737-900 Wow!
02-24-2014 | 03:56 PM
#22
Banned
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,378
Likes: 0
From: 7th green
I never found the -900 to be any trickier in handling qualities. You do have to rotate slowly so as not to strike the tail.
I just found the plane to be a pig in general. It can't get up high and feels like it doesn't want to stop with normal reverse thrust and Autobrakes 3. Now Autobrakes Max will haul it down, but it might be a little uncomfortable for the folks in back.
I just found the plane to be a pig in general. It can't get up high and feels like it doesn't want to stop with normal reverse thrust and Autobrakes 3. Now Autobrakes Max will haul it down, but it might be a little uncomfortable for the folks in back.
02-24-2014 | 04:00 PM
#23
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 95
From: DAL 330
A couple of things are confusing on this thread. One is that the tail clearance on the 767-400 is greater then on the 300. No tail strike issues at Delta.
As far as the 900ER at least on the version Delta purchased the approach speeds are lower then the 800 and the stopping distances shorter.
As far as the 900ER at least on the version Delta purchased the approach speeds are lower then the 800 and the stopping distances shorter.
Sailing is correct. Just did 2 legs in a 900. TPA-ATL-SFO. The speeds are the same or lower than the 800. I actually like the way it flies, it seems more stable in pitch than the 700/800.
I do agree with the general sentiment of this thread however, it seems substandard in a few areas. It climbs ok up to about 30k and then really struggles at the heavier weights. The cockpit blows, nothing new here, and no place for the FAs to stow their gear where they access to it (up front) I guess that's on DAL because that s what we ordered.
Scoop
Last edited by Scoop; 02-24-2014 at 04:11 PM.
02-24-2014 | 04:09 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
Dude you should market your manly musk scent. You are obviously an alpha male of untold proportions!
All of these cutting edge flight characteristics remind me very much of DC-8-61 in the performance department and a-71 in the don't flare/don't put a wing into the wind on landing lest you want to file a report. Boeing should be proud of their ectomorphic nightmare of an airplane in the form of the 737-900. Bringing the dawn of the jet age back to an airport near you! THANK YOU BOEING!
All of these cutting edge flight characteristics remind me very much of DC-8-61 in the performance department and a-71 in the don't flare/don't put a wing into the wind on landing lest you want to file a report. Boeing should be proud of their ectomorphic nightmare of an airplane in the form of the 737-900. Bringing the dawn of the jet age back to an airport near you! THANK YOU BOEING!
02-24-2014 | 04:35 PM
#27
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
If you like the ER and scimitar winglets, wait until the MAX comes out. Boeing wants a bigger fan, but doesn't want longer main gear because of more wing redesign work and common type rating issues.
Their brilliant "solution" is to extend the nose gear several inches, which also helps get the front of the nacelles a few more inches off the ground. So then, you not only have tail strike problems, you have landing nose gear first problems. Your allowable pitch window for landing goes way down.
Should be fun in turbulence/crosswind.
Dreaming of Fifi, especially the new 321's with big motors..............
Their brilliant "solution" is to extend the nose gear several inches, which also helps get the front of the nacelles a few more inches off the ground. So then, you not only have tail strike problems, you have landing nose gear first problems. Your allowable pitch window for landing goes way down.
Should be fun in turbulence/crosswind.
Dreaming of Fifi, especially the new 321's with big motors..............
02-24-2014 | 04:54 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
IMHO, Boeing screwed up several times over the years with both the "classic" and the NG. This airframe has now been stretched at least two times too many. Had Boeing actually designed a clean sheet narrow body below the 757 in size back in the day, the A320 probably would have been a footnote in history instead the major competition.
02-24-2014 | 04:59 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
A couple of things are confusing on this thread. One is that the tail clearance on the 767-400 is greater then on the 300. No tail strike issues at Delta.
As far as the 900ER at least on the version Delta purchased the approach speeds are lower then the 800 and the stopping distances shorter. Depending on weight 200 to 900 feet shorter.
Takeoff distances and rejected takeoff performance is also better. Approach speed on the 900ER at 140,000lbs is 136 knots verses 139 on the 800. Rate of climb to 30,000 feet is identical. Above 30k the 900 lags the 800 by about 200fpm.
As far as the 900ER at least on the version Delta purchased the approach speeds are lower then the 800 and the stopping distances shorter. Depending on weight 200 to 900 feet shorter.
Takeoff distances and rejected takeoff performance is also better. Approach speed on the 900ER at 140,000lbs is 136 knots verses 139 on the 800. Rate of climb to 30,000 feet is identical. Above 30k the 900 lags the 800 by about 200fpm.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
