737-900 Wow!
02-25-2014, 08:30 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,166
I thought I would get another thread started to shake the tree a bit.
While commuting I have the great pleasure and opportunity to occasionally ride in the 737-900. The other day the flight was full, had some hold and alt fuel, and the adjusted approach speed was 170 knots (big headwind, 30 knots).
The crew did a good job of getting the airplane on the end of the runway without much of a flare/check (don't hit the tail) and with brakes 3, full reverse got it slowed down quickly. They even got the brakes off at the gate to save the tires from deflating.
As we were taxing in what bothered me was how Boeing could deliver such a compromised product to its customers. In my 36 years of aviation history, flying the big jets, I have never experienced an airplane which relies so much on the skill of the pilots to not "screw it up!" Now they are adding the new "scimitar" wing tips and I guarantee someone will do their best to grind one of them off in a crosswind landing.
For all you 737 pilots out there who fly the -900, be careful, the airplane will try to ruin your career.
While commuting I have the great pleasure and opportunity to occasionally ride in the 737-900. The other day the flight was full, had some hold and alt fuel, and the adjusted approach speed was 170 knots (big headwind, 30 knots).
The crew did a good job of getting the airplane on the end of the runway without much of a flare/check (don't hit the tail) and with brakes 3, full reverse got it slowed down quickly. They even got the brakes off at the gate to save the tires from deflating.
As we were taxing in what bothered me was how Boeing could deliver such a compromised product to its customers. In my 36 years of aviation history, flying the big jets, I have never experienced an airplane which relies so much on the skill of the pilots to not "screw it up!" Now they are adding the new "scimitar" wing tips and I guarantee someone will do their best to grind one of them off in a crosswind landing.
For all you 737 pilots out there who fly the -900, be careful, the airplane will try to ruin your career.
02-25-2014, 02:23 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B744 FO
Posts: 375
Approach speed on the 727-200 at 140,000 was 127 flaps30... (or 124 flaps40)...with a .90 Mmo, gear doors, and normal size wheels and decent brakes. What a shame Boeing didn't build this airframe with two engines, APU in the tail, and no engineer, and shut down the 737 line.
02-25-2014, 03:04 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 6,009
Approach speed on the 727-200 at 140,000 was 127 flaps30... (or 124 flaps40)...with a .90 Mmo, gear doors, and normal size wheels and decent brakes. What a shame Boeing didn't build this airframe with two engines, APU in the tail, and no engineer, and shut down the 737 line.
02-25-2014, 03:37 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
I have a lot of hours in the 727 and without a doubt the worst model was the stretch with the JT8D-7 engines. On a normal day in Denver we would often have to rotate (packs off) before Vr because we were out of runway.
For all of you who have only flown two engine airplanes I can assure you the old 3 and 4 engine airplanes (and even the 747-400) use up ALL of the runway anywhere near max gross weight.
In the 727 we used a 90 knot airspeed call and if we were more than 3000' down the runway at that point (90 knots indicated) the takeoff was probably not normal.
Now for all you defenders of the 737-900 if you go back and read my original post it is not about "handling" qualities. I would imagine any of the new 737s handle a whole lot better than the old -200s with JT8D engines. My points are ground speeds, body angles, and the new downward winglets basically turn the airplane into a long runway and no (or little) crosswind airplane.
I believe UAL has already had to make a rather large patch on the rear of a -900ER which essentially "crashed" onto its tail section on one of its maiden voyages. Rumor has it that if a -900 of any sort is bounced on landing it is a mandatory go around?
For all of you who have only flown two engine airplanes I can assure you the old 3 and 4 engine airplanes (and even the 747-400) use up ALL of the runway anywhere near max gross weight.
In the 727 we used a 90 knot airspeed call and if we were more than 3000' down the runway at that point (90 knots indicated) the takeoff was probably not normal.
Now for all you defenders of the 737-900 if you go back and read my original post it is not about "handling" qualities. I would imagine any of the new 737s handle a whole lot better than the old -200s with JT8D engines. My points are ground speeds, body angles, and the new downward winglets basically turn the airplane into a long runway and no (or little) crosswind airplane.
I believe UAL has already had to make a rather large patch on the rear of a -900ER which essentially "crashed" onto its tail section on one of its maiden voyages. Rumor has it that if a -900 of any sort is bounced on landing it is a mandatory go around?
02-25-2014, 03:53 PM
#48
Flies for Fun
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: CE-172 Heavy
Posts: 358
02-25-2014, 05:06 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
I have a lot of hours in the 727 and without a doubt the worst model was the stretch with the JT8D-7 engines. On a normal day in Denver we would often have to rotate (packs off) before Vr because we were out of runway.
For all of you who have only flown two engine airplanes I can assure you the old 3 and 4 engine airplanes (and even the 747-400) use up ALL of the runway anywhere near max gross weight.
In the 727 we used a 90 knot airspeed call and if we were more than 3000' down the runway at that point (90 knots indicated) the takeoff was probably not normal.
Now for all you defenders of the 737-900 if you go back and read my original post it is not about "handling" qualities. I would imagine any of the new 737s handle a whole lot better than the old -200s with JT8D engines. My points are ground speeds, body angles, and the new downward winglets basically turn the airplane into a long runway and no (or little) crosswind airplane.
I believe UAL has already had to make a rather large patch on the rear of a -900ER which essentially "crashed" onto its tail section on one of its maiden voyages. Rumor has it that if a -900 of any sort is bounced on landing it is a mandatory go around?
For all of you who have only flown two engine airplanes I can assure you the old 3 and 4 engine airplanes (and even the 747-400) use up ALL of the runway anywhere near max gross weight.
In the 727 we used a 90 knot airspeed call and if we were more than 3000' down the runway at that point (90 knots indicated) the takeoff was probably not normal.
Now for all you defenders of the 737-900 if you go back and read my original post it is not about "handling" qualities. I would imagine any of the new 737s handle a whole lot better than the old -200s with JT8D engines. My points are ground speeds, body angles, and the new downward winglets basically turn the airplane into a long runway and no (or little) crosswind airplane.
I believe UAL has already had to make a rather large patch on the rear of a -900ER which essentially "crashed" onto its tail section on one of its maiden voyages. Rumor has it that if a -900 of any sort is bounced on landing it is a mandatory go around?
The only problem with your post is that the 900ER takes less runway and lands slower then the 800. Friends I know flying it say it's a very nice flying aircraft. How much time do you have in the 900ER?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
