Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[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...

 

[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.