Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aircraft Not Suited To Hot & High  
User currently offlineCurious From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 236 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11285 times:

Just wandering if in general there some aircraft, engine type that are not suited to these conditions and those that are. e.g I have been told MD83 is not suitable?

Thanks

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCOERJ145 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11203 times:

I think the CRJ has had some problems/weight restrictions with high altitudes(ex. DL out of ASE)

User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11189 times:

Quoting COERJ145 (Reply 1):
I think the CRJ has had some problems/weight restrictions with high altitudes(ex. DL out of ASE)

If that's the case, then why does Skywest run a huge fleet of them out of SLC? Doesn't quite add up, sorry.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11114 times:

The CRJ-100 and -200 does, in fact, feature poor takeoff performance at hot or high fields. It has no moveable leading edges. That doesn't help you get off the road.

The CRJ-700 and -900 have resolved that issue.

N


User currently onlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6085 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11087 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3):
The CRJ-100 and -200 does, in fact, feature poor takeoff performance at hot or high fields. It has no moveable leading edges. That doesn't help you get off the road.

The CRJ-700 and -900 have resolved that issue.

Depending on the airfield in question, the answer could be either/or. Yes, there are some airfields where the -200 will be able to operate with a higher payload percentage than the -700. However, since Aspen has been mentioned in this thread, it must be noted that the CRJ-200 would not be authorized to operate into that airport since the airport is closed to CAT D aircraft. The CRJ-700 has its fair share of issues in this market—as did the AVRO, but to a lesser degree.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11087 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 2):
Quoting COERJ145 (Reply 1):
I think the CRJ has had some problems/weight restrictions with high altitudes(ex. DL out of ASE)

If that's the case, then why does Skywest run a huge fleet of them out of SLC? Doesn't quite add up, sorry.

SLC is not really that high(4607ft) nor that hot(average of 80-85F summer time....ASE is high 7800ft. but can reach 75-80F average in the summer.
The almost 3000ft difference between these two examples makes much difference when loaded. I learned to fly in Colorado(been to ASE and LXV(Leadville at 10000ft.) many times and believe me, density altitude problems multiply quickly with every thousand feet when you start to get above 4-5000ft.
On the other hand I do agree with you to some extent. The CRJs do eat up alot of runway I've noticed, even down here in PHX at 1200ft average.

Cheers,
amazonphil

[Edited 2006-07-29 22:23:55]


If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11061 times:

Quoting Curious (Thread starter):
Just wandering if in general there some aircraft, engine type that are not suited to these conditions and those that are. e.g I have been told MD83 is not suitable?

Thanks

I have heard the opposite, the MD-80s are good for hot and high. AeroMexico uses them in and out of MEX at over 7,700 feet in elevation.

The 737-400 is definitely not a good hot & high aircraft, one of the reasons United didn't order it to replace the 727s and instead went with with A320s for it's Denver hub.



Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11061 times:

Quoting 737-990 (Reply 6):
Quoting Curious (Thread starter):
Just wandering if in general there some aircraft, engine type that are not suited to these conditions and those that are. e.g I have been told MD83 is not suitable?

Thanks

I have heard the opposite, the MD-80s are good for hot and high. AeroMexico uses them in and out of MEX at over 7,700 feet in elevation.

The 737-400 is definitely not a good hot & high aircraft, one of the reasons United didn't order it to replace the 727s and instead went with with A320s for it's Denver hub.

I agree, AV and P5(AeroRepublica) use them extensively out of BOG(8600ft) so I believe the MD-80 is a good higher altitude aircraft.



If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4112 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11036 times:

Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 5):
SLC is not really that high(5000ft) nor that hot(average of 80-85F summer time....ASE is high 7800ft. but can reach 75-80F average in the summer.
The almost 3000ft difference between these two examples makes much difference when loaded. I learned to fly in Colorado(been to ASE and LXV(Leadville at 10000ft.) many times and believe me, density altitude problems multiply quickly with every thousand feet when you start to get above 4-5000ft.
On the other hand I do agree with you to some extent. The CRJs do eat up alot of runway I've noticed, even down here in PHX at 1200ft average.

The CRJ can handle SLC and it's 4,300' elevation quite well, and the runways at SLC being 12,000' can easily accommodate one that is fully laden with passengers, cargo and fuel. The a/c in Delta's fleet that has the problems here in SLC is the MD-88 which is only a very rare visitor here during the summer months. Hot, Humid and High are the three inhibitors for planes taking off. While SLC and DEN don't have problems with high relative humidity being at altitudes of 4,300' and 5,300' respectively make these the highest altitude high use airports in North America. If you want to try out an airport that is HOT, Humid and High, try MEX.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently onlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6085 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11030 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 8):
The CRJ can handle SLC and it's 4,300' elevation quite well, and the runways at SLC being 12,000' can easily accommodate one that is fully laden with passengers, cargo and fuel.

