Talk:Embraer E-Jets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Embraer E-Jets article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Page work 2 Commonality 3 Range mistakes 4 Split? 5 Gallery 6 Engine Thrust Ratings 7 MEI 8 Odd edit summary 9 190

[edit] Page work

This page really could use some work. Does anyone know why all of the E-Jets are lumped into this one page? I think that they are seperate enough aircraft that they could be seperated down to the 170 Series, the 190 Series, and the Lineage. If I could get some input on this, I will start work on the seperate pages. --KPWM_Spotter 19:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The commonality between the aircraft is equivalent to that of the ERJ-135/140/145 and the Airbus A318/319/320/321. These aircraft are not separated by model, so neither is the ERJ-170/175/190/195. This is something that should probably be discussed in the WikiProject Aircraft page.--Dali-Llama 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start up a topic in WikiProject Aircraft about this. --KPWM_Spotter 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the page just underwent a major overhaul. The E-190 section, and the In Service section still need work, so if anyone feels like picking those up before I get back around to it, feel free. Comments on the new design anyone? --KPWM_Spotter 23:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonality

the Embraer website says comonality between 170 and 175 is 100% and 190 and 195 is 100%, and between both groups 86%. perhaps this should be changed, or is this marketing hype from them?

I'm sure that's wrong, as obviously these are different enough to the point of receiving a different model name. If you could point out the specific page where they reference that, it'd be helpful.--Dali-Llama 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that they're 100% common other than the fuselage structure and extra row of seats themselves; all the other parts, including systems, are the same. Other similar jets tend to have a few more differences than just the stretched fuselage. Georgewilliamherbert 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range mistakes

There are some mistakes regarding range (source Embraer website PDF spec sheets) but I cannot edit the page to make the changes.

The range of the 170LR is 2,000nm or 3,706km

The range of the 175LR is 1,900nm or 3,521km

The range of the 190AR is 2,300nm or 4,262km (4,260km is quoted for LR not AR)

The range of the 195AR is 2,100nm or 3,892km (STD and LR might be correct)

Please can someone make changes.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.245.140 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Split?

Now that the bombardier crj articles are split, does anyone feel that there should be separate pages for the -190 and -170 respectively? Planes&mustangs510 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think they are similar enough that they should stay together. They are in the same class as the CRJ700 and 900, which are still on the same pages. - BillCJ 02:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Bill. --Dali-Llama 05:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Bill also. These are a family of planes, with very similar characteristics (i.e. the same fuselage cross-section), and should (IMHO) stay grouped on the same page. Raymondwinn (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Another user deleted one of my E-Jet photos and put in one of their own earlier today. I think instead of this sort of "photo war" it would be better to provide a place for more photos of the various models that this article covers. It may well take a dozen or more photos to capture the final diversity of the E-Jet line and its sub-variants.

The article itself was also getting a bit cluttered with photos. Depending on your personal thumbnail default values the photos were getting pushed down the page quite a bit from the sections they belong with.

To solve both these issues I left one photo of each main family type with the section they illustrate and started a gallery for the rest. I have added a comment on the gallery (only seen upon editing) requesting that new photos be added in model order, to at least give the gallery some organization.

Please have a look and see if you think this is a better solution and will allow more photos to be added without the clutter.

Ahunt 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Galleries are the worst form of clutter. But if you must have them, go ahead. Ewww. - BillCJ 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engine Thrust Ratings

There is a little confusion about the thrust rating of the engines used on these aircraft. One source listed in the article (airliners.net) lists the thrust as 14000 and 18500. The AW&ST article referenced (by me) lists 14200 and 20000. The manufacturer's official website (embraercommercialjets.com) lists two values for each engine: 13800/14200 and 18500/20000. The difference in the Embraer values is whether APR (automatic performance reserve) is being used. The engine is normally rated for the lower value (i.e. 13800 and 18500 pounds), but has demonstrated that (with higher fuel flow) it can produce a higher value for a short time without immediate damage (see the website freepatentsonline.com for an explanation). I usually use the AW&ST quoted ratings in these articles, unless other values are already provided and they can be verified. In this case (Embraer E-jets), the 190 engine thrust was already in the article, and its value was given as 18500 (i.e. without using APR). So I have continued this precedent when providing the data for the 170 engines. I hope this is not too confusing, and acceptable to all. Raymondwinn (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MEI

Since I flew on one, I'm fairly confident that Middle East Airlines needs to be added to the list of current clients flying the E-Jets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.87.86 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then find a reliable reference that says that they are flying it and add them, citing the reference!! - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd edit summary

Does anyone have an idea of what this edit summary by user:63.215.26.172 means? It says, "m- so AIRLINERS.NET is now is the sole source authority, over public perception, manufacturers product placement, industry labor perception and such?" I haven't a clue! Btw, some information on Airliners.net, such as the airliner profiles, is taken from published material, namely the International DIrectory of CIvil Aircraft, with stated permission. Thus information from these sections is permissable to use, properly cited. - BillCJ (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC) - BillCJ (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 190

I have restored the photo of the 190. With this one deleted we would have 4 photos of the 170, 2 of the 195, 2 of the 175 and no pictures of the 190. If some have to go then perhaps there should be fewer 170 photos. This is why I hunted down a PD 190 photo in the first place - we didn't have one of that sub-type. Personally I think that the gallery was a better idea rather than deleting photos.- Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's why I asked - I didn't realize it was the only one of the 190 - not that anyone can tell! ;) I try to spread out the users so as not to favor one airline or nation - the nationalistas can get there nose out of joint if we have too many of their nation's rivals'/neighbors' airlines, but none of their airline! - but I wasn't paying attention to the models. As to removing the gallery, remember that Commons has all these pics too, so the gallery is really redundant, except in cases where they are copyrighted or FU images that can't be placed on Commons. In this case, we had lots of unused space in the operators section, which was my primary reason for removing the gallery - 3 pics in the Gallery just didn't make sense. Later, tho in the same edit session, I found a few in-flight pics, and so I added them in, and then I needed to remove a few pics. Two Air Canada pics (doesn't matter to me the airline or country) didn't seem necessary, esp since the second on wasn't the best image or angle, but silly me forgot to check the model numbers. - BillCJ (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is why using detailed edit summaries is a good idea, especially when dealing with dense editors who don't pay attention to model numbers! - BillCJ (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem - that is why we debate these things! I guess you were looking at airlines, while I was looking at model numbers. Yeah I do agree that all the E-jets do look a lot alike. But then compared to the 1970s, just about all airliners look a lot alike these days! - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)