The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

737 Landing at Jandakot?

Old 19th Jan 2010, 11:48
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 27
The idea is to use it to train aircraft engineers. They purchased a hanger at JT lasy year where it will be parked. I have a mate at Polytechnic West (as Swan Tafe are now calling themselves) who has promised to let me know when it's arriving - no word from him recently.

Cheers
legaleagle73 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2010, 12:41
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 977
For info, Mildura 09/27 was extended to the west in 1996. QF737 attended airshow that year and has been used a number of times as Altn when ADL fogged in.
triadic is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2010, 14:52
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 432
The idea is to use it to train aircraft engineers. at Polytechnic West (as Swan Tafe)
Is this the build it and they will come method ? They have no apprentices that work on jets . 100% are GA and there is about 15 per year of those .

Are they going to go head to head with Aviation Australia? ....... watch this thing become a white elephant

Having been an apprentice at Swan Tafe I know they cant organise a root in a brothel with a fist full of 50's.
Hasherucf is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2010, 18:56
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wellington
Posts: 94
Corky McFuz - was it Gisborne?

ANZ definately operated a once-only charter 737 into Gisborne - 1310 m - in the early 1990s - don't know which model, but certainly not one of the current ones.

Last edited by Weekend_Warrior; 19th Jan 2010 at 18:59. Reason: spelling
Weekend_Warrior is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2010, 19:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,570
I'm of the belief that a STOL equipped 73 can operate out of 1300 metres reliably
I'd like to know more about the STOL equipped 73!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2010, 19:26
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 851
Maybe he's thinking coral/gravel kit equipped.. a la Air Nauru..
frigatebird is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2010, 21:57
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South
Posts: 636
Air New Zealand operated a B737-200 service on week days Auckland - Napier - Christchurch for many years. it limited seats to 80 in the res computer but could take more depending on the conditions.

Napier is 1310 meters and Air NZ have operated charter flights in the 200 and 300 into Gisbourne 1310m, New Plymouth 1310m and Woodbourne 1425m.

So for a B737-200 into JT would be a peice of cake.
c100driver is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 00:11
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Hypothetically it could taxi without hitting anything as long the pavement was up to the weight, 737-200 has a 93ft wingspan, the DC-3 has 97ft and she operated quite easily assuming you kept an eye on things and taxied slowly. Plus the hangar that it's going to is the same one where the DC-3 was looked after, so an aircraft that size has been down there before.
skyways is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 00:48
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,864
Capt Fathom said: I'd like to know more about the STOL equipped 73!
Well here you go Capt Fathom:

A short-field design package is available for the 737-600, -700 and -800, allowing operators to fly increased payload to and from airports with runways under 5,000 feet (1,500 m). The package consists of sealed leading edge slats (improved lift), a two-position tail skid (enabling reduced approach speeds) and increased flight spoiler deflection on the ground. These improvements are standard on the 737-900ER.
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 01:13
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,570
I thought they may have been equipped with a Robertson STOL Kit!

Wikipedia! Why didn't I think of that!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 01:29
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 119
Thanks for the replys guys.

As others have said i think they only plan on landing it - so getting out of Jandakot won't be an issue.

Does anyone know about the weight/pavement? i know SFC sometimes brings their Lear 45's into JT and there used to be a DC-3 here, but surely an empty 737 would still be weigh more than them?

I;ve heard they plan on landing it early in the morning so it will be cooler and the pavement will be 'stiffer'? Would that make that much difference?

cheers
Johnny_56 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 06:54
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karratha,Western Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 445
I believe it has special tyres fitted which are larger than normal.

It will be towed from the runway to its new home on the northern apron. Whenever it arrives it will be at 0700 or there abouts one morning.

As mentioned earlier, one way flight.
Awol57 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 09:30
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 742
Pontius, no humorous comments from ATC?
Sorry for the delay in responding; some bar steward decided I had to earn my wages and fly a bloody aircraft.

Anyway, yes, our GLA antics did earn some comments from the Tower. I don't really know who was laughing the most because we could barely reply to their instructions to vacate next right and they were obviously amused and talking through the giggles. Despite being the ramblings of a saddo, it really was very funny at the time but we learnt something about the performance of our little toy .

PS: I had a play today and would have had no trouble drawing up a fairly well laden 767 within 1200m, so I stick with my proposition that a 737 would do it easily. I had to use the aircraft again today, so didn't thrash it but just did a little bit of test piloting
Pontius is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 11:07
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 52
Posts: 6,855
...........that would be "performance monitoring" no doubt.


On to the tyres, I assume they are larger in width because larger diameter affects braking and gains only a small amount in area. That being said it is not hard to work out the effects, and one would say they will pull her up even with reduced braking from larger rubber!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 11:49
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 135
I would be more concerned about how many wheels on the truck that it will have to be on the back of, and the width of the opening of the airport
yowieII is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 14:29
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,807
Yowie, ya got it in one. By the time they meet all the CASA and FAA requirements, it will be cheaper to truck it in sans wings, then bolt them back on.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 23:50
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Right we're you least expect
Posts: 105
When??????????????

If this is going to happen, does anyone know when???
mic310 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2010, 00:30
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 278
767's seem to pull up on a dime without too much effort. Also seen a 743 pull up by rwy 21 when landing on 24 in Perth (1256m). Spoilers must actually work in these puppies...737's spoilers are pretty ineffective at slow speeds.
piston broke again is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2010, 06:58
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 742
737's spoilers are pretty ineffective at slow speeds
All spoilers are ineffective at slow speeds 'cos there's fewer bernoullis flowing over them, compared to high speed. Also, whilst spoilers do help to slow the aircraft down they are more about putting weight on the wheels as opposed to creating form drag to reduce speed. The brakes do most of the work (assisted by the spoilers) and reverse thrust helps to keep the brake temps down.

I would suggest the reason for you seeing 767s and 747s slow down more effectively than the 737 is because most, certainly not all, 767s, 747s etc have carbon brakes while the majority (but not all) 737s have steel brakes. These 'fade' quicker and have poorer performance when it comes to stopping an aircraft than their more modern brothers. Also the older 737s had a pretty crap, high aspect ratio wing, compared to the newer Boeings, so the Vref is really quite high and I've certainly had higher Vrefs in the 737 than I did in the 744 or 767 (obviously quite light). Higher touchdown speeds, coupled with steel brakes, means no surprises when the newer boys exit the runway sooner.
Pontius is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2010, 07:53
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 315
Used to fly into Jersey (Channel Islands) all the time with a full 737 (300, 400 & 500). That runway was a mini-tad over 1700m and wasn't a problem. Never used more than autobrake 3 and very often could turn off way before the runway end.
Pontius, as a young kid growing up in Jersey during the late 70's, I remember BA sending a Tristar down to the island a couple of times, to pick up the backlog of passengers that were sometimes stranded for days as a result of fog. Now that was an impressive sight on a 1700m runway!
The Bunglerat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.