Not in all cases when the tempurature is above 90.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11020 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 8):
Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 5):
SLC is not really that high(5000ft) nor that hot(average of 80-85F summer time....ASE is high 7800ft. but can reach 75-80F average in the summer.
The almost 3000ft difference between these two examples makes much difference when loaded. I learned to fly in Colorado(been to ASE and LXV(Leadville at 10000ft.) many times and believe me, density altitude problems multiply quickly with every thousand feet when you start to get above 4-5000ft.
On the other hand I do agree with you to some extent. The CRJs do eat up alot of runway I've noticed, even down here in PHX at 1200ft average.

The CRJ can handle SLC and it's 4,300' elevation quite well, and the runways at SLC being 12,000' can easily accommodate one that is fully laden with passengers, cargo and fuel. The a/c in Delta's fleet that has the problems here in SLC is the MD-88 which is only a very rare visitor here during the summer months. Hot, Humid and High are the three inhibitors for planes taking off. While SLC and DEN don't have problems with high relative humidity being at altitudes of 4,300' and 5,300' respectively make these the highest altitude high use airports in North America. If you want to try out an airport that is HOT, Humid and High, try MEX.

This is kind of my point, SLC and DEN(with a 16000ft runway) wouldn't and don't seem to present to much trouble even for a CRJ.
I hadn't known that about the MD-88 out of SLC though. Seems strange for an MD-88 as it's a newer bretheren of the MD-80 series. As I stated in my last post, the MD-80 performs well out of BOG and MEX. Must be a lower engine thrust rating or something else that degrades the MD-88.

amazonphil



If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offlineDesertFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10986 times:

Quoting 737-990 (Reply 6):
The 737-400 is definitely not a good hot & high aircraft, one of the reasons United didn't order it to replace the 727s and instead went with with A320s for it's Denver hub.

Although we are not high, we are hot here at PSP and we get 3 737-400s a day. Maybe it's the high more than the hot that doesn't go well with the 734s?


User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10971 times:

Quoting DesertFlyer (Reply 11):
Quoting 737-990 (Reply 6):
The 737-400 is definitely not a good hot & high aircraft, one of the reasons United didn't order it to replace the 727s and instead went with with A320s for it's Denver hub.

Although we are not high, we are hot here at PSP and we get 3 737-400s a day. Maybe it's the high more than the hot that doesn't go well with the 734s?

At PSP's 470 some odd ft., as you said, the height isn't really hampering the 734 at all. It takes height AND heat to really affect certain types of aircraft.

Cheers,
amazonphil



If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10955 times:

The 757-300 has to be on the list. NW's PW powered 753's take forever to lift off on hot days. It's about 97 here in MSP today, and the 753s are taking up as much runway as the DC-10s do to get off the ground (and we're only about 1100-1200ft elevation).

My understanding is the the Airbus A340-300 has a pretty long takeoff roll in hot/high conditions as well.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10938 times:

Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 10):
Seems strange for an MD-88 as it's a newer bretheren of the MD-80 series

The MD-88 is the same as the MD-82, but with an updated cockpit.

In September, Delta is pulling the MD-88s on ATL/CVG-ABQ flights. The ATL-ABQ flights will be served by two 757-200s and one 737-800, and the CVG-ABQ flight is being served by one 737-800. I am not sure if the hot and high conditions at ABQ are the reason why the MD-88s are being pulled, but it does seem rather likely.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10919 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 14):
The MD-88 is the same as the MD-82, but with an updated cockpit.

In September, Delta is pulling the MD-88s on ATL/CVG-ABQ flights. The ATL-ABQ flights will be served by two 757-200s and one 737-800, and the CVG-ABQ flight is being served by one 737-800. I am not sure if the hot and high conditions at ABQ are the reason why the MD-88s are being pulled, but it does seem rather likely.

The pull out of DL out of ABQ of the MD-88s might be also because of the bankerupcy and as they restructer the fleet and routes, their desire to update it all, etc,etc. not just because of hot and high density altitude problems. Don't know, just a thought.



If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offlineROA757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10919 times:

Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 10):
DEN(with a 16000ft runway)

Wow...when did KDEN get a 3 miler? I totally missed that one....
 ashamed 



Herbage Fodder.
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10888 times:

Quoting ROA757 (Reply 16):
Wow...when did KDEN get a 3 miler? I totally missed that one....

