Wikipedia

Talk:Embraer E-Jet family/Archive 1

< Talk:Embraer E-Jet family
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Okerefalls in topic How Brasilian is it?
Archive 1

Page work

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Commonality

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Range mistakes

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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).

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Split?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Engine Thrust Ratings

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

MEI

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Odd edit summary

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

190

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)
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)

Substitution of images

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg was substituted twice for the existing Image:EmbraerERJ190-100IGWC-FHNP.jpg with no explanation given. As described above the images in this article have been negotiated to specifically represent aircraft of different sub-models, etc. If any editors see the need to delete existing images and replace them with their own, please discuss it here first so a consensus can be gained. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the photo (It's a flickr image) which I used to replace your photo. I see that you have the issue of having your photo removed. All the both photos are displaying is the Embraer ERJ 190-100 IGW in which it still does. The image that I replaced was low res and the new image is a larger res and a better image of the Embraer ERJ 190-100 IGW aircraft. Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The photo you deleted was specifically taken for this article, which is why it is there. The issue is with editors arbitrarily deleting images with no explanation and no discussion. I have invited other editors for WikiProject Aircraft to participate in this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Last time I looked Wikipedia is free to be edited by anyone. "The photo you deleted was specifically taken for this article" Which was taken and uploaded by yourself and seem to have an ownership of the image. Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I took the image and it was specifically taken to illustrate this article, but as you can see it was released to the Public Domain, so I do not own the rights to it, it is no longer "my" image. Let's see which image other editors prefer for the article and build a consensus that way. I can certainly provide a higher res version of the original image to Commons if that is the sole concern. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's in the Public Domain doesn't mean that you don't own the image. You took it and uploaded it. I've got no issues if you have a better image that shows the whole aircraft then the image which only shows part of it. Bidgee (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, you should both ignore accusations of ownership, which image was here first, which is higher-resolution, and which was "taken specifically for this article". The only debate to be had is "which image is the better one for the article?". Sniping at each other is not going to help. Merely state your cases as to which is the better image and, if agreement is not to be had, perhaps wait for input from other editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. It doesn't matter which image remains in the article in the meantime; no-one will come to harm should the "wrong" image be left in until this is resolved. I urge both of you to refrain from replacing the image until then. All the best, Steve T • C 12:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I have invited input from other editors on this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The original image is low-res, and not very clear. However, the aircraft in the second image is a bit small in the picture itself, even at 300px. I've found an image, Image:Aerolitoral Embraer ERJ-190AR (ERJ-190-100 IGW) XA-ZLI.jpg, which is high-res, a close-up, and not an Air Canada aircraft. Siince AirCan is in the Lead spot already, will this image of an AeroMexico aircraft be sufficient? Please note that I have only added it to the article as a demonstration - I'm not going to restore it if its removed at this point. - BillCJ (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Bill: I thought your "third" image "Image:Air-Canada-Embraer-190-YVR.jpg" had some merit and was better than the one it replaced "Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg" which is a high-aspect ratio photo and doesn't fit the other image aspect ratios on the page. It also is a tail-shot and doesn't allow readers to compare the various models.
The current one "Image:Aerolitoral Embraer ERJ-190AR (ERJ-190-100 IGW) XA-ZLI.jpg" is not an ERJ-190, despite the name on the file. I think it is a member of the Embraer ERJ 145 family instead. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I rather Image:Air-Canada-Embraer-190-YVR.jpg image which is now currently used. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Argh!!!!!!! I should never do this before mu breakfast! I've restored the third one, and I'll make sure the A-M image is in the right cat on Commons! - BillCJ (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No sweat that is why we have many eyes on this project! The current image isn't bad. The current debate here to find the "best image for this article" is worthwhile, but there is a larger issue around image deletions which I will take up on a WikiProject Aircraft talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really relevant but XZ-ZLI is a ERJ-145LU (msn 145420), I have corrected the description on commons. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article doesn't seem to say anywhere the difference between the 170 and 175 or 190 and 195, just the number of orders for each (except in the specs table at the bottom - the info should be in text somewhere as well). DB (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you fly E-Jets, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!

