Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[ERJ-140]

$hitcan fan, I have a real question for you. Yesterday in TEB runway 1/19 was closed. This obviously leaves 6/24 as the only option for take-off and landing. To make matters worse, at least for operators of aircraft that lack runway performance, it was 32/C.

My question is this, can you take a plane load of people to the West Coast? If so, at what speed and what are your Balanced Field T/O numbers. BTW the 2000EX is 5300' and speed is whatever we feel like given turb. ect.

I am honestly interested. Thanks for your time on this.

For an exact answer, would you have the winds available or should I presume calm? I'll get you an answer but "need the infoooooooooooo" (apologies to Austin Powers).

 

[ERJ-140]

Most of us responding to this rubbish are Professional Pilots and we are all quite aware of required MX for aircraft. But thanks for reminding us of what is commonplace when operating a jet.

Well considering the big stink over a Legacy in MX I just presumed some folks (not all) were ignorant of routine inspections. I will also admit that my underrstanding is all airplanes have different schedules when it comes to required inspections so thought being specific regarding why the plane was in the hangar would be of interest.

 

[bigD]

Just assume calm.

We'll wait while you fly the route on Flight Simulator 2004 and give us the results.

 

[Dangerkitty]

For an exact answer, would you have the winds available or should I presume calm? I'll get you an answer but "need the infoooooooooooo" (apologies to Austin Powers).

Bad Andy just gave the answers. He has as much Legacy time as anyone on the planet.

Thanks but no thanks. I would rather get my answers from a professional rather than an ignorant douche.

 

[AA717driver]

Thanks, Big D, Andy and Kitty! The rest of us appreciate you taking the fight to $h!tcan Man so the rest of us can take a couple of days off.

We'll be back in the fight on Saturday so you get weekends off... TC

 

[Bad-Andy]

Thanks, Big D, Andy and Kitty!

No worries... Some of the claims being made on here are a little on the crazy side of the fence. The Legacy is a good airplane, for what it was designed for. But, it certainly is no Gulfstream. (He!! even the G1 I flew had a more comfortable cabin than the Legacy...) It is a terrible airplane to fly any kind of distance in, especially trans-con or across the pond(s) (I know, I did enough of both...). For crying out loud, I can't even stand up in it (and I'm not THAT tall...). It is painful to not be able to stretch for 6 or 7 hours at a time... Again, it is a good a/c for what it's made for, and it isn't too bad to fly (if you have long runways with no terrain near them), but I'd still fly a G, or a Falcon, or a Challenger any day of the week, given the choice.

You know in 900+ posts, I'm surprised no one mentioned the most important part of the arguement... The pay. A G/DA/CL driver will always make more than an EMB guy, just by the basic economics of supply and demand (there are only a few corp. EMB jobs and TONS of type rated, qualified guys for it, and just the opposite for the other types...).

BA <--- EMB free for 65 days...

 

[ERJ-140]

Oh my word. Just spent forty minutes typing this stuff in and it disappeared.

One second.

 

[ERJ-140]

Thanks, Big D, Andy and Kitty! The rest of us appreciate you taking the fight to $h!tcan Man so the rest of us can take a couple of days off.

We'll be back in the fight on Saturday so you get weekends off... TC

Another failure to believe the truth...

Andy clearly doesn’t know squat about Legacy performance if he claims a fuel stop is required – it is not.

$hitcan fan, I have a real question for you. Yesterday in TEB runway 1/19 was closed. This obviously leaves 6/24 as the only option for take-off and landing. To make matters worse, at least for operators of aircraft that lack runway performance, it was 32/C.

My question is this, can you take a plane load of people to the West Coast? If so, at what speed and what are your Balanced Field T/O numbers. BTW the 2000EX is 5300' and speed is whatever we feel like given turb. ect.

I am honestly interested. Thanks for your time on this.