Hah... 3 years ago.


User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10888 times:

Quoting ROA757 (Reply 16):
Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 10):
DEN(with a 16000ft runway)

Wow...when did KDEN get a 3 miler? I totally missed that one....

Yes, 16R/34L X 200ft wide...Been there for about 7years?? Not sure exactly, wasn't there when we opened the airport in 2/1995 or for the first 3-4 years anyways. I have photos of the place from the air when the whole place was a praire land. Then photos of the first bulldozer, etc. etc.



If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10888 times:

Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 15):
The pull out of DL out of ABQ of the MD-88s might be also because of the bankerupcy and as they restructer the fleet and routes, their desire to update it all, etc,etc. not just because of hot and high density altitude problems. Don't know, just a thought.

Before last December, ABQ did not get any of Delta's MD-88s at all. The ATL/CVG-ABQ runs were operated by a mixture of 737-800s and 757-200s. The SLC-ABQ runs were operated by CRJ-200s and one 737-300. Last December, all flights from ATL and CVG were changed to MD-88s, and mainline service from SLC was discontinued. This upcoming September, Delta is switching back to the 737-800 and the 757-200 for flights from ATL and CVG, and is adding in CRJ-700 flights from SLC.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10879 times:

Ok, 3 years!  Big grin Haven't been to DIA in a while as I fly into APA most of the time myself, so I hadn't kept track of the the progress toward the 3 miler.


If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10862 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 19):
Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 15):
The pull out of DL out of ABQ of the MD-88s might be also because of the bankerupcy and as they restructer the fleet and routes, their desire to update it all, etc,etc. not just because of hot and high density altitude problems. Don't know, just a thought.

Before last December, ABQ did not get any of Delta's MD-88s at all. The ATL/CVG-ABQ runs were operated by a mixture of 737-800s and 757-200s. The SLC-ABQ runs were operated by CRJ-200s and one 737-300. Last December, all flights from ATL and CVG were changed to MD-88s, and mainline service from SLC was discontinued. This upcoming September, Delta is switching back to the 737-800 and the 757-200 for flights from ATL and CVG, and is adding in CRJ-700 flights from SLC.

You would know better than anyone, I was only taking a guess at a possible reason...757s and 738s are nicer anyways... Big grin



If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offlineCOERJ145 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10723 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
NW's PW powered 753's take forever to lift off on hot days. It's about 97 here in MSP today, and the 753s are taking up as much runway as the DC-10s do to get off the ground (and we're only about 1100-1200ft elevation).

I noticed that too. I was in MSP on tues, for NW170 to BOS on a 753. We used a good 6-7000ft of runway to lift off and we didn't have a large load.


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10692 times:

Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 20):
Ok, 3 years! Big grin Haven't been to DIA in a while as I fly into APA most of the time myself, so I hadn't kept track of the the progress toward the 3 miler.

Actually they started construction on the runway when they started construction on the rest of the airport, unfortunately there were geological issues in the area of the runway that at the time weren't overcomeable at a reasonable price, so they basically buried the partially completed runway under dirt then waited until they could afford to fix it.

1997:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers



1999:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Taylor



User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10562 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 23):
Actually they started construction on the runway when they started construction on the rest of the airport, unfortunately there were geological issues in the area of the runway that at the time weren't overcomeable at a reasonable price, so they basically buried the partially completed runway under dirt then waited until they could afford to fix it.

Now that you mention it, I do remember when I lived in Denver at the time talks about the 16K ft. runway and then it was sidelined. But I never learned why, but didn't care at all then as I was very angry with the whole airport thing as it caused me to loose my "cush" Stapleton maint. job there and my living in Denver eventually. Good ol' Stape was a great airport and was just fine...for that time then in the early 90's. But now....it would be too small. Guess the airport gods were correct then about thinking to the future. While DIA is beautiful in alot respects, I still don't care for it that much. Too far away from all I do in Denver and my beloved mountains. That's why I fly my own Cessna T210 into Centinnenial and go from there.

