Talk:Embraer Phenom 100

	This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Aviation: Aircraft This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

The Embraer web-site describes the Embraer Prodigy(TM) flight deck which is based on Garmin's G1000 avionics system. The "Prodigy" name does not relate directly to the G1000 and does not appear on the Garmin web-site. I have modified the avionics record in an attempt to reflect this, but I'm not sure if this is the best way of presenting the information ..... --Romney yw (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According Naming conventions (aircraft) the title should be "Embraer EMB 500.
The TCDS no. A59CE[1] state at note 6:
The EMB-500 is often referred to in Embraer marketing literature as the “PHENOM 100”. This name is strictly marketing designation and is not part of the official model designation.
The same problem exists in the article EMB-505 (Phenom 300)--Ifixplanes (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can use the "common name" and dont have to strictly follow the official model designations. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Milb1. "Phenom 100" is clearly the common name here, and recommended by the guidelines:

" If the exact designation is unclear because official sources differ or are inconsistent then for certified aircraft the Type Certificate Data Sheet, as the company's official submission of the designation to the airworthiness authority, should prevail."

In this case, there is a common name, and exact designation is clear. - BilCat (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.--Ifixplanes (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Embraer Phenom 300 (EMB-505) be merged into Embraer Phenom 100 (EMB-500). The 300 is a subtype of the Phenom 100. A lot of information is redundant between both articles and leads to difficulty comparing the subtypes. Both are short articles and a merge won't be much larger. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The differences are enough that two articles seems warranted, especially given the specs issues that have come up on the
  Talk:Embraer Legacy 500 page. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I abandon this prospect; they have separate type certificates, similar development but different wings and the 300 is twice as expensive, not a straight variant.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  current
• 
  proposed

The current picture, while airborne and pointing left, is a bit from behind and the background is a bit busy with power lines. The proposed one is more from the front, with a clean background, shows more of the wing and flaps, and have a bit more colorful livery.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Embraer Phenom 100. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160807193838/https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf to https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf

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.

• 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) 05:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]