhere near reality. Paying $5 a gallon for fuel makes that a very significant number I would think.
Six million bucks is a lot of coin, too, so I don't know that throwing money at something necessarily makes it better.
But digression is not in order so to the point.
As noted previously (to AcroChick) this thread is merit-less, especially when the principles involved can't refrain from name-calling, insults, dog-piling, personal attacks, and accusations-of-identity-theft that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. It seems difficult for people to maintain a civil tone where Embraer is concerned which I find quite puzzling to say the least. Are they such a dire threat to Gulfstream and Falcon that one has to resort to denegration of Embraer and their supporters? (They're Brazilians, after all. Perhaps you don't like brown-skinned folks, is that it? Or is this a classic "you're-a-Nazi" argument and these evil Brazilians are actually descendants of Nazis and are thus to be despised? Help a guy out here I'm trying to understand the hatred, honestly.)
(And yes, I have a sense of humor - I think I am the only person here who actually took the thread title for the tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor that it was.)
Enjoy yourselves, kids! Toodle-loo!
Last edited:
