Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1988 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4706 times:
For a 737-700, Vmo is 340kts. The 737 is a transport category jet - it has no published Vne as such. Vmo (along with Mmo) is the closest number available, and serves basically the same purpose.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 4618 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 1): For a 737-700, Vmo is 340kts. The 737 is a transport category jet - it has no published Vne as such. Vmo (along with Mmo) is the closest number available, and serves basically the same purpose.
There is no Vmo, but there is a Vd (and Md), which is the closest equivalent. You're never supposed to fly there, but you need to know what it is for certification. For some reason, it's not shown in the AFM though.
Aeroweanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 4561 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3): There is no Vmo, but there is a Vd (and Md), which is the closest equivalent. You're never supposed to fly there, but you need to know what it is for certification. For some reason, it's not shown in the AFM though.
Interestingly enough, except for the 767 (A1NM) and A330 (A46NM), Vd/Md is also not listed in the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet. You can calculate the minimum Vd/Md using the appropriate regulations, but sometimes aircraft (such as the DC-10) are certified to higher values of Vd/Md.
Tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1373 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 4423 times:
Quoting Brons2 (Reply 8): If so, how did they recover it? More drag at a lower altitude?
Yeah more than likely that is what happened, more drag slowed it down. If you get into a situation when you start messing with mach tuck, you have to get it slowed down. It was especially critical in the Learjet, I've hit a mountain wave in which we hit Mach 0.84, which is dangerously close to mach tuck in that thing. We brought the throttles to idle and hoped for the best because it still wasn't slowing down.
I'm not implying any wrong doing on this 737, but there were only 4 crew members on board, I'm thinking maybe they were seeing how fast they could get it to go since they were empty. Is there anything else on this incident?
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3288 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4263 times:
Quoting Tb727 (Reply 9):
I'm not implying any wrong doing on this 737, but there were only 4 crew members on board, I'm thinking maybe they were seeing how fast they could get it to go since they were empty. Is there anything else on this incident?
The reason there were only 4 crew members on board is because it was a maintenance test flight.
They were not 'seeing how fast it would go' they were accomplishing a planned procedure to test 'manual reversion' of the flight controls.
Because of a prior maintenance misrigging error when they turned off the hydraulics to the flight controls the Aircraft entered a violent pitch down during which they inadvertently did exceed VMO by 100 knots.
It is a great testamant to the skill of the Pilots and the rugged Boeing design they were able to recover.
.
[Edited 2009-08-25 17:39:49]
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
