BOAC
NOD quotes BA's figures as a 24% increase in LDR with no reversers on a slippery runway (but does not specify the level of reverse).
Not so - I quoted a 24%
decrease with 2 "Revs Operative". Since we are talking "absolute minimum LDR" we can safely assume "full reverse"
A 24% decrease equates to a 31.5%
increase.
PS NOD - there are no 'grandfather' rights involved for the 737-700 LDRs.
I did say maybe, since there are many areas the 737 is still a 1960s design apparently for certification - or at least Boeing ask for it:
Brown also points out that Boeing's product strategy is really questionable when it comes to the certification of its new airliners: "A new aircraft design should meet the safety requirements of the time. Derivatives of older aircraft usually only required the implication of new regulations if major changes to the design were made. Other than that, the old law from the time of the first certification applied. While our competitor does not miss an opportunity to promote the alleged modern high-tech design of its new 737 generation, Boeing is more then eager to claim the "grandfather's rights" of the very first 737 for its newest product-line. The basic 737 was certified in 1967 according to annex 15 of the federal airworthiness directives. Numerous safety requirements were added in the following 20 years, according to which the A320 was certified in 1988 (annex 56). Now, another ten years later, Boeing is demanding the certification according to the 30 year old derivative rights for the new 737, even though it has larger wings, another structure, new high-lift devices, new engines, a new empenage, a new landing gear, a new electrical system, as well as, significantly modified fuselage sections, entirely new avionics, and a new cockpit. Although Boeing is asking for 15 exemption to the total of 377 sections of the current regulations, exactly these 15 points, in my point of view, are a major concern to flight safety."
According to Brown, Boeing is trying to gain a competitive advantage against Airbus by asking for the 1967 standards for the cabin doors and the emergency evacuation system, which gives the 737-800, as the largest member of the new 737 family, a capacity of 189 seats. This is nine more seats than the A320 can offer, which has larger exits according to the newest regulations.
Furthermore, Boeing wants an exemption for the required accelerate stop distance, which would give the Seattle product a significant advantage in take-off performance.
The demands of the US company even include "relaxed" criteria concerning the damage tolerance limits and the demand to keep the old cabin pressure decompression system, although Boeing plans a higher cruise altitude for the new 737.
For Brown, these are only a few examples for Boeing's dubious product philosophy. Other points concern the resistance against higher inertial forces during emergency landings, the design of the flight control system, warning systems, and the general design of the safety systems. In all of these points the A320 had to adhere to the new regulations, while Boeing is willing to accept outdated safety standards to gain a competitive advantage.
"The catalogue of exemptions mounts in the birdstrike regulations While all modern airliner must be able to return safely to the ground after the stabilizer has been hit by an eight pound bird, Boeing is asking to be released from this regulation", Brown gets worked up.
at
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frhe...11/FR9611b.htm
I still think we are on a red herring over LDR
There is no performance data available for 1 Eng in Reverse, 1 Eng at nearly Climb Power (Fwd), no GS, delayed braking etc. for obvious reasons