Thanks for the "buried" info that you brought to the surface!! Also thanks for the pics from 1997 and 1999. I should send you some from 1989 when the plowing/bull dozing started!! Unless you have them also.  Big grin

Cheers,
amazonphil

[Edited 2006-07-30 03:29:22]


If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
25 EddieDude : I would not say it is humid. The warm weather in Mexico City is dry... if you get under the shade, it feels much better (not like in the U.S. southea
26 Usair320 : ABQ is very hot and somewhat high at 5200 ft. I was aboard a CO 735 last july and we used up every inch of that 12000 foot runway.
27 Eastbay : SLCUT2777, humidity is a consideration? when I run the numbers on my aircraft (I've flown many including the Be-1900, B-737-200, DC-10-30 and A-320) h
28 SLCUT2777 : Eastbay: In your professional opinion (since you're a pilot I value it), are the runways at SLC too short to be able to adequately handle the day to d
29 SLCUT2777 : Typically when it gets that hot, the 763s and 764s begin to encounter weight restrictions, and in some cases the 752s (when the temp hits 100 F or 39
30 Samair : concorde used to have to have a third less passengers when taking off from hot and high areas
31 VEEREF : SAAB340 for sure. Doesn't exactly paste you to the back of your seat when fully loaded and hot. 8,000 ft altitude restriction for takeoff.
32 Lucky42 : NW'S DC-9-50 will eat up all the runway on a hot day for sure.
33 LHR777 : As an aside to the OP's question - what are the effects of hot and humid (but NOT high) on aircraft at take-off? e.g. - a fully laden B747-400 at LHR
34 DeltaGator : A few weeks back in DEN on an MD-88 Delta had to boot 15 passengers because of weight restrictions due to the heat and altitude. It was about 98F tha
35 Post contains images Jbguller : ...I think it requires more runway!!!
36 NZ8800 : Was reading through this thread and thinking landings at hot and high airports can cause problems as well as takeoffs can. Antananarivo's Aeroport Iva
37 Rbgso : Pretty much the entire time a 747 is on the ground at Ivato is spent spraying the brakes with water, so that they will be cool enough for the aeroplan
38 NZ8800 : So that they do not cause a fire in the wheel wells. Albeit a smaller aircraft - that is exactly what happened recently here when a New Zealand Post
39 Litz : Not only the fire threat mentioned above, but remember - if you have to abort your takeoff, you need those brakes in prime condition ... and hot brak
40 EMB195 : Another aircraft that has had a little bit of problems here in SLC is the ERJ-170. I have a friend who works in baggage handling for DL. He told me th
41 Spoke2Spoke : The A321 from what I've heard is not the best hot and high aircraft. Does anyone know what sort of weight restrictions this aircraft can experience in
42 Warreng24 : Have you guys ever watched the Champion Air 727's on take off from LAS during the summer? Amazing.
43 AA777223 : I'm surprised that the 753 is a poor performer in higher altitudes and temperatures. I realize that it is longer and weighs more than its smaller brot
44 Onetogo : You are 100% correct. Funny how everyone sort of ignored that. What is causing the confusion is that for people, additional humidity makes it *feel*
45 Post contains links J.mo : http://www.slcairport.com/pdf/planning/ap1_alp.pdf It looks like 14,300ft is in the cards for 34R. Jeremy
46 N353SK : One isolated incident doesn't really prove anything. The plane could have had to take on extra fuel for weather, or it could have accidentally been o
47 KcrwFlyer : Slc has plenty of runway for a CRJ. Also, arent there certain conditions where an aircraft will be weight restricted regardless of runway length I th
48 Goldenshield : The CRJ-200 is approach category D. The CRJ-700 is category C. What you are referring to is the airspace around the airport itself, which is CLASS C
49 727forever : Humidity does not play a factor in jet performance, as was stated by a few here, but several factors do. Altitude, Temp, weight, and flap setting do a
50 Brick : In Denver, I've had an Embraer 170 flight to Columbus, OH (CMH) last summer that was weight restricted due to engine performance. We had to leave abo
51 Swissgabe : Didn't Saudi Arabian Airlines have problems with their MD-90 at some domestic destinations because of the hot condition there?
52 727forever : Ah, another good question. When looking at takeoff limits you look at other stuff besides runway perf. You will always takeoff at the lowest of: 1. S
53 WesternA318 : Thepast few weeks of 100+ degree scorchers have been wreaking havoc with takeoff performance with both Skywest's CRJ-100/200's and DL's MD-90's. Espec
54 PlainSmart : From the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge: "Water vapor is lighter than air; consequently, moist air is lighter than dry air. Therefore, as
