146 to go....in comes the 717
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captn Bloggs Gday. That looks like one of my landings in the late 70s. I thought no one saw that one. The tech log entry stated. " Slightly larger than normal landing. Tail fell off. Aircraft U/S.
Regards DM
Regards DM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weapons Hot, Dont be a fool. Just be cool and keep em spooled.
Thank christ you are here now to nail the F/O on a public forum. It was his landing wasnt it. Or was it yours?
Thank christ you are here now to nail the F/O on a public forum. It was his landing wasnt it. Or was it yours?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOL REQUIREMENTS
I do not have the performance charts for the 717, but being two engines rear mounted and slim lines ( you see nothing slips past my keen eyes )
I would have thought their STOL capabilities were less that the 146 and they are stretched for Newman and other inland north west towns.
Could some one with the charts check using 40c as ambient temp.
Topend 3, my guess is you are right to qustion this, certainly AN and now QF use Broome for a fueling stop from Kun for their Kun-Per flights and their strip is longer and usually it is less hot than Newman, though the fuel required ex Newman to Perth is much less.
My bet is the717 will be Pax limited.
I would have thought their STOL capabilities were less that the 146 and they are stretched for Newman and other inland north west towns.
Could some one with the charts check using 40c as ambient temp.
Topend 3, my guess is you are right to qustion this, certainly AN and now QF use Broome for a fueling stop from Kun for their Kun-Per flights and their strip is longer and usually it is less hot than Newman, though the fuel required ex Newman to Perth is much less.
My bet is the717 will be Pax limited.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know when the decision will be made as to who gets the 717s?
Will the payload restrictions be somewhat offest be the larger jump in capacity on the 717? Obviously the 717 will be restricted alot more than the 146s. Will that play havoc with dispatch and flight planning? Just curious (and bored)...
Will the payload restrictions be somewhat offest be the larger jump in capacity on the 717? Obviously the 717 will be restricted alot more than the 146s. Will that play havoc with dispatch and flight planning? Just curious (and bored)...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere in Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision is made the 717’s go to Qantaslink what has yet to be decided is who will operate them…. Will it be Jetstar or National Jet contracting to Qantaslink or will Qantaslink (read Eastern And Sunstate) make a dash to the line and operate them….
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wal, the fuel stop for the 146 PER-KNX was ZNE, the 300 could make it all the way with up to around 50 kts on the snout, provided no requirements in PER.
Seeing as the loads ex ZNE where around the 80 mark, the 717 will be some 2 1/2 ton lighter not to mention needing stuff all fuel so it might be OK, plus I think QF have decided to " make " it work, either way.
Ditzy, with the 1st 71 supoosedly operating ex Per 1/2 way through next year, the answer would have to be be4 xmas, you would think.
Seeing as the loads ex ZNE where around the 80 mark, the 717 will be some 2 1/2 ton lighter not to mention needing stuff all fuel so it might be OK, plus I think QF have decided to " make " it work, either way.
Ditzy, with the 1st 71 supoosedly operating ex Per 1/2 way through next year, the answer would have to be be4 xmas, you would think.
The 717 and the 146 burn around the same amount per hour.
Don't know what the tankage is in the 717, but the limiting factor in the 146 in many cases is the 9000 odd kg's that the tanks will hold.....if the 717 holds more it may be a different kettle of fish.
If the decision is not made until after Christmas, Jetstar would have to be loking good, though I suspect that NJS would have to be in a good position for a range of logistical reasons.
Don't know what the tankage is in the 717, but the limiting factor in the 146 in many cases is the 9000 odd kg's that the tanks will hold.....if the 717 holds more it may be a different kettle of fish.