G100, here you go, sir:

Embraer EMB-135BJ Legacy AOM Volume 1 and GDC/APG Data (Bias Against the Aircraft is 400lbs in climb and 3% for cruise) :


KTEB-KSFO (ALT OAK)

(KTEB-ELIOT-J60-DBL-J80-OAL.MOD2-KSFO)

Runway 01/19 KTEB CLOSED

Temp – 32 Degrees F
Wind – Calm
Runway Length – 6,001 Feet
Balanced Field Length – 6,000 Feet
MTOW – 49,242 R (Runway Length Limited)

BOW – 29,700
Useful Load – 19,542
MTOW – 49242

Average Wind – 29 Knots Headwind (239T / 040)
Time Enroute – 5+41
Cruise Profile – Max Speed Cruise
Burn – 13,967
Min Fuel – 16,458
Passengers (13 @ 200 lbs/each) – 2,600
Cargo – 484

Climb is based on 240 KIAS to 10,000 and 290 to .70 above 10,000. Climb at 240 to FL 240 can save 1000 to 1800 lbs above flight plan calculations.

FL380 Cruise Speed (According to AOM Volume 1 - Actual results may vary and I hope I looked up the right table for the A1E and not the A1P!) Note:

46,000 lbs – 0.774M (444 KTAS) – Approximate Level Off Weight
40,000 lbs – 0.790M (453 KTAS)
38,000 lbs – 0.793M (455 KTAS)

Mach 0.80 at FL380 = 459 KTAS

0.78 Mach Cruise in lieu of Max Speed Cruise saves approximately 50 lbs/hr/engine
0.74 Mach Cruise in lieu of Max Speed Cruise saves approximately 100-200 lbs/hr/engine

____

So, assuming no typos you have the proof before you. The airplane could go to SFO (or SMO - I just checked that, too 5+27 Enroute) off of KTEB 06/24.

I would think taking 13 pax would be rare, but definitely doable.

Thank you for the civilized tone in the question.

- S-Can-Fan

 

[GVFlyer]

Did some digging today regarding the supposed "Tail Flutter" issue on the EMB-145 and talked to a guy who was involved in troubleshooting that problem. It was -not- tail flutter. It was an issue with the outlet for the anti-ice on the horizontal stab causing vibration through the elevator. It was corrected by changing the port and a few other minor tweaks. Thus the "tail flutter tale" is just more mythology.

I am not conversant with the EMB-145 certification test program, but I am knowledgeble concerning the EMB-135 certification test program. To assert that the FAA test pilots from the Atlanta ACO could not discern flutter in the unboosted elevator controls on the EMB-135 from a bleed air leak is clearly absurd and demonstrates a lack of knowlege as to how these tests are conducted and as to how the aircraft are instrumented to record the results of these tests.

Once again, here is how Mmo on the EMB-135 was determined.

First the applicable portion of Part 25:

(b) Aeroelastic stability envelopes. The airplane must be designed to be free from aeroelastic instability for all configurations and design conditions within the aeroelastic stability envelopes as follows:

(1) For normal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, all combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the VD/MD versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude. In addition, a proper margin of stability must exist at all speeds up to VD/MD and, there must be no large and rapid reduction in stability as VD/MD is approached. The enlarged envelope may be limited to Mach 1.0 when MD is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes...


Next....what happened during test...



What's key here is that 15% speed margin increase required by paragragh B.(1). The FAA test pilots encountered elevator flutter in the unboosted elevator flight controls at M 0.92. Flutter is dangerous because it is a destructive mode. Test pilots at Gulfstream get a bonus for doing flutter testing, even though no one has actually encountered flutter during a Gulfstream Developmental Test and Certification program. However, here's how the M0.80 Mmo for the EMB-135 was established. You must have a 15% margin between constant Mach number and flutter. M 0.80 X 1.15 (a 15% increase)= M 0.92 - the speed at which the FAA test pilots encountered flutter!


GV

 

[banned username 2]

Climb is based on 240 KIAS to 10,000 and 290 to .70 above 10,000. Climb at 240 to FL 240 can save 1000 to 1800 lbs above flight plan calculations.

Waving the BS flag here... You are trying to tell us that climbing from 10,000 ft to FL240 at 240 KIAS vs. 290 KIAS is going to save 1000-1800 lbs????? That is a 14,000 ft climb, at those altitudes it shouldn't take even the WSCofD any more than 12 minutes to accomplish (a real airplane will easily do it in under 5 minutes), there is no way in he!! you are going to SAVE 1000-1800 lbs of fuel in a 14,000 ft climb by adjusting your speed in that range...