55 727forever : So, I guess we're in agreement then and that's why you quoted me? Even at very high humidity levels, heavy rain, it is not enough to warrant a perfor
56 Post contains images Fanofjets : I recall that Lake Central was very difficult with the performance of its Nord N-262s; the type was known for its difficulty taking off in hot-high co
57 SLCUT2777 : That's actually an old plan, but they have more viability on the west side, but more Great Salt Lake wetlands to relocate which doesn't make the eco-
58 AC320tech : "The CRJ-100 and -200 does, in fact, feature poor takeoff performance at hot or high fields. It has no moveable leading edges. That doesn't help you g
59 PlainSmart : Yeah, the effect is minimal, but I just wanted to clarify that it does exist.
60 AA777223 : I thought that meant Canadair Regional Jet... OOPS! Then what does ERJ mean?
61 Post contains images AC320tech : It does, im just being a smartass ERJ? Hmm, thats a good one, im sure it would have do something with MTC.
62 Srbmod : There are three different versions of the BR-715: BR-715-A1-30: 18,500lb max take off thrust BR-715-B1-30: 20,000lb max take off thrust BR-715-C1-30:
63 KcrwFlyer : I'm not talking about the airspace. I'm talking about the approach/landing speed categories. I always thought the slope was so shallow that it wasnt
64 FlyDreamliner : Yep, gotta love that FADEC. The Airtran and Midwest 717's I see take off in the 100 degree heat here in MSP seem to have a shorter roll than the old
65 AA777223 : Ah sorry. Nuance is easily lost in an online venue.
66 Curious : MD83 then, good or bad in Hot & High?
67 Cf6ppe : When the above engine types power is upgraded via software revisions: 1) what penalties (or reductions) are enacted to these engines life limited par
68 Goldenshield : CRW, as well as other airports like SNA, SBA, and ROA, has runways short enough that the performance is hindered by the length of the actual runway i
69 KcrwFlyer : I knew of the restrictions, but the flaps thing is very interseting. If you would get the same numbers, then why choose flaps 20 over flaps 8? Wouldn
70 Post contains images LTU932 : I thought DL was actually hanging on to their SLC based MD-90s because of their hot and high performance.
71 Goldenshield : Since they were the same, why stress the tires (and possibly the brakes) more if you don't need to?
72 KcrwFlyer : Makes sense. Im guessing takeoff speed isnt included in that set of identical numbers?
73 WesternA318 : DL is hanging on to them, becasue of their performance during the average heat wave, not these record numbers we've had the last few weeks.
74 SLCUT2777 : Even the "Mad Dogs" of the "90" class use a great deal of both 34L-16R & 34R-16L (both at about 12,000') to get off the ground. If DL is to be able t
75 Supa7E7 : Regarding the E-170. I think this is a hot-rod similar to the B757. AFAIK performance is very good on it.
76 Cf6ppe : Could the JT8D-7B powered B727-200 aircraft be a candidate for this discussion..? This sub-set of aircraft had MTOGW's of about 172K lbs and had initi
77 WJ : A few years ago, one of the rediculously hot summer days in SLC, Mesa had to cancel a flight (CRJ-200) because they did not even have charts availabl
78 Knope2001 : The DC9-30 series have hot/high restrictions. Even back in the days when the D9S were a dime a dozen (Delta, Eastern, Ozark, Texas International/Conti
79 Access-Air : This Hot and High situation is precisely why the pullout of Air Wisconsin's BAe 146s from Aspen was such and issue....4 stove pipes if you have an eng
80 727forever : The Lead Sled is definitely a good candidate for this discussion. Those -7 powered -200s were absolutely horrific. Even the -15 adv. airplanes are sc
81 Brenintw : I fly HKG JNB on CX at least once a year. Twice I've departed JNB on an A340, the first time in summer a couple of years ago (I can't remember which s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is 7E7 Optimized For Hot & High Ops? posted Tue Apr 27 2004 21:08:01 by EddieDude
Do 737NG Winglets Help Hot & High Performance? posted Wed Jul 2 2003 19:54:44 by Samurai 777
TAM Aircraft Did Not Arrive To BCN Today... Again posted Sun Aug 24 2003 14:39:46 by Turbulence
TAM Aircraft Did Not Arrive To BCN Today posted Sun Aug 3 2003 17:05:53 by Turbulence
Air NZ 744's Not Going To AI posted Wed Nov 29 2006 07:10:38 by TG992
If I NOT Want To Put Down My Window Shade? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:51:16 by Bofredrik
Airwise.com Says Airbus Not Committed To 350 Yet posted Sun Nov 5 2006 23:33:09 by SSTsomeday
British Airways - 744 To Bahrain & Doha posted Sun Oct 29 2006 16:14:26 by B742
Why NOT -- AA To GEO And PMB? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 01:34:08 by AJMIA
LGW -why Not A Tunnel To Pier 2, North Terminal posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:22:31 by TimRees