Phenom and TR's

[Pervis]

A 60 has TRs. A CJ4 doesn't. Which stops in a shorter distance, TRs included?

You tell me-I have no idea. Also compare usefull loads, range, etc. Which one would be more affected by adding a couple hundred pounds more equipment? And how many corporate jets include TRs in landing distance computations? What's the cost with or without? Point is, EMB 300 does just fine in most airports any fractional goes. Even with Part 135 planning restrictions. In the minds of both sides of the equation, both parties really don't have an issue with lack of TRs.

One can argue all jets should have at least 3 engines to avoid second segment issues at places like Aspen, Eagle or Telluride. OEMs like to sell more jets, while pax like to buy more bang for the buck. There is a cut off for extra expense that all are willing to accept.

 

[minitour]

I would have loved TRs a few months back in the Cj2. Sure, we stopped in time...but it was way closer than I like it to be. TRs "probably" would have helped. That said, we can put 1102# on the plane (pax + bags) before we hit MZFW. Toss even 150# of TR equipment into the mix and it's even worse.

Our dry landing distance at typical landing weights is in the 2800' range. When the runway gets contaminated it goes up significantly from there. But if we don't have enough runway for the book numbers, we don't go.

Put me in the "they would be nice and I'd love to have them, but aren't really necessary" camp. While we're at it...get those damn Thrust Attenuator paddles off of the back, too. They're nothing but a maintenance hog and a way to keep the brakes cool for taxi. Give me a lower idle and less hydraulic crap to break.

-mini