Mgt view of 757 vs 737-900
01-14-2016, 02:29 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,194
^^^ZING!
I've got barely 1000 hours in it and have made at least half a dozen fuel stops doing west bound transcons, and have left a ton of pax, mainly going into Denver.
Originally Posted by Airhogg
I have over 10,000 hours of 737 time, never had to make a fuel stop except for Newark to Guayaquil Ecuador in the 737/800. I've flown the 900 into SNA and back to IAH. I've also done Denver to Anchorage with a full boat, jumpseater and an alternate. Only city pair that really is a problem is LAS to DEN with icing conditions applied. The thing makes $$$ and pays the same as a 757. Good for us and good for the company.
I've got barely 1000 hours in it and have made at least half a dozen fuel stops doing west bound transcons, and have left a ton of pax, mainly going into Denver.
01-14-2016, 03:46 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Grumble
^^^ZING!
I've got barely 1000 hours in it and have made at least half a dozen fuel stops doing west bound transcons, and have left a ton of pax, mainly going into Denver.
I've got barely 1000 hours in it and have made at least half a dozen fuel stops doing west bound transcons, and have left a ton of pax, mainly going into Denver.
Scott
01-14-2016, 09:04 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
Same for me. Any winter storm causes severe weight restrictions on flights over 1.5 hours with an alternate into Denver. So let's see. SFO, SAN, LAX, PDX, SEA, PHX, IAH, ORD, MSP, and that's just barely getting east of the Mississippi. Lots more east of there. All because of the tail ice penalty. It is so much of a problem that we're instituting a new go-around procedure that allows/requires depending on weight and conditions up to a 175 kt target and can only be used Cat I and better weather. Boeing should have stopped at the -800 and restarted the 757 line with a new wing and engine package. They didn't, and thus we're stuck with the whistling @#$%&*^ frankenjet.
Scott
Scott
01-14-2016, 09:20 PM
#46
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Yes, & on the front Biffy
Posts: 34
Yup. The stretched pencil fuselage and tiny wing on a 900 mean higher speeds with artificially high Vrefs to provide tailstrike protection.
The heavy ER freighter 747-400's (a lot heavier than light weight passenger 400's) will require you to fly the approach at 190 on flaps 25 when you are too heavy for flaps 30 if you have any gust protection at all on windy days... (I've done a few). But I don't know many planes regularly faster than those on final. It was always a bit of effort to make sure ATC knew 190 was min speed on final and, no, the RJ ahead doing a buck 35 was not going to work.
The heavy ER freighter 747-400's (a lot heavier than light weight passenger 400's) will require you to fly the approach at 190 on flaps 25 when you are too heavy for flaps 30 if you have any gust protection at all on windy days... (I've done a few). But I don't know many planes regularly faster than those on final. It was always a bit of effort to make sure ATC knew 190 was min speed on final and, no, the RJ ahead doing a buck 35 was not going to work.
01-14-2016, 09:40 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by DontPickIt
Yup. The stretched pencil fuselage and tiny wing on a 900 mean higher speeds with artificially high Vrefs to provide tailstrike protection.
The heavy ER freighter 747-400's (a lot heavier than light weight passenger 400's) will require you to fly the approach at 190 on flaps 25 when you are too heavy for flaps 30 if you have any gust protection at all on windy days... (I've done a few). But I don't know many planes regularly faster than those on final. It was always a bit of effort to make sure ATC knew 190 was min speed on final and, no, the RJ ahead doing a buck 35 was not going to work.
The heavy ER freighter 747-400's (a lot heavier than light weight passenger 400's) will require you to fly the approach at 190 on flaps 25 when you are too heavy for flaps 30 if you have any gust protection at all on windy days... (I've done a few). But I don't know many planes regularly faster than those on final. It was always a bit of effort to make sure ATC knew 190 was min speed on final and, no, the RJ ahead doing a buck 35 was not going to work.
OOhh! I like the picture. I think that is an early 727-100, light zero fuel weight. Had to watch that if you were full. You couldn't actually fly with the all the seats full and any cargo. Now imagine a 757 vs guppy argument.
01-14-2016, 11:43 PM
#48
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
I guess a PS PW 757 landing at 115 kts wouldn't work out much either?
OOhh! I like the picture. I think that is an early 727-100, light zero fuel weight. Had to watch that if you were full. You couldn't actually fly with the all the seats full and any cargo. Now imagine a 757 vs guppy argument.
OOhh! I like the picture. I think that is an early 727-100, light zero fuel weight. Had to watch that if you were full. You couldn't actually fly with the all the seats full and any cargo. Now imagine a 757 vs guppy argument.
BTW you might not be able to land a 900ER at 175 knots in Denver. I don't have a TAS converter, but you might be over the tire limit speed.
01-15-2016, 06:55 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by Probe
I have flown a 57 for about 12 years. If I remember right, 115 was Vref even at somewhat moderate weights, and it was the absolute minimum. No matter how light, it never went lower.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
