I don’t know if my answers will be different but here they are:

1. Bombardier is their one and only competitor with the Canadair CRJ.

2. The next commercial boom after the completion of the 50 seat passenger jet era is the 75-100 seat jet. As we know, Embraer has announced it’s plans to develop aircraft to meet that need. I don’t think they’ll produce anything bigger beyond that, as there won’t be a need to with such a large market share of the 50-100 seat aircraft.

3. No need for anything larger now or in the future in my opinion.

4. For the EMB-170, the only competitor is the CRJ-700 which won’t stand up as well against the Embraer product. Beyond the EMB-170 the only competition is as ACA345 said, the Boeing 717 and Airbus 318 (with the A318 being the bigger threat). The EMB-170/190 family will have a great interest to those smaller companies who are looking for flexibility in a growing industry. There’s a good chance that a common type rating will be issued for the EMB-170/190 which will greatly benefit a company operating on “thinner” routes. The A318 on the other hand benefits those larger companies that are trying to get into smaller markets. It has the same benefit with the universal type rating for the A320 family but it only works for larger operators. So what’s my point? I don’t see the A318 being as much as a competitor to the EMB-170/190 as it seems to be. They might fit the same market but they’re competing for different types of airlines.

Originally posted by robc
If i remember its for the space station so that the astronuats have a vehicle to come back down in or along those lines…

It’s the X-38, a lifeboat for the ISS. I visited Houston last summer and got to see the manufacturing hangar at the Johnson Space Center. I don’t own a scanner so I can’t share my pictures but here’s a picture from NASA. It’s the 2/3rd scale test bed.

United 232 is an amazing story as well. After DC-10’s number 2 engine threw a compressor disc it lost all hydraulics forcing the crew to fly my differential thrust alone. It’s a miracle that everyone wasn’t killed. The story is an excellent example of great CRM.

Re: Re: I need an accident to write about.

Originally posted by Jeanske_SN
houw couldnt you notice that you are 200 feet above the ground? :confused: :confused:

At 23:30 hours over the featureless Everglades you’d have trouble telling if you were at 500′ or 5000′.

Here’s a great website about EAL 401.

http://www.geocities.com/donuts13/

.

yes.

Originally posted by wysiwyg
A further interesting bit of info – on the 757 (and presumably all jets with underslung wing engines) we only use reverse idle until the nosewheel is on the ground to avoid the reverse thrust rapidly pitching the aircraft nose down and damaging the nose gear.

The reverse is true for rear mounted engines. It’s advisable to avoid reverse thrust before the nose is on the ground as it will raise the nose since the thrust vector is aft of the main gear. As I stated before, the first versions of the ERJ had logic to prevent anything other than idle thrust with the reverser deployed until the nose was on the ground. It seems at some point that logic was altered as I talked to several pilots who were alarmed to find the nose rising on them in the touchdown after they deployed the buckets. Embraer did change the logic on us with no one knowing about it.