737-200 Vs 200 Adv
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: malta
Age: 66
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-200 Vs 200 Adv
Trying to create a top quality Fight Simulator 737-200 here and stumbled across a quandary ..
I have read that the basic "rule of thumb" for Cruise setting is
2X Alt + 20 = Epr decimal
FL32 x2 = 64 +20 = 84 = 1.84 EPR for Mach 0.72 Cruise ..
However .. is this for BASIC 200 Series or 200 Adv ?
The Adv has more power of course, so would that mean a higher Cruise Mach or Lower EPR when compared to the basic ?
Does the Adv have more drag resulting in similar Mach numbers per EPR ?
Head Scratchin to the extreme !
Thanks in advance anyone who can point a finger at the answer
I have read that the basic "rule of thumb" for Cruise setting is
2X Alt + 20 = Epr decimal
FL32 x2 = 64 +20 = 84 = 1.84 EPR for Mach 0.72 Cruise ..
However .. is this for BASIC 200 Series or 200 Adv ?
The Adv has more power of course, so would that mean a higher Cruise Mach or Lower EPR when compared to the basic ?
Does the Adv have more drag resulting in similar Mach numbers per EPR ?
Head Scratchin to the extreme !
Thanks in advance anyone who can point a finger at the answer
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Advanced' refers to the Airframe NOT the engines.
This, from memory of 25 years or so ago, meant the ADV had more flap settings and I think revised leading edge devices.
Some Operators had later, more powerful engines, fitted -15's -17's etc.
However some kept comminality with earlier 'Basic' airframes and had -9 engines.
Apologies, but cannot remember anything about power settings etc.
This, from memory of 25 years or so ago, meant the ADV had more flap settings and I think revised leading edge devices.
Some Operators had later, more powerful engines, fitted -15's -17's etc.
However some kept comminality with earlier 'Basic' airframes and had -9 engines.
Apologies, but cannot remember anything about power settings etc.
Tables & Charts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: malta
Age: 66
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Have charts coming out of my ears !
SO Thanks very much but I will politely decline
The problem is "our" Adv variants have the later -15 Engines so of course the PCDS Needs to take this into account ..
Do we cruise the Same Mach but with a lower EPR ?
OR Do we cruise at a Higher Mach with the Same EPR ?
(when compared to the earlier -200 engines)
SO Thanks very much but I will politely decline
The problem is "our" Adv variants have the later -15 Engines so of course the PCDS Needs to take this into account ..
Do we cruise the Same Mach but with a lower EPR ?
OR Do we cruise at a Higher Mach with the Same EPR ?
(when compared to the earlier -200 engines)
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWA bought 10 727-231As in the very late 1970s, perhaps 1980 or so. TWA used the same engine, the smallest 14,500 pound version for all models of its 727s.
As I recall the MGTOW was slightly greater on the 231A (3,000 pounds I believe) because of a stronger landing gear. The other notable difference I recall was a so-called improved Sperry autopilot that would flare (but not decrab). We were authorized CAT III with a DA with this gludge. So far as I recall, no one flew such an approach in actual conditions.
As I recall the MGTOW was slightly greater on the 231A (3,000 pounds I believe) because of a stronger landing gear. The other notable difference I recall was a so-called improved Sperry autopilot that would flare (but not decrab). We were authorized CAT III with a DA with this gludge. So far as I recall, no one flew such an approach in actual conditions.
A 727 with a form of Autoland ?
I had no idea such a model existed, ours could not even be coupled to the loc / glideslope reliably !
Loved the Aircraft, don't get me wrong but sophisticated it wasn't.
I had no idea such a model existed, ours could not even be coupled to the loc / glideslope reliably !
Loved the Aircraft, don't get me wrong but sophisticated it wasn't.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stilton:
Autoland I wouldn't call it. It flared, but didn't decrab, then you had to disconnect once it touched down, because there was no roll-out guidance.
It was another lousy attempt by TWA to make more out of technology than was reasonable. Of course, the whores at Boeing and the FAA went along with the "program."
Shortly thereafter I went to a real CAT III airplane, the early 767.
And, many of us who scoffed at the "advanced" 727 had previous real CAT III autoland experience as F/Os on the L-1011.
A 727 with a form of Autoland ?
I had no idea such a model existed, ours could not even be coupled to the loc / glideslope reliably !
I had no idea such a model existed, ours could not even be coupled to the loc / glideslope reliably !
It was another lousy attempt by TWA to make more out of technology than was reasonable. Of course, the whores at Boeing and the FAA went along with the "program."
Shortly thereafter I went to a real CAT III airplane, the early 767.
And, many of us who scoffed at the "advanced" 727 had previous real CAT III autoland experience as F/Os on the L-1011.
EAL's B727-200As had autoland, did several such landings at ATL, PDX and SEA. Not great, lacking auto throttles, touchdown was dependent on how the captain retarded the power, but it worked.
GF
GF
The 737-300 (Classics) do an excellent job of autoland with one autopilot only. It does not trim back at 400 feet however but this doesn't affect the smoothness of the flare and touch down.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA's fleet of 737-200 advanced all had dual channel autopilots that gave Cat3A (50ft/200m) autoland capability and had autothrust.
Worked pretty well, had to engage the second channel by 800ft latest.
No roll-out capability.
Used in anger several times, including an auto-flown go-around from 50ft witth nothing seen at Dusseldorf back in about 1990, and it didn't touchdown during the go-around, which was to be expected on occasion.
After the B747-400 the B737-200 was my favourite aircraft to fly, inffact it may even just pip the -400.
Worked pretty well, had to engage the second channel by 800ft latest.
No roll-out capability.
Used in anger several times, including an auto-flown go-around from 50ft witth nothing seen at Dusseldorf back in about 1990, and it didn't touchdown during the go-around, which was to be expected on occasion.
After the B747-400 the B737-200 was my favourite aircraft to fly, inffact it may even just pip the -400.
Funny that the old 737-200's seem to be favoured more for their handling than any of the later models.
There is something to the adage of 'if it looks right it will fly right'
I am really surprised about the 727 'flare' function.
The most sophisticated thing we had on ours were a PDCS performance computer and a few had OMEGA.
Even the Auto Speedbrake function was disabled as it was found it would fully activate after a high bounce causing the next arrival to be quite dramatic.
There is something to the adage of 'if it looks right it will fly right'
I am really surprised about the 727 'flare' function.
The most sophisticated thing we had on ours were a PDCS performance computer and a few had OMEGA.
Even the Auto Speedbrake function was disabled as it was found it would fully activate after a high bounce causing the next arrival to be quite dramatic.