Code Result
|{{User:Ahunt/Ejets}}
 This user flies an E-Jet.
 Usage

-Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Air France

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would appear Air France are using the 190's as I have just had a ticket booked with them and its for a 190, though the article does not reflect this. Does anyone with more knowledge on the matter want to update the article with Air France's stock of these aircraft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They are already listed as Régional Compagnie Aérienne Européenne, they are not Air France aircraft just pretending to be as part of a franchise operation. They are painted in Air France colours (normally Air France Regional) as well but should have the real operator in small print on the ticket somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Variants

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Normally the variants section would deal with the history and differences between different versions,the variant section in this article appears to be another version of the operators article. Suggest that other than the first customer the mention of other customers should not really be in the variants section. Just looking for constructive comments. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the variants section has really got off-course here, probably due to a bit of over-enthusiasm for specific airlines. I agree that it should just deal with the changes between the aircraft and perhaps mention the launch customer, while other operators should be left to the operators section. The operators section itself is getting a bit long and confused, too. Perhaps it needs to be reorganized by variant within the operators section or even split off into a new article.- Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
OK I have created List of Embraer E-Jets operators just need to prune this article next. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The new article looks good! Very tidy! I agree that the next stage is to remove the duplicate info from this one. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to propose the external link: http://www.myairlease.com/resources/orders_deliveries_prices. I appreciate that the link leads to a commercial website but I think it can be added because of the following:

1. Many aircraft pages have valid external links to commercial websites. The A380 page for example has a link entitled “Everything about the A380 at FlightGlobal.com”. Clearly, this page provides very useful data on the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore flightglobal.com or return to Wikipedia. Similarly, the proposed link provides the list price, current orders, deliveries, market values and lease rates of the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore myairlease.com or return to Wikipedia.

2. The information provided in this link is very useful, highly specialized, continuously monitored for currency and rather difficult to obtain (in such format and grouping) Free of Charge.

FYI, I have added this comment to a lot of pages in order to receive an as accurate and representative feedback as possible. I think the proposed link is a worthwhile addition so, at your discretion, pls add it to the article. Thanks Aegn3 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is just WP:SPAM and fails to meet the requirements of WP:EL - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/embraer_170/
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Range

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm guessing STD = standard, LR = long range. But what is AR? And shouldn't such abbreviations be explained somewhere in their section of the article? 87.228.195.251 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 

    AR means Advanced Range. Avav70 (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC) avav70
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Embraer E-Jet family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Embraer E-Jet family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Embraer E-Jet family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How Brasilian is it?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article doesn't contain much info about who manufactures the different components. If I understood correctly, the main power plant is produced by the American company General Electric. It would be interesting to know who exactly manufactures the other parts, and what is the ratio of Brasilian-made parts. I believe this should be included in the article because it is economically significant info. Offliner (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I'd like to see detail like that. Got any sources?
However, an airliner isn't just a collection of parts. A lot of the work is nothing to do with machining pieces of metal - think of all the planning, design, certification work &c; setting up production lines, tweaking aerodynamics, reliability testing, and so on. And some parts are much harder to design/make than others. Unless that is made clear, a view based purely on physical parts of an aircraft will be misleading. bobrayner (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This information is kept under the carpet for various reasons, from proud Brazilian's perspective it's not desirable to disclose how much of the product is not Brazilian, from an airline customer and ticket buyer's perspective it's not desirable to disclose how much of the product is actually Brazilian, since flying some airliner designed and bought in a threshold country, former 3rd-world country is certainly not something an airline would want to advertise with. Compare with cars being built in Brazil after a production run in their home country, turning into a total flop when built in Brazil (Mercedes C-Class) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.100.1 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a good source of the various subcontractors used in most aviation projects http://www.airframer.com It does require a login for regular use but you can have something like 4 free projects per month. For Embraer E jet 170 series they list 15 airframe suppliers, US France Japan , Korea , Czechia etc. Interesting the wing skins are listed as being from Triumph Structures in Everett WA. ie right next door to Boeing. Im not sure the protocol for linking to a paid /restricted free site ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okerefalls (talk • contribs) 01:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Embraer_E-Jet_family/Archive_1&oldid=1259602310"