Boeing 733 - Normal Cruising speed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: DARLINGTON
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing 733 - Normal Cruising speed
Flew back from Murcia to Newcastle today on a JET2 733, I have one of those new passive scanners and listened to ATC during the flight. On approaching the London TMA the controller asked the mach number we were doing and the pilot said .735.
Is a 733 usually that slow? I thought they cruised at .75-6?
The controller asked us to speed up to .74 or more as we must have had someone behind at FL340
Are JET2 saving fuel?
Is a 733 usually that slow? I thought they cruised at .75-6?
The controller asked us to speed up to .74 or more as we must have had someone behind at FL340
Are JET2 saving fuel?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on whats called the "cost index" you are billed to fly back at. We can and do fly faster, but as said earlier it all depends on operational needs etc.
We were asked to go faster due to traffic over London being streamed into Newcastle, and as there was an aircraft behind doing .76 it helped to go faster.
ps i was responsible for the landing
We were asked to go faster due to traffic over London being streamed into Newcastle, and as there was an aircraft behind doing .76 it helped to go faster.
ps i was responsible for the landing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Harvest, Alabama
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All 73 guys, myself included, please accept this apology in advance.
When the 73 first came out, I was on left USA coast doing short hop commutes in a Gulstream 2. Money no object to guys in back.
We'd depart LAX to LAS (300-ish miles). Loop departure late at night. Cross LAX at >13000, turn your descretion, we'd start the turn at 5DME and cross out of 17 going to FL230. The high alt guy said anything above 230 was unavail, and there were 2 737's to follow at 210 doing M.73.
BUT... if we could do M.85 or better, we could do so at FL230, and expect to be in front by TOD.
Was never a problem.
These days, if SWA is doing less than M.75, the pinch is on.
When the 73 first came out, I was on left USA coast doing short hop commutes in a Gulstream 2. Money no object to guys in back.
We'd depart LAX to LAS (300-ish miles). Loop departure late at night. Cross LAX at >13000, turn your descretion, we'd start the turn at 5DME and cross out of 17 going to FL230. The high alt guy said anything above 230 was unavail, and there were 2 737's to follow at 210 doing M.73.
BUT... if we could do M.85 or better, we could do so at FL230, and expect to be in front by TOD.
Was never a problem.
These days, if SWA is doing less than M.75, the pinch is on.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: usa
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We used to fly barber pole/mach buffet at SWA. Change in plans for whatever reason you want:fuel prices/former AF guys running the show/lousy ground service/ATC/whatever. So now the standard SWA profile is (depending on model aircraft) climb at basically 260-265/.68-74 mach, cruise at .74-78, then descend at .74-.78 crossover to 261. Mach if cruising in the 20's is around 72. Beancounters running the show.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're currently flying around with a very low cost index. Our cruise speeds are nearer max range than long range. If we set LRC no appreciable increase in consumption is evident which supports the general theory behind LRC in the first place (speed stability vs A/T hunting). I have never got to the bottom of why our company chooses to fly so slowly for such little apparent benefit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: DARLINGTON
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for a smooth one Tonker!!
Your 73s are looking a bit tatty round the edges but service is good, surprised that the cruising level isnt somewhere like fl370? to save more fuel.
Out of interest, are they EFIS? As they are early ones and sat in storage in OZ for a while.
Nice to see them "painting" on SBS though, so the kit is obviously fitted.
Your 73s are looking a bit tatty round the edges but service is good, surprised that the cruising level isnt somewhere like fl370? to save more fuel.
Out of interest, are they EFIS? As they are early ones and sat in storage in OZ for a while.
Nice to see them "painting" on SBS though, so the kit is obviously fitted.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD-
737-300 has a max alt of FL370 - the wing was borrowed from older models and isn't often able to go that high when you are making money. If you are heavy, then 340-360 is kinda your cruising range. In a 737-400 I have maxed out at FL290 when we were on our way to timbuctoo...
Also, cruising level has a lot to do with winds and turb...
737-300 has a max alt of FL370 - the wing was borrowed from older models and isn't often able to go that high when you are making money. If you are heavy, then 340-360 is kinda your cruising range. In a 737-400 I have maxed out at FL290 when we were on our way to timbuctoo...
Also, cruising level has a lot to do with winds and turb...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sustained cruise at M0.76 in the B737-300 places cumulative stress on the Flap Tracks, leading (eventually) to Flap jams.
The solution (when I was flying them), fly at M0.74, no more Flap jams. (Boeing may have addressed the problem since then).
Just a historical thought.............
Regards,
Old Smokey
The solution (when I was flying them), fly at M0.74, no more Flap jams. (Boeing may have addressed the problem since then).
Just a historical thought.............
Regards,
Old Smokey
