Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[Dangerkitty]

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...

I agree with Falcon Captain. That is impossible to save that much fuel in the climb.

By the way ERJ-140 do you even know what you typed? I doubt it.

 

[G100driver]

Thank-you, $hitcan Fan. I must admit, however, that for a guy who claims not to fly one, you sure appear to have a very detailed answer.

I will leave to other people to punch holes in this. I know very little about this airplane (this is fine as well)

 

[corp_da20_guy]

Thank-you, $hitcan Fan. I must admit, however, that for a guy who claims not to fly one, you sure appear to have a very detailed answer.

I will leave to other people to punch holes in this. I know very little about this airplane (this is fine as well)

I agree G100...he has said in the past he doesn't fly one yet he has access to very detailed flight planning information. That's be like me being able to pull a detailed flight plan for a G550/GLEX within the next 5 minutes...ain't gonna happen CAUSE I DON"T FLY ONE. He appearantly flies the WSCofD...PLAIN & SIMPLE!!!

 

[ERJ-140]

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.
...

<Deleted because we have heard this before at least twice.>

GV

Once again your desire to pounce on me overreaches itself.

I was -not- referring to anything posted by you, GV. I did not respond to anything by you. I was referencing an earlier post (probably 25 pages back) that stated an American Eagle crew encountered flutter during normal operations in cruise flight. This is mythology. I merely explained the actual cause of the supposed "flutter" on an EMB-145 in line service at AE. A member of this board who is no fan of me even said I was correct in that assertion.

Please read before you pounce.

As for climb burn... As stated...the climb numbers factor in a 400 pound bias against the airplane. In actual conditions a crew can save one to two thousand pounds over estimated burn by climbing at a higher rate instead of a higher speed. The original EMB climb profiles were based upon roughly 200 knots not 290. The 290 climb profiles severly and horribly affect fuel burn on the Legacy. Climbing at a higher rate, not speed, saves a great deal of fuel.

Assuming a 400 pound bias, you can save 600 pounds over flight plan at a minimum by climbing to FL240 at the highest rate possible then climb at a higher than planned rate to FL380/390. The ERJ will probably show similar numbers. Also the climb profile is based on CLB thrust mode not "E CLB". "E CLB" will get you to FL300ish much faster than CLB will.

Poke holes in anything you wish, but please at least understand the context of the assertions before poking. Thanks.

 

[ERJ-140]

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...

1000-1800lbs over flight planned burn. Depending on weight and rate of climb. Using 240 will put you closer to 1000 lb savings. Going 200 will push you the other way. The plane has a thick wing. Going fast down low is not a good idea if you want to save gas.

 

[G100driver]

Ironic how a guy who flies a Falcon know this much about a WSCofD. The only thing I know about the thing is what I see on this board. For all I know, these postings are made by a 12 year old.

 

[O-Line]

A Captain I once knew taught me how to use the emb radar when I was a pup. He was brilliant and showed me how to do it right. People who flew with him never had trouble with the radar or thunderstorms. It certainly doesn't behave like a 737 or Falcon radar that is an absolute fact. If you operate it like one you can and will get bit. I have a feeling that's what got you kitty. All the training in the world is useless if it is the wrong kind.

That dude's name wasn't Zack was it?

It all depends on how you use it. I flew with a Captain named Zach who was the best in the world at using the Embraer radar. This guy could tell within seconds how long it would take for the rain to stop (even in EXTREMELY heavy, super attenuating rain). I learned more from flying with him in three days than in two years previous. He was/is a master.

Needless to say, I am very confident in the EMB radar, even though it could use some improvement.

 

[bigD]

Heh. BUSTED!

 

[Raskal]

Wasn't this thread started in like '99 ...I can't believe it's still going

 

[Dangerkitty]

That dude's name wasn't Zack was it?

ERJ-140,

You have been asked time after time after time to please answer some very basic questions about the B-737 and the Falcon 50. Since you are typed in both it should be no problem for you. Answer them now please.

Your silence speaks volumes.