If the decision is not made until after Christmas, Jetstar would have to be loking good, though I suspect that NJS would have to be in a good position for a range of logistical reasons.
the 717's i believe will be configured all Y in 115 seat config., this provides a considerable jump in capacity from a 146-100 or 200 which seat around 64-70 pax i believe. i gather 73's will complement the 717's on routes where there is a demand for J class, and will be interesting to see how the performance pans out for the 717 and whether loads will need to be capped into some destinations.
i believe xr are adding another row of seats to their f100's to make it a 100-seater, they are currently config. 97 seats.
i believe xr are adding another row of seats to their f100's to make it a 100-seater, they are currently config. 97 seats.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 717 is a tight fit into the WA route network.
PER-BME looks just OK - it needs 1850m on a 30oC day at MTOW, dry, zero wind and a/c off, and there is close to 2500m runway at BME. Don't know what the 717-200 is like on very hot days, but going from 15 to 30 deg C only adds a small amount to the take-off run, so it'll probably handle the heat for takeoffs. But the fuel requirements for the leg are such that given the rather limited aircraft MTOW, passengers are a different thing. For the BME-PER leg, it won't take quite full pax (110-115 against 125 seats that the Jetstar website mentions; the actual number of pax depends on the en-route winds and '50 knots on the snout' would be worse), and of course that leaves it with nil tonnes for freight or adverse holding fuel.
Kun-Per is much worse. Kun only have a 1850m runway to start with, so spring, summer and autumn takeoffs will be tight, and the allowable TOW likely to be a close calculation each time. The fuel tankage is right on the limit, and at maximum fuel, it is on the limit to make PER with standard reserves. If headwinds are there, then it just won't do it, let alone cope with any adverse holding requirements.
And for this aircraft, if you fill the tanks, there is not enough payload left for full passengers. For the KUN-PER leg assuming that cool weather has allowed takeoff at MTOW, it will only take 86-93 pax against 125 seats (the actual number of pax depends on the en-route winds). On a stinking hot day, with reduced TOW, they could be down as low as 70 pax, or even down to 60 if there are some headwinds. Newman here we come for a tech stop!!!
Can I echo Walley2's request on the 40 oC takeoff - can anyone with the Boeing 717 performance programme give a takeoff runway length figure for 40 oC day (std + 25 oC), given no engine airbleed, nil wind, flat and dry runway, 51710kgs TOW (=MTOW for the Australian registered models)??
At least the aircraft is light-footed - with its ACN 30 for B subgrade at MTOW, it's certainly light enough to operate unrestricted on BME, KUN and Newman pavements. It might even be allowed into Perth on the 06/24 runway
PER-BME looks just OK - it needs 1850m on a 30oC day at MTOW, dry, zero wind and a/c off, and there is close to 2500m runway at BME. Don't know what the 717-200 is like on very hot days, but going from 15 to 30 deg C only adds a small amount to the take-off run, so it'll probably handle the heat for takeoffs. But the fuel requirements for the leg are such that given the rather limited aircraft MTOW, passengers are a different thing. For the BME-PER leg, it won't take quite full pax (110-115 against 125 seats that the Jetstar website mentions; the actual number of pax depends on the en-route winds and '50 knots on the snout' would be worse), and of course that leaves it with nil tonnes for freight or adverse holding fuel.
Kun-Per is much worse. Kun only have a 1850m runway to start with, so spring, summer and autumn takeoffs will be tight, and the allowable TOW likely to be a close calculation each time. The fuel tankage is right on the limit, and at maximum fuel, it is on the limit to make PER with standard reserves. If headwinds are there, then it just won't do it, let alone cope with any adverse holding requirements.
And for this aircraft, if you fill the tanks, there is not enough payload left for full passengers. For the KUN-PER leg assuming that cool weather has allowed takeoff at MTOW, it will only take 86-93 pax against 125 seats (the actual number of pax depends on the en-route winds). On a stinking hot day, with reduced TOW, they could be down as low as 70 pax, or even down to 60 if there are some headwinds. Newman here we come for a tech stop!!!
