737-900rj
05-29-2015 | 04:24 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,508
Likes: 109
How many pax can you afford to buy off before the cost savings of the airplane evaporates (rhetorical question)?
Someone told me the CFM56 was good to like 34k #'s. Can't we just dial them up a bit to get the performance needed for those situations?
It's evident too in places like STT where we're going in with 700's and DAL/AA are using 757's.
It's a good rugged airplane when it isnt stretched so thin. I've flown with one guy whose got 20k+ hours in the guppy and never had a major mechanical emergency, that's saying something!
Someone told me the CFM56 was good to like 34k #'s. Can't we just dial them up a bit to get the performance needed for those situations?
It's evident too in places like STT where we're going in with 700's and DAL/AA are using 757's.
It's a good rugged airplane when it isnt stretched so thin. I've flown with one guy whose got 20k+ hours in the guppy and never had a major mechanical emergency, that's saying something!
05-29-2015 | 04:59 PM
#83
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
How many pax can you afford to buy off before the cost savings of the airplane evaporates (rhetorical question)?
Someone told me the CFM56 was good to like 34k #'s. Can't we just dial them up a bit to get the performance needed for those situations?
It's evident too in places like STT where we're going in with 700's and DAL/AA are using 757's.
It's a good rugged airplane when it isnt stretched so thin. I've flown with one guy whose got 20k+ hours in the guppy and never had a major mechanical emergency, that's saying something!
Someone told me the CFM56 was good to like 34k #'s. Can't we just dial them up a bit to get the performance needed for those situations?
It's evident too in places like STT where we're going in with 700's and DAL/AA are using 757's.
It's a good rugged airplane when it isnt stretched so thin. I've flown with one guy whose got 20k+ hours in the guppy and never had a major mechanical emergency, that's saying something!
A couple years ago I was also flying brand new 320's with an 11k pound higher gross weight than UAL's 25 year old models, and they had 2500 lbs/thrust more power per engine than UAL's. CFM's by the way.
Ours are early models. Newer 320's and 321's are more capable than older ones.
05-29-2015 | 07:17 PM
#84
Stuck Mic
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 0
I really wish they would keep the Pratt 757 aircraft so these routes can have an adequate aircraft flying them. If they want more used aircraft, they have some with a united paintjob already on them available immediately!
Plus they can accelerate 50 seat RJ parking so the regionals are able to staff the flying they already have and won't be canceling flights left and right due to lack of crews. This summer will most likely be a mess for those guys.
All that is left is to upgrade the cockpits of all 757-200/757-300/767-300 aircraft to the 764 cockpit and a very standardized fleet has just been created.
Plus they can accelerate 50 seat RJ parking so the regionals are able to staff the flying they already have and won't be canceling flights left and right due to lack of crews. This summer will most likely be a mess for those guys.
All that is left is to upgrade the cockpits of all 757-200/757-300/767-300 aircraft to the 764 cockpit and a very standardized fleet has just been created.
05-29-2015 | 07:32 PM
#85
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
The drawbacks to the 75T fleet:
1. No GPS
2. No ETOPs
3. Pratts are 37500 lbs thrust; Rolls are 42,700.
4. Interiors have TV monitors hanging in the aisle; even medium height pax bang their craniums.
The cost to refit all of this is high.
I would like to see them get some more RR ETOPs jets, but I know it won't happen.
If Airbus made a 321 with a slightly stretched wing and higher thrust? You'd have your 757 replacement.
1. No GPS
2. No ETOPs
3. Pratts are 37500 lbs thrust; Rolls are 42,700.
4. Interiors have TV monitors hanging in the aisle; even medium height pax bang their craniums.
The cost to refit all of this is high.
I would like to see them get some more RR ETOPs jets, but I know it won't happen.
If Airbus made a 321 with a slightly stretched wing and higher thrust? You'd have your 757 replacement.
05-29-2015 | 07:45 PM
#86
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
The drawbacks to the 75T fleet:
1. No GPS
2. No ETOPs
3. Pratts are 37500 lbs thrust; Rolls are 42,700.
4. Interiors have TV monitors hanging in the aisle; even medium height pax bang their craniums.
The cost to refit all of this is high.
