|
Originally Posted by Swedish Blender
(Post 2198849)
Why would you think there would be NGs off the end? You either have enough runway or not for landing performance. Not a guppy guy, brother is for you guys, but I fly a plane that has a higher approach speed.
Ergonomics and comfort are another story. It's only "next gen" if your generation was born in the 30's. |
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 2198391)
The bad news for Guppy lovers is that everybody crashes NG's a little bit. The good news is everybody walks away.
The USAIR bus in the Hudson is the only 320 hull loss in North America, ever. The bad news is that buses flown by 2nd tier (or worse) airlines crash at about the same rate as NG's, but they are horrific crashes and everyone generally is reduced to their carbon based substrate. But, NG's can't get away from their landing incidents. At first I thought is was because the fuselage was a foot or two closer to the danger point. After flying it for 4 years, I think that factor is the problem. It is just a little closer to hitting the ground and crashing. So far no tail strikes or curb feeler strikes (new wingtips) for me. But I feel that is a simple statistical anomaly that wouldn't be there if I was 2 feet higher off the ground. In general, I like Boeing better than Airbus. Except for the Uber Guppy. JMHO America west has one in Phoenix in 2002. Air Canada has one I think last year (you said North America) and US air might have had a second one in Philly in 2014 ( not sure if that one was a hull loss). And northwest mechanics totaled one if that counts! Still a very solid record, and they have a tray table for meals which gives bonus points |
Originally Posted by Firsttimeflyer
(Post 2198886)
Im no fan of the guppy which I currently fly and will take a bus over a guppy any day if QOL were the same but you're wrong on hull loses.
America west has one in Phoenix in 2002. Air Canada has one I think last year (you said North America) and US air might have had a second one in Philly in 2014 ( not sure if that one was a hull loss). And northwest mechanics totaled one if that counts! Still a very solid record, and they have a tray table for meals which gives bonus points The USair fly 1702 was a high speed abort, probably above V1 as the Captain had already rotated. V speeds not displayed as pilot error caused the V-speeds to dump caused by a runway change prior to TO. I think American alone has put 3 NG's off the runway, if I remember right. I felt safer landing every other airplane that United has, and I have flown everything but the 10 and the 747. Landing the 300/500 was no problem. The 700 is no problem. The bigger ones with the higher approach speeds and a long fuselage seems problematic. No flaps 15 for me in an uber guppy. |
The 900 is a POS that only a bean counter could love. Still given that when it was ordered the same bean counter would have rather have deployed 500 76 seaters at the regionals, I'll take it. The 800 stops just fine as many years of Air Mic life shows. Save up your butt hurt for the MAX when it shows up. Absolutely no one is looking forward to that.
|
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 2198913)
The 900 is a POS that only a bean counter could love. Still given that when it was ordered the same bean counter would have rather have deployed 500 76 seaters at the regionals, I'll take it. The 800 stops just fine as many years of Air Mic life shows. Save up your butt hurt for the MAX when it shows up. Absolutely no one is looking forward to that.
|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 2198960)
Yeah, extending the nose gear to get the nacelles off the ground. There goes a few more degrees of the already narrow pitch window for landing.
|
Does the MAX raise only the nose gear? I thought they were going to work some magic with the mains as well.
|
Originally Posted by M5000
(Post 2198975)
Does the MAX raise only the nose gear? I thought they were going to work some magic with the mains as well.
I read (I think in AW&ST) that because of the nose gear stretch, they can't fully fit it in the fuselage! It will sit under a small bulged door. In almost all the "Artist's renderings," they have the belly banked away to hide this.....but I did see one drawing where it showed. I still contend that the 737-900, as the "DC-3 of the Jet Age," should revert to that legacy...and be a tail-dragger. Put the nose gear at the aft pressure-bulkhead! :p Guys with Cub or Turbo Porter experience would get hiring preference. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the 9ER has better landing performance than the 800. If my memory serves me right, the 800 also has higher approach speeds than the 9ER, but not the 900. I think we all agree the 900 has the performance of a submarine.
The MAX does have a longer nose gear and re-engineered pylons to mimic similar ground clearances to the current models. If you look at that Rorschach test chart of body ground contact angles, the ventral fin of the curb feelers and tail are the most vulnerable to contact, but the aircraft state to do that would be very undesirable. A check airman I flew with once said, "I'm not telling you to fly fast, but I am telling you to never ever fly slow". Words to fly by. |
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 2198984)
They can't stretch the mains because it would require a new wing-box to fit it. That would mean major cost increases for new tooling.
I read (I think in AW&ST) that because of the nose gear stretch, they can't fully fit it in the fuselage! The crazy thing is the proposed 737-10 Max that would require "telescoping" main gears to accommodate bigger motors. Yikes. Just stop this madness already, Boeing. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:32 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands