The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Embraer EMB-110 Bandeirante

Old 25th May 2010, 09:35
  #21 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,242
Who would have thought Embraer would go on and build the E120, ERJ135/145 and the ERJ170/190.
The Bandit was only the very successful "tip of the iceberg" seen in Australia. Embraer started life building Piper aircraft under license. By the time the Bandit arrived in Australia, they had produced a number of Piper aircraft plus a range of Embraer aircraft that never came to Australia. One interesting aircraft was a military variant Bandeirante with wing tip tanks and a MTOW around 14,000 pounds, another Bandit derivative was a shortened, pressurised executive aircraft.

In the mid 1970s Embraer were already well down the track with their EMB120 design philosophy and the stretched, jet derivatives, the EMB135, 154 etc.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 10:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,313
By far the most interesting development of the EMB110 was the Xinghu (EMB121).

It had the bandit wing and engines with a newer fuselage.

Photos: Embraer EMB-121A Xingu Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

I flew this one briefly in Belgium. It had a flight deck designed to mimic a 737-200 (as it was originally built for flight training).

Talk about go, Trev...

More info here...

Embraer EMB121 Xingu | Airliners.net
remoak is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 12:13
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
I only logged 100 hours in the E110. As I was already flying a B200 my Chief Pilot thought a 2 hour endorsement would suffice and to be honest it did. I then did a little charter work around the traps in the Bandit mostly single pilot but on occassion two crew due to customer requirements. It was a really simple aircraft to fly and understand. A good first turbine endorsement, and it had a tiller, a novelty to me at that stage of my career. I sort of envied those that were flying them. I flew it initially for a South Aussie operator and then for a few hours with a West Aussie operator. I would have liked to fly the old beast some more but I moved on. They always looked good and passengers seemed to like them despite the fact they were stuck below 10,000 feet - supposedly - except in PNG.
The two crew concept in an E110 which could be flown easily single pilot (which was what I was endorsd to do as were most) was actually a good way to introduce two crew procedures to new recruits. Except no one wanted to be a Bandit F/O - of course - but promotion was generally pretty quick.
Good to see that the DHC-6 will be revamped as the industry needs a new upgraded work horse, with upgrade avionics and nav gear.
I have no stories, an old manual, a few un-remarkable photos and lots of fond memories of the E110/Bandit.
CHEers

Last edited by Che cows with guns; 25th May 2010 at 20:39.
Che cows with guns is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 12:27
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
That looks like the perfect private twin..........

Its not that fast by those numbers though
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 13:27
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,313
Depends what you are comparing it to... but the Xinghu II went very well indeed when it was just two crew. It was mostly the rate of climb that was impressive.
remoak is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 21:18
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
You can see where the Brasilia came from!
Dog One is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 21:56
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 851
Bandit P1 & P2, good ships for the time, was operated SP, and later was an easy introduction to turbines for a low time new Commercial when the two-crew rule came in. Where I flew it we couldn't take advantage legally of the increased MTOW under the American SFAR 41 rules - so payload on long sectors was a problem. Might have been a problem at the increased weight on one engine if anything happened had we had it, but they were very reliable, working every day. Just need another 100 hours on one to round out the logbook but few operated now. On one 300 mile leg when it had a day off for maintenance, when we substituted a 300 series Twin Otter it carried the same load due to the reduced operating weight but took half an hour longer. The difference in the operating weights and the extra fuel required made the payload carried over this distance much the same. Think the passengers preferred the Bandit cabin on the longer legs. The 400 series Twotter, with a reduced operating weight and the -34 engines, should be a good hauler - just need to get it to go 30 or 50 knots quicker for the longer legs.
frigatebird is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 00:02
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 29
My first turbine command and I loved it. Beautiful big wide cockpit with everything laid out logicaly. Loved the tiller, Flew it both SP and multi crew and logged nearly 1000 hours. The only problem was short legs. We normaly flew sectors around 100-150 NM, and usually had to refuel at every port anytime we had anywhere near full loads.
AIREHEAD is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 05:55
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,199
First Turbine job for me...did a grand total of 88hrs in them. Marvelled at the time when I first looked at the manual (which I still have) as this thing was telling me you needed to slow down to 160 kts or something to get the first lot of flap out.....wow..practically supersonic, my brain still only seems to work at 160kts
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 07:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 384
Wouldn't be too many companies operating Bandeirantes in Australia, Airtex and Air South would be amongst the few, any others?

Embraer got their start by assembling Piper Aircraft in knocked down kit form and then progressed to sub assembly or parts manufactured by Piper.
The range include Cherokee 235, Arrow, Archer11, Cherokee Six, Lance, Seneca11 and Chieftain. Embraer bulit a total of 2370 kits for Piper.
They also developed a PT-6 conversion for 50 Chieftains in conjunction with another aerospace company.

