737 Magic!
the lunatic fringe
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 621
Likes: 5
From: Everywhere
Looking at my logbook I see that I have 4470 hours on the 737-200. The bulk of those hours I operated out of Birmingham. England. EGBB.
Birmingham has a 15/33 runway and the prevailing wind is 250/ 15 gusting 20 on a good day. On a bad day you would spend all day fighting a max crosswind.
The -200 was dependable and predictable at the edges of its crosswind limits. The best I have ever flown on a nasty day. Quick to turnaround, almost never broke down, and did exactly what it said on the tin.
The -200 was a light aeroplane pretending to be a big one.
I then went to the A319 at EGBB.
The A319 in 250/25 gusting 40 ish was a pig. A huge big black overcomplicated sow after the 737. But that is another story.
Birmingham has a 15/33 runway and the prevailing wind is 250/ 15 gusting 20 on a good day. On a bad day you would spend all day fighting a max crosswind.
The -200 was dependable and predictable at the edges of its crosswind limits. The best I have ever flown on a nasty day. Quick to turnaround, almost never broke down, and did exactly what it said on the tin.
The -200 was a light aeroplane pretending to be a big one.
I then went to the A319 at EGBB.
The A319 in 250/25 gusting 40 ish was a pig. A huge big black overcomplicated sow after the 737. But that is another story.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: buderim australia
love it
15 years of 747s and now 4 on 737 300/400/800ng. Each time I go to work its a little like making my way to archerfield all those years ago. Fun and interest ahead. Simple and uncomplicated. Now back to the 3rd month of my leave and house painting
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 35
From: I wouldn't know.
Personally i like the classic better in terms of pure normal flying. However in non-normals and for normal line operation the NG is quite a lot better. Especially the redesigned electrical system is much easier, not to mention the other goodies as IAN and fail operational autoflight system.
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
From: Flightdeck
I´ve only flown it as a passenger and in simulator but I have a special love for the 3-500
I´ve heard that the NG is pure hydraulic while the md80 was flown with manual force. Is the Classic allso hydraulic or is the stearingsystem built up by lines?
I´ve heard that the NG is pure hydraulic while the md80 was flown with manual force. Is the Classic allso hydraulic or is the stearingsystem built up by lines?
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 2
From: In a far better place
The -100 and -200 were the perfect jet for newbies to jets to cut their teeth on. It was the perfect Boeing trainer. You rarely hurt the jet… and the jet rarely hurt you.
Now for maneuverability and handling and landing performance… IMHO nothing beats the 727-100.
I think we can agree that all planes fly great... just some fly better than others
.
Now for maneuverability and handling and landing performance… IMHO nothing beats the 727-100.
I think we can agree that all planes fly great... just some fly better than others
.
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 1,305
From: Australia
The 737-200 with JT8D-17 engines was a beauty. On Nauru island the coast road ran parallel to and 50 yards from the whole length of the 5600 ft runway ending in the Pacific. Cars and motor bikes would stop and people would cover their ears as the 737 would crackle like thunder as the power hit 2.18 EPR. No noise abatement on Nauru and at night the noise of a departing or arriving 737 would wake the dead and the drunks. There were no complaints as these aircraft were the life-blood of the island. Pity they sent the country broke though.
The locals on their big Honda Goldwings tried to race you during take off. The bikes had us beat to 80 knots but after that we had them by the short and curlies.
Very rarely had to use full reverse on landing but if you did the passengers in the rear seats got a real earful. Never had to use autobrakes because reverse at 1.6 EPR was so effective and you only had to ease on the brakes at 80 knots or below. Only thing to be careful of was erroneous EPR readings if the Pt2 EPR tubes got insects or other foreign bodies in the tube. We always used N1 as primary means of setting initial thrust after a close shave one night.
No one was afraid of hand flying - unlike now when some pilots go white if asked to fly without the autopilot and flight director! Just kidding, of course.
The locals on their big Honda Goldwings tried to race you during take off. The bikes had us beat to 80 knots but after that we had them by the short and curlies.
Very rarely had to use full reverse on landing but if you did the passengers in the rear seats got a real earful. Never had to use autobrakes because reverse at 1.6 EPR was so effective and you only had to ease on the brakes at 80 knots or below. Only thing to be careful of was erroneous EPR readings if the Pt2 EPR tubes got insects or other foreign bodies in the tube. We always used N1 as primary means of setting initial thrust after a close shave one night.
No one was afraid of hand flying - unlike now when some pilots go white if asked to fly without the autopilot and flight director! Just kidding, of course.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Likes: 2
From: nowhere
[quote=DC-ATE;5352868
It's up to you to NOT let ATC fly your airplane for you. As far as I'm concerned those spoilers are for landing. Any other use is poor planning.
[/quote]
Planning is fine but it seems that with 55% N1 for engine anti-icing, you need full flight speedbrakes just to get 1,000 fpm descent. The ol' 72 allowed full speedbrakes in flight. And if you were 20 back on the glide at 250 with no speedbrake, you just configured while descending on the glide.
The 73 seems a little wobbly on occasion in ground rollout as well, possibly due to shimmy dampers on the main gear. Maybe just a little Tonka Toy-ish.
Must say that the autopilot is quite a nice design.
It's up to you to NOT let ATC fly your airplane for you. As far as I'm concerned those spoilers are for landing. Any other use is poor planning.
[/quote]
Planning is fine but it seems that with 55% N1 for engine anti-icing, you need full flight speedbrakes just to get 1,000 fpm descent. The ol' 72 allowed full speedbrakes in flight. And if you were 20 back on the glide at 250 with no speedbrake, you just configured while descending on the glide.
The 73 seems a little wobbly on occasion in ground rollout as well, possibly due to shimmy dampers on the main gear. Maybe just a little Tonka Toy-ish.
Must say that the autopilot is quite a nice design.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge
The 737 is an accountant's airplane, the 727 is a pilot's airplane.
Flew the 727 with -7 engines which were gutless but would still take it over the 737 (300/400) or the A320 family any day. Those that have flown the -200 have told me that it was like a little sports car, but no personal experience sadly.
Flew the 727 with -7 engines which were gutless but would still take it over the 737 (300/400) or the A320 family any day. Those that have flown the -200 have told me that it was like a little sports car, but no personal experience sadly.
