PDA

View Full Version : Boeing 737-900 er


Skyrider321
22nd Nov 2016, 13:08
We plan to induct 737-900er in our fleet, just want to discuss here with the current pilots flying the -900er that I have alot of feedback from aviation professionals as to not induct these aircrafts due to terrbile tail strike record.

However, I believe that tailstriking is in the hands of a pilot, tailstriking is not a manufacturers fault.

What are you suggestions guys?

Thank You

diakon
23rd Nov 2016, 09:35
I am currently flying the 737/800 and disagree with you.
My type is more benign talking about tail strikes and we keep this risk in mind on every trip. So, in my opinion, it's not a pilot's thing.
Just my two cents, a long airframe and a low landing gear increase tail strike risk.
Regards.

SMT Member
23rd Nov 2016, 11:11
They like really, really, long runways and don't fancy anything above 2000ft for take-off. You'll see V-speeds that make you think you were driving a space shuttle, and tailstrikes is a bigger risk on this type than any other narrow-body, with the possible exception of the Q-400.

For take-off and landings it's a dog, but once up there, it sips fuel and does wonders for the CASM, which make beancounters extremely happy.

B737900er
23rd Nov 2016, 15:09
Its very limited for long journeys due to the lack of increased MZFM.
Increase maintenance costs due to a different bulkhead.
Tail strike is increased.
Tipping can be a factor is loaded wrong.

STBYRUD
24th Nov 2016, 09:10
Looks good on paper for the bean counters, but its a stretch too far (if you pardon the pun) of the old 737 - it would really benefit from longer main gears to improve takeoff and landing performance by allowing a higher aoa... The extending tail skid apparently was the only way they could stretch the margins somewhat.

Wycombe
24th Nov 2016, 09:53
Turkish seem to be the ones pushing the performance boundaries of this type looking at some of the routes they fly from IST into central/west Africa?

STBYRUD
24th Nov 2016, 16:24
They can only do that because they only have roughly 150 seats installed, with 'only' two aux fuel cells fitted in the aft cargo hold. Also the extra doors on the -ER are deactivated and plugged to reduce maintenance requirements.

Concerning MZFM - thats a matter of certification, the 900ERs I am familiar with have a MZFM of 67721kg while the -800s have 62731kg.

Wycombe
24th Nov 2016, 21:45
Thanks for the insight....I'm "watching" one now on FR24, flying IST-DAR with a time en-route of 6hr 50min!

underfire
24th Nov 2016, 22:14
If one searches for 737-900 tailstrike, you will see news reports on just how many have been "reported".

I would suspect that is also an issue with the other stretch variants that both Boeing and Airbus are attempting. (the recent A321NEO example)

The 737 is so low to the ground anyways, it would seem to be far more susceptible.

a pretty hard 777 tailstrike...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e1/fe/1c/e1fe1c43456968a7be0b366b57fac51b.jpg

Flyboy_SG
24th Nov 2016, 23:12
I have flown the 737-800/900ER and now flying the 777-200/300ER. 800 seems to the maximum they should have stretched. In my previous company we have had tail strikes of 900 during take offs as well as landings due to excessive rotation, holding the nose off during landing for long time, incorrect weight/v speeds. And the damages are on the tail skid or sometimes on the fuselage, ripped apart.

If i remember correct tail clearance was 11 inches on normal take off flaps(5) setting. Which is way too low. Boeing has just stretched it too far and left very less margin for error. Even 777 300 has tail strike issue, but thank God the primary flight computer has tail strike avoidance system.

You should consider 321.