Flaps 2 origin 737?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham
Age: 39
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps 2 origin 737?
Folks,
couldnt find something in the web:
When was the flaps 2 setting needed and which practical value does it have today and why doesnt boeing change that flapsetting? Cut it out? certification?
Thanks
SW
couldnt find something in the web:
When was the flaps 2 setting needed and which practical value does it have today and why doesnt boeing change that flapsetting? Cut it out? certification?
Thanks
SW
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romeo E.T.:
We used 5, 15, and 25 for takeoff, depending on runway length and elevation. Never 2, though; that must have been some huge ground speed at rotation.
optimum take-off flap from "old" Durban intl rny 06 full length was a flap 2 setting on the B737-200...don't always presume the approach and landing phase of flight.
Yep, flap 2 was very useful in the -200. Good trade between runway length and obstacle clearance. When Boeing built later versions they used a lot of existing components, so I guess the flap selection system was simply left there even though flap 5 generally became the better option with the higher thrust engines.
When was the flaps 2 setting needed....
Never used it for take-off on either the classic or the -NG. And we never use it on the approach on the -NG.
why doesnt boeing change that flapsetting? Cut it out? certification?
Moderator
I've undeleted this thread. Please don't delete threads. If you have a REALLY important reason to do so, send me a PM and, if the reason is reasonable, I'll remove the thread.
Problem is that others have an interest in discussions and there is not much can happen that is more frustrating than having an interesting thread disappear on you ...
Problem is that others have an interest in discussions and there is not much can happen that is more frustrating than having an interesting thread disappear on you ...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never 2, though; that must have been some huge ground speed at rotation.
) from which the flap gate (and gear lever?) originates and rather than re-machine the whole thing Boeing left the gates as they are. If you use it, use the F1 manoueuvre speeds as I don't think any are published.
The early 737-200 had only 1, 5, 15, 25, 30 and 40 flap notches on the selector, so I don't think it came from the 727. It was referred to as having the basic wing.
Most of the Basic aircraft we had were fitted with dash 9 engines, and were a bit short on performance. It was often the case that F1 was very limiting on field performance, while F5 was very limiting on climb performance. On a shorter field, it would be a similar problem with F5 and F15.
I understood that the whole point of having F2 and F10, was to give a better choice in these conditions, i.e. F2 would be less limiting on field than F1,and less limiting on climb than F5, so that the available take-off weight would be higher.
The aircraft so fitted were referred to as having an advanced wing, and I recall that there were some other modifications, relating to the way the leading edge devices extended with different flap settings
Most of the Basic aircraft we had were fitted with dash 9 engines, and were a bit short on performance. It was often the case that F1 was very limiting on field performance, while F5 was very limiting on climb performance. On a shorter field, it would be a similar problem with F5 and F15.
I understood that the whole point of having F2 and F10, was to give a better choice in these conditions, i.e. F2 would be less limiting on field than F1,and less limiting on climb than F5, so that the available take-off weight would be higher.
The aircraft so fitted were referred to as having an advanced wing, and I recall that there were some other modifications, relating to the way the leading edge devices extended with different flap settings
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Callsign K here, and not with Denti. On the -800 it allows us to slow to 180 if given by ATC, the F1 bug is often just above it, the bug does move down for F2.
Wally.
Wally.
...but abandoned on the 737- 400 due to tailstrike risk.
Not for the faint hearted
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 737-200, in some conditions, at near MTOW take-off speeds, Flaps 1 could exceed the brake energy limits (Vmbe). Flaps 2 take-off figures usually would accommodate the take-off. Faps 1 &(2) gave a better 2nd segment climb than F5/F15 on the -200. It is all revealed in the QRH Take-Off performance tables.
how many ***** has your lot experienced? I seem to recall the tail clearance on the 400 was a bit less at F1.
We had a tailstrike on a -400 shortly after delivery of the first, with only scraped paint to show for it though. A tailstrike on landing produced some damage a few months later.
The tail clearance figures in the FCTM were changed shortly thereafter IIRC.
We once had an old Boeing test machine that was a pre ADV B737-200. It had an ADV wing but everything else was an early model. We did use the the F2 selection for climb limited takeoff airports.
We use F1 at almost every airport on the B733.
We use F1 at almost every airport on the B733.