Embraer approached Piper to market the EMB-110 but this was declined by Piper in 1974.

Piper had also at this time entered in an agreement with Pezetel in Poland to build a turbine powered commuter aircraft based on the PA-35 Pocono.
The Pocono was to be powered by PT-6/27 and bulit for operaters looking to get into commuters operations with impending derugulation in America.

Pity C.A.C or G.A.F hadn't got into an arrangement like that with Piper or Cessna to build aircraft on there behalf for the Pacific region.

Another lost opportunity.
CharlieLimaX-Ray is offline  
Old 26th May 2010, 14:52
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In the CRC
Age: 44
Posts: 95
Two things amazed me about the mighty Bandits that I flew.

1. The emergency gear retract switch that had a caution next to it, something along the lines of 'use of this switch may cause serious structural damage to the aircraft'

2. Not sure how it worked anymore, but the decision speed was higher than the rotate speed - so the call was "rotate......decide"

Good machine and like me, simple!
linedriva is offline  
Old 30th May 2010, 11:13
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NZL
Posts: 71
This was to be the greatest development of the Bandit!

The CBA-123.

19 pax, 300kts.

Brazilians and Argentinians working together but $ and politics knocked it out.

Photos: Embraer CBA-123 Vector Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Vmo248 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2010, 17:54
  #33 (permalink)  
GBV
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hyatt, Regal, Novotel and so on
Posts: 49
Embraer started life building Piper aircraft under license.
Embraer got their start by assembling Piper Aircraft in knocked down kit form and then progressed to sub assembly or parts manufactured by Piper.
No, EMBRAER was created in 1969 to produce the Bandeirante, which first flew in 1968. NEIVA bulit the Piper Aircrafts under license from 1975 to 2000.
GBV is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2010, 03:12
  #34 (permalink)  
Aviatrice
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Looking for EMB 110 Power Setting Tips

Hello All,

I'm about to start a job on the the 110 and I'd like some power settings to familiarize myself with before training starts. Anything you can remember is greatly appreciated.
 
Old 22nd Sep 2010, 04:11
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 589
NEIVA bulit the Piper Aircrafts under license from 1975 to 2000.
Embraer produced the EMB-810(Seneca II)/820(Cheiftain) and Cherokee versions from 1974 to 1980. When Embraer aquired Neiva in 1980 production was transfered. Interestingly from 1984 Neiva started a program of refitting EMB-820 aircraft with PT-6 550 hp with a 1000lb increase in max weight. A number of other South American countries produced aircraft or parts for Piper but only Embraer built aircraft were differentiated with a unique type. I have heard a rumor that they are not allowed to be transfered to US registration as part of the licence agreement and are cheaper to aquire as a result. I was warned when purchasing PA34 or PA31 to check the actual serial number records to ensure it was an actual Piper not Embraer as this would affect resale.
43Inches is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2010, 05:40
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
The caution for emergency gear retract was to check the tiller (and therefore nosegear) was centred. If not the nosegear would crush the nose gear doors.
Spotlight is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2010, 06:39
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South of the Border
Posts: 7
Stop Quick

And the advice to stop a runway overrun was to break the lockwire and select gear up whilst on the rwy. Effective- but . . . . . .
Simon Pieman is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2010, 10:05
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 60
Posts: 145
"Thought there would be a few more Bandit war stories out in PPRuNe land?"...
... A grey haired old gentleman once vaguely recounted this story but then again he may have been halucinating or even exagerrating, something he was prone to do. He said:

One fine day many many moons ago there was some calamity going on at the other end of the hangar as the call went out to all hands on deck for each person to bring an empty 44 fuel drum. Next thing there's a line of worker ants rolling empty drums toward the Bandit sitting on the hardstand as the resultant sound of thunder forced the disembarkation of all pax back into the adjacent terminal. Rolling Red Thunder comes to mind. The pax were then treated to an episode akin to the Keystone Cops, any distraction by the offer of light refreshments by harried ground crew ignored, as fuel was manually pumped out of each wing into the drums and subsequently rolled away, minus the thunder, the perplexed pax were subsequently reloaded and the much lighter Bandit now bounced into the air on it's slightly delayed journey with a now reduced endurance but much happier landing gear. Not very often was the landing gear happy but there were reasons to keep it very happy on this occasion.
osmosis is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2010, 10:36
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
A few thoughts to jog memories;

Fuel panel test....
Feather/unfeather during taxi....
Melted front pax windows.....
Nosewheel shimmy...
Cross generator start....
Dihedral or no dihedral stab....
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2010, 18:36
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sunny side of the street!
Posts: 36
Inertial Separators
Bigbus330 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.