I would like to see them get some more RR ETOPs jets, but I know it won't happen.
If Airbus made a 321 with a slightly stretched wing and higher thrust? You'd have your 757 replacement.
1. No GPS
2. No ETOPs
3. Pratts are 37500 lbs thrust; Rolls are 42,700.
4. Interiors have TV monitors hanging in the aisle; even medium height pax bang their craniums.
The cost to refit all of this is high.
I would like to see them get some more RR ETOPs jets, but I know it won't happen.
If Airbus made a 321 with a slightly stretched wing and higher thrust? You'd have your 757 replacement.
I am sad to see it go as well, especially when I wrench my back trying to get in and out of the cockpit of a NG, with my ears still wringing from all the noise.
But if they paid me enough, I would fly a C150.
05-29-2015 | 07:46 PM
#87
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
The drawbacks to the 75T fleet:
1. No GPS
2. No ETOPs
3. Pratts are 37500 lbs thrust; Rolls are 42,700.
4. Interiors have TV monitors hanging in the aisle; even medium height pax bang their craniums.
The cost to refit all of this is high.
I would like to see them get some more RR ETOPs jets, but I know it won't happen.
If Airbus made a 321 with a slightly stretched wing and higher thrust? You'd have your 757 replacement.
1. No GPS
2. No ETOPs
3. Pratts are 37500 lbs thrust; Rolls are 42,700.
4. Interiors have TV monitors hanging in the aisle; even medium height pax bang their craniums.
The cost to refit all of this is high.
I would like to see them get some more RR ETOPs jets, but I know it won't happen.
If Airbus made a 321 with a slightly stretched wing and higher thrust? You'd have your 757 replacement.
05-29-2015 | 07:46 PM
#88
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 1
Different versions of CFM's do put out more power. That a 737 can't have that power means there is some other limiting factor like rudder authority when single engine, structural strength of the vertical fin, etc. Not sure what the limiting factor is, but it isn't the engine.
A couple years ago I was also flying brand new 320's with an 11k pound higher gross weight than UAL's 25 year old models, and they had 2500 lbs/thrust more power per engine than UAL's. CFM's by the way.
Ours are early models. Newer 320's and 321's are more capable than older ones.
A couple years ago I was also flying brand new 320's with an 11k pound higher gross weight than UAL's 25 year old models, and they had 2500 lbs/thrust more power per engine than UAL's. CFM's by the way.
Ours are early models. Newer 320's and 321's are more capable than older ones.
Also. the V2500 is made by IAE, not CFM. Thrust is 26.5K for the 320 and 22K for the 319.
05-29-2015 | 07:50 PM
#89
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
The first A320 came to UAL in December 1993, the last one in October 2002. Not saying they are spring chickens, but the average is still a ways from 25. And none of them have those cow utter looking things dropping out of the overhead panel.
Also. the V2500 is made by IAE, not CFM. Thrust is 26.5K for the 320 and 22K for the 319.
Also. the V2500 is made by IAE, not CFM. Thrust is 26.5K for the 320 and 22K for the 319.
I flew 320's with 28,500 lbs CFM's, and some special high altitude 319's with the same engines and extra oxygen tanks in the rear cargo hold. The 319's were rockets. I never did a Max TO in one, even at 6500'. I am not sure I ever had a assumed temp lower than 55. Even in the summer at 6500 feet and 35 C OAT.
05-29-2015 | 07:54 PM
#90
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 1
Airbus come with two engines, UAL's are IAE. Somewhere around half have CFM's. Not the exact same engine as the 737. I believe they have a slightly bigger fan and different model number.
I flew 320's with 28,500 lbs CFM's, and some special high altitude 319's with the same engines and extra oxygen tanks in the rear cargo hold. The 319's were rockets. I never did a Max TO in one, even at 6500'. I am not sure I ever had a assumed temp lower than 55. Even in the summer at 6500 feet and 35 C OAT.
I flew 320's with 28,500 lbs CFM's, and some special high altitude 319's with the same engines and extra oxygen tanks in the rear cargo hold. The 319's were rockets. I never did a Max TO in one, even at 6500'. I am not sure I ever had a assumed temp lower than 55. Even in the summer at 6500 feet and 35 C OAT.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
