PDA

View Full Version : 737-800 Takeoff and Landing Data


rosscoe
19th Apr 2002, 01:22
Hi All,

I am looking for accurate information on the following and where the information is from.

Given the following runway, load and met details is it possible to operate a 737-800 at this runway? If not what runway lengths would be required?

Elevation 20feet


TORA TODA ASDA LDA
1764(5787) 1824(5984) 1764(5787) 1704(5591)
metres(feet)

Temperature 25C (76F)
10kt Headwind
Load 80% of Maximum takeoff/landing weight.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Regards
Ross

Slick
22nd Apr 2002, 19:05
Ros your a little short on data there me old mate. What eng's are on your -800 and what is the max structural weight of the -800 your talking about. There are several variations.

Off the top off my head, and without considering ANYTHING other than your runway dimentions, your probabily ok. If you want to email me the details of you a/c I will get you some more accurate data.

Best rgds

OverRun
24th Apr 2002, 12:52
Rosscoe,

UPDATED WITH MORE TAKEOFF DATA 25/04/02

Your TORA/TODA numbers for Hamilton Island show it is a bit of a problem because the takeoff/approach gradients are 1.71% and 2.07% respectively.

This reduces the effective length for takeoff, which (although calculated by performance engineers from the type A chart and all sorts of electronic wizardry) is effecively a couple of hundred metres shorter than the published TODA. The worst case is RWY32 STODA which drops to 1510m at 1.9% takeoff gradient and less at 1.6%, but you've got 1754m STODA at 1.6% on runway 14.

The takeoff temperature is an issue. I'm guessing it's warmer there than you said. Winter flights (for the Melbourne crowds) could be 30 deg C, summer could be 34 deg C (unless you fly late in the evening).

Takeoff weight also depends on destination. For Hamilton Island, its gotta be MEL, which is 1058 nautical miles. Add in some pax (say 90% of the 156 seats in the ex-AA planes - these airlines always want to fly SO fullll), say 9559kg fuel including reserves and 1300kg for thunderstorms in MEL (as ops will expect to include), and excluding any freight, and using the Qantas aircraft empty weights and engines, means a takeoff weight of 65907 kgs. Heavy !!!!! Your PCN is fine, but your runway is short.

The 737-800s will get out at a better angle than the -300/-400 series and carry out all their flab (6-7 tonnes extra due to the bigger wing) and get rolling a bit quicker (more grunt). The big wing also gets them off at a lower speed (proportionately to weight).

The actual performance depends on the motor, and here is some of the confusion. VB are running the 24,200lb or 26,300 lb motors depend on who you listen to. I reckon its the 26,300lb motor derated wherever possible. QF brought aircraft with the 27,300 lb motor, but they've got them registered as 24,200lb :confused:

Do-able at Hamilton Island? I'm not sure. Depends on wind, acceptable penalties in terms of pax weight limits, etc. If you had had 1800m-1900m with a 1.6% takeoff gradient - you've got a good chance and a pretty healthy business case. At your numbers though, it's getting marginal, and any tech stop at Brisbane for gas will bug*er the economics. You've maybe gotta get a bit creative with a package to get a 737-800 operation in there.

The raw numbers are:
27,300 lb motor= 1585m takeoff at 65,907kg, at 30 deg C, nil wind, sea level, aircon packs off, dry runway
26,300 lb motor= 1645m at 30 deg C ditto ditto
[26,300 lb motor= 1675m at a cooler day of 25 deg C just to see the impact of temperature, ditto ditto - not much change there]
24,200 lb motor= 1770m at 30 deg C, ditto ditto

PS - VB ops are more conservative than QF so there's no relief there :wink:

rosscoe
27th Apr 2002, 03:30
OverRun,

Thanks for that info.

Fits with what we had been led to believe, could possibly be done but really not commercially and operationally viable when compared to a 737-400 or 767-200.

However needed someone to clarify it with numbers.

Regards
Rosscoe

PS did you work out the airport from ERSA or my email address.

Dehavillanddriver
28th Apr 2002, 14:42
Rosscoe and Overrun,

I think that there are additional factors that need considering.

If you are looking at the QF aircraft they have the winglets which give improved climb with more flap - flap 25 would probably be the go.

You will find i think that this flap setting will give you what you need to operate viably.

VB has two types of 800's, mdeium gross weight ones with 24k motors, and high gross weight ones with 26k motors, running where possible at 24K.

All but one of the 800 HGW has winglets.

OverRun
1st May 2002, 07:43
Rosscoe,

Guessed the airport from ERSA - but there was only a short list of likely ports to choose from :)

Got a full aircraft performance engineering study yesterday for 737-800s at another port - my figures are pretty close to the mark.

Dehavillanddriver - thanks for unravelling that mystery.

rosscoe
9th May 2002, 03:36
Overrun/Dehavilanddriver

Thanks for the info.

Generally consensus here was that it was not easily doable.

Just trying to show that an assumption made be someone else was not necessarilly accurate without providing figures to back it up.

IMHO Qantas would probably not use them here.

Regards
Rosscoe