Can I echo Walley2's request on the 40 oC takeoff - can anyone with the Boeing 717 performance programme give a takeoff runway length figure for 40 oC day (std + 25 oC), given no engine airbleed, nil wind, flat and dry runway, 51710kgs TOW (=MTOW for the Australian registered models)??
At least the aircraft is light-footed - with its ACN 30 for B subgrade at MTOW, it's certainly light enough to operate unrestricted on BME, KUN and Newman pavements. It might even be allowed into Perth on the 06/24 runway
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..........and who was saying the 146 is not a capable A/c ??
Over, when the 717 was first mooted for the q/link routes it was suggested that they might go the way of some of the east coast 146-200s and reduce the MTOW in the flight manual, therefore reducing air nav charges ( yes folks, it has been done before ).
That would tie in with the with the config of the A/C almost gauranteed to be significantly less than the J Star config of 125 Y.
More along the lines of 8 J and 90-100 Y, apart from KA, and BRM none of the other routes really need more than 90 seats so 100-105 should be ample.
All conjecture of course but all will be revealed in the not too distant future.
Over, when the 717 was first mooted for the q/link routes it was suggested that they might go the way of some of the east coast 146-200s and reduce the MTOW in the flight manual, therefore reducing air nav charges ( yes folks, it has been done before ).
That would tie in with the with the config of the A/C almost gauranteed to be significantly less than the J Star config of 125 Y.
More along the lines of 8 J and 90-100 Y, apart from KA, and BRM none of the other routes really need more than 90 seats so 100-105 should be ample.
All conjecture of course but all will be revealed in the not too distant future.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM
In all modesty, wasn't me.
However, that doesn't make me less responsbile. T
he lightning sure hit the 2 sets of lightning arrester bars on the shoulders later that week.
In all modesty, wasn't me.
However, that doesn't make me less responsbile. T
he lightning sure hit the 2 sets of lightning arrester bars on the shoulders later that week.
overun, good comments but i wouldn't get too carried away with performance figures in regards to knx-per, qlinks comittment to this route is questionable at best, with currently just a single 146 service per week and you would wonder whether loadings could sustain the retention of this service in the long term. the fact that qlink are going to retain 2 of the 146's for some routes (the 2 -300's i believe) indicates that they may continue on some of the thinner routes where the 717 is less capable.
TE3, FYI, it's two a week and the friggin things are chockers every flight: that's why they go via ZNE or BME. Sorry to spoil your mirth.
The Diesel 9ski and 146-300 will be an unbeatable combination. The Fokkers won't be chockers for much longer.
Douglas McDonnell demonstrates how to land a 717! Click here.link deactivated. Sorry.
Boeing stuff here.
The Diesel 9ski and 146-300 will be an unbeatable combination. The Fokkers won't be chockers for much longer.
Douglas McDonnell demonstrates how to land a 717! Click here.link deactivated. Sorry.
Boeing stuff here.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 25th Nov 2004 at 12:31.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Bloggs,
Thanks for the video, amazing, sure answers the question posted above about the hot galley, I would suggest it is located forward. An even bigger thanks for the tech info!!
The reason KNX-PER is tech stopped in BME is that we do not charge a landing fee for tech stops, as the airline is not utilising all the facilities or doing business there, also being few in number the runway deteriation is not a factor.
Thanks for the video, amazing, sure answers the question posted above about the hot galley, I would suggest it is located forward. An even bigger thanks for the tech info!!
The reason KNX-PER is tech stopped in BME is that we do not charge a landing fee for tech stops, as the airline is not utilising all the facilities or doing business there, also being few in number the runway deteriation is not a factor.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get too cocky ...
It's still a two horse race to be the 717 operator. "Don't be so humble - you are not that great." - Golda Meir (1898-1978)
It's still a two horse race to be the 717 operator. "Don't be so humble - you are not that great." - Golda Meir (1898-1978)
Last edited by Orbitz; 14th Nov 2004 at 13:01.