The 737 is possibly the most widespread airliner out there. Given that, and that it probably operates into many airports with shorter runways than, say, a 747, I'd say you'll see a greater number of overruns.
Other than that, if you don't need to brake hard for any reason, why do so?
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
Just like any other airliner, the 737 has had to pass extensive certification testing, part of which has involved demonstrating that it can stop in the requisite distance for the airports where it operates.
What you have likely experienced are landings where high deceleration rates have not been needed.
After landing at the old airport in Male I can tell you from personal experience that the 737, like any other airliner, has the ability to make you hang from the seat belt while braking.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2758 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3502 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4): After landing at the old airport in Male I can tell you from personal experience that the 737, like any other airliner, has the ability to make you hang from the seat belt while braking.
Here's my take as a former 737 pilot. The brakes are fine, and are in fact one of the best parts of the aircraft. I have never had any concerns about landing distance or braking on that aircraft (I have not flown the heavier NG's with higher Vref speeds, however.) People who have read my comments here know that I attempt to be factual, but that I am NOT a supporter or defender of the 737, and, in fact, detest it. Since I'm defending the 737 brakes, chances are they are pretty good; vikkyvik was exactly correct when he said
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1): Other than that, if you don't need to brake hard for any reason, why do so?
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9382 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3448 times:
The 737 has 4 autobrake settings, so you may have been on a lower setting because airlines want to save brakes.
The 737-800 with the short field performance package can takeoff and land on a shorter runway than the a320.
Quoting gulfstream650 (Thread starter): Would it also be correct to say that the 737 might have perhaps a few more than its fair share of runway overruns every year too?
The 737 does not have statistically more overruns. It probably has more overruns because there are over 5000 in current service. Landing distance is calculated, so overruns do not happen unless there are mistakes made in the landing, some operators like GOL use 737s on very short runways.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Dogbreath From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3086 times:
As a B737-800 Captain, I can say that the braking action of this aircraft is highly effective. I'm not sure what your question is attempting to ask, but am assuming that you're saying that the use of engine reverse thrust noise produces a lot of noise without any appreciable braking action.
I can't comment on other types of aircraft other than Boeing and Lockheed, but the braking philosophy on the Boeing is such that the Autobrake setting will assure a deceleration rate according to the setting selected. For example, an Autobrake setting of 2 will deliver a deceleration rate of 5ft/sec. If engine reverse thrust is used after landing the deceleration effect is highest at a higher airspeed than at lower airspeeds. Believe me it is effective, but at only the higher airspeeds. The deceleration force from reverse thrust, at say a touchdown speed of 140kts, will be greater than 5ft/sec, and the wheel brakes will not be engaged till such a point that the effect from the engine reverse thrust reduces to 5ft/sec. At that point the wheel brakes will be automatically engaged to achieve 5ft/sec rate. There are many factors that will affect when this occurs, but this may occur at around 90kts airspeed. I personally reduce the engine reverse thrust at around 80-70kts (depending of course on runway length remaining, runways surface conditions, etc, etc). It may be that on your flights, the pilots have left the reverse thrust in till a much lower airspeed that's required for whatever reason. Yes, it does make a lot of noise at this crossover point and below, and in my experience doesn't provide much assistance in deceleration.
As has been mentioned before there are 4 autobrake settings for landing.
Setting 1 - 4ft/sec
Setting 2 - 5ft/sec
Setting 3 - 7.2ft/sec
Setting Max - 14ft/sec above 80kts, then reducing to 12ft/sec till stop.
Of course at ay time during the landing ground roll the pilot can override the autobrakes and manually brake as he/she requires. The autobrakes will be disarmed at this point. The wheel brakes are extremely effective on this aircraft.
Your comment about runway overruns, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the aircraft type. Human factors is the major cause of almost all overruns. There is an abundance of reports on the internet from EASA, FAA, CASA, etc that discuss the reasons for the number of overruns. On all these reports, no aircraft type is highlighted as a suspect. However the problems continue to be poor decision making skills from the crews concerned coupled with poor training, SOP, and lack of performance calculation/s.
If you calculate the runway length required (using reported and actual runway surface conditions for your landing), fly a stabilised approach (ie. on speed and on path), touchdown in the touchdown zone, a safe landing within the runway length is going to be the outcome (not withstanding major technical failure or a freak weather event). However time and again, there are skygods and cowboys that will continue with an unstable approach (high on path and high on approach speed), land half way down the runway, and then wonder why they run off the end into the mud.
Can you clarify the other types you are comparing? As other provided excellent comments on the braking systems, there may be other design differences among models that can explain the noise difference.
We are also assuming you are talking about the NG and newer models, as the first gen 737 are more or less different beasts in term of engines and thrust reversers.
737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 644 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2328 times:
I can tell you this, as a non commercial pilot but as a qualified engine run/taxi mech. on 727s, 737s, 747s, DC10s, DC9s, and F/A 18As., the F-18 had the best braking, when you hit the brakes it stopped on a dime and gave you whiplash. As far as the commercial guys in the bunch mentioned, they all brake basically the same during taxi. It is a matter of rotor/stator. They are disc. brakes, just with multiple rotors and stators. I will be honest, I have only taxied the 747 twice and decided I did not want to be qualified for taxi/run. I was uncomfortable the whole time (this was for ... in San Antonio). I told them NO. I did not get paid anymore so it just was not worth the hassle. Imagine the liability if you were to cause an accident?.. DC10 I could do and did do several times.. When I hired on at SWA/WN the guys laughed because I took the turns on the taxiway a bit wider then them. I simply said the gear does not follow directly behind you. Most of them have never taxied a large aircraft. Nothing wrong with that, just don't give me crap. HaHa.
musapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
Is the thread starter trying to compare A320 and B737 braking action? If so, this is highly invalid. On a runway, there is a higher chance of an A320 able to vacate the runway at an earlier taxiway than a B737, because the A320 tend to have a lower Vref on comparable weights. I have asked that question myself.
United1689 From United States of America, joined May 2013, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1904 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6): some operators like GOL use 737s on very short runways.
Yes Gol flies out of SDU with their 737-800SFPs and the runway is only 4,341ft long. I have flown into SDU on Gol's 737-800SFPs and the braking feels like landing on an aircraft carrier, you are literally thrown forward in your seat. Also, there are no A320s at SDU because they cannot land there, but the 738 can...
Next Trip Reports: GRU-IGU-GRU on GOL / GRU-DFW-DCA in J on AA 77W and MD-80