1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5756 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
From what I heard, the auxillary fuel tanks are optional on the 739ERs. Does anyone know if DL's 739ERs will have them? I would think they would be useful on transcon and Hawaii routes considering they are replacing 757s.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3449 times:
I would not expect DL to have auxiliary tanks. They are not very common on any planes other than BBJs or 737-700ER/IGW. Continental did not have them and use them on the same routes that DL is expected to. The 737 is not typically fuel volume related. The auxiliary tanks add weight and would effectively reduce payload and range on the typical transcontinental mission. I believe DL would be more inclined to take a fuel stop rather than decrease passenger count/payload and use aux tanks.
That however is speculation.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
DL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1761 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3360 times:
Also, maintenance on planes with the aux tanks is a major PITA. Access to air conditioning and avionics components is limited with the tanks installed. A simple task such as changing recirculation fan filters (a 20 minute job) turns into a 24 hour job. Airplanes like the C-40B (an extreme case) have the lower cargo capacity of a large cardboard box.
It's not going to the Moon.....It's just going to California
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6517 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (12 months 9 hours ago) and read 2820 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
It has been confirmed that the 739ERs will be ETOPS from the factory, likely meaning Hawaii is one of the prime candidates to get 739ER service. Remember that the 75Vs are some of the oldest 757s in the entire Delta fleet.
That is true but I still don't see the business case for the 739ER with aux tanks. They'd be much more inclined to block a few seats in the back for their longest routes which is what they do already with the 738 during certain times of the year on JFK-PDX/SEA.
In DL's case (or most network carriers anyway), the issues isn't useful fuel load. Either way, by taking on more fuel their MTOW will increase considerably causing a weight penalty in the cabin and in the belly anyway. It's no secret that the 739 is a pig getting off the runway. The ER as it is is capable of doing transcons just fine for the most part but like I said that is remedied by capping Y.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5338 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2035 times:
Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 2): A simple task such as changing recirculation fan filters (a 20 minute job) turns into a 24 hour job.
Are you serious!?!? They put an aux tank in front of the snake pit access? I had no idea- glad we don't have them! I assumed they'd just stack them in the forward part of the aft pit, which would be relatively harmless. But we're getting into the air mix chamber area (aka snake pit) fairly frequently to access those filters, and the cargo fire bottles for periodic checks....
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3): The only mission where they could be valuable is Hawaii
I disagree- nearly a dozen carriers have operated 737NG's to Hawaii for over a decade, and none of them have used aircraft with AUX tanks.
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 5): The ER as it is is capable of doing transcons just fine for the most part but like I said that is remedied by capping Y.
With Delta, ContiNited, and soon AA removing a row of coach seats to do EconComfort, E+, and whatever AA calls it, this will be less of an issue.