Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Unpaved Strip Kits - Why None For Modern Aircraft?  
User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3531 posts, RR: 4
Posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

The gravel kit on the 737-200 is a vital modification for many aircraft that operate in Northern Canada where unpaved strips are common, especially at mining and fly-in only communities. Alaska also has quite a few non-paved airport runways in the more remote areas. As the -200s become old, fuel ineffecient, and costly to maintain why has there been no modification designed to fit more modern aircraft with some sort of unpaved strip provisions? Even some sort of gravel deflector, engine anti-FOD bleed tubes, and a hydraulic area grate/stone guard would be a worthwhile option.

This is obviously a niche market but I'd be willing to bet the cost savings of running a more fuel effecient, winglet-equiped aircraft would quickly recoup the cost of a unpaved strip kit on a modern airliner. Heck, I'd be happy to see a gravel kit install on a 737-300/400/500.


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMrBuzzcut From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4658 times:

Just my guess, but the clearance height of the engines in a -300 vs that in a -200 is enough to not make a gravel kit as effective. They'd probably be better off using a 717 (out of production, I know) if they wanted newer, and modify that with a gravel kit. Unimproved airfields still exist, but not near to the extent that they did when the -200 was in production, so the likelihood of Boeing or Airbus making those modifications available in new builds is next to nil.

Pretty much the same reasons you don't see built in stairs anymore. So few people need that option that it isn't worth the hassle of designing in the first place.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4638 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Thread starter):
eck, I'd be happy to see a gravel kit install on a 737-300/400/500.

I understand the higher-thrust CFM56 engines are too close to the ground to make gravel runway operations feasible. Even if it was possible I doubt there's enough demand from the few existing 732 gravel kit operators to warrant the certification and modification costs.

I believe AS removed the gravel kits from their 732 combis some time before they were retired as they no longer served any airports with unpaved runways.

The current U.S. FAA lifespan limit for the 737-200 is 75,000 cycles or 100,000 hours, whichever comes first, after which they can no longer legally fly and Boeing will no longer support them. Canadian North retired one of their gravel kit-equipped 732 combis (C-GFPW) in July after reaching the 75,000 cycle limit (it had 81,200 hours) almost 37 years after it was delivered to Pacific Western Airlines in December 1976.

Article on page 6 of the following newsletter of the company that's parting it out in YQB, with photo of if it's final arrival there with water cannon salute. Discovery Air, among their various other activities, also owns Yellowknife-based Air Tindi.
http://www.discoveryair.com/app/media/1636


User currently offlinedrillerscott From Australia, joined Jul 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

Cobham here in Perth have had gravel kits certified and fitted to at least two of there RJ100's.

User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1874 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4457 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting drillerscott (Reply 3):

I used to have a bigger version of this picture but I can't find it anymore. But you should get the idea!



Martijn



Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4387 times:

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 1):
They'd probably be better off using a 717 (out of production, I know) if they wanted newer, and modify that with a gravel kit.

This seems to me like a pretty likely next step. Was there ever a gravel kit for the DC-9? If so, that could jump-start the work.


User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 2):
I believe AS removed the gravel kits from their 732 combis some time before they were retired as they no longer served any airports with unpaved runways.

None were removed, though there were some that never had the gravel kit.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4136 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 5):
Was there ever a gravel kit for the DC-9?

No.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):
No.

That's too bad. The 717 otherwise seems like the best aircraft for 732 missions.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3907 times:

Simply stated there isn't near as much all for it with all the airports that have been paved over the past couple of decades.

And if you are only going to do one or two aircraft you aren't going to spend the money to do one or two kits.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinecanadiannorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3673 times:

Most modern jetliners don't have the required ground clearance for the engines (737 from the -300 up, A320 series), and those that do (717 etc.) don't seem to have any combi mods. One has to keep in mind, at least around Canada/Alaska, the gravel equipped fleet tend to haul just as much cargo as they do people. 60 seats and 3 pallets of cargo on the main deck of a 732 is normal around these parts...

I don't think it would really be worth developing a gravel kit for a modern jetliner unless a combi mod was also done (it's been done for the 734, so it's possible as long as someone's willing to put out some cash). It might be cheaper in the long run to either pave whatever airports are still seeing jet service on gravel strips, and/or perhaps go to a 40-80 seat turboprop catergory airplane and then run a freighter a few days per week (which from what I understand is Alaska's long term idea for now).

Until then I think we'll see what's left of the 737-200Cs being flown till their bitter end, and those ATR72 combis seem like the thing to have for a lot of missions now too. Anyone know if the Q400 is beefy enough to handle freight work? Lots of room up front for a big freight door, and I can't see a combi cert on that being any harder than on the ATR?



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3472 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting canadiannorth (Reply 10):
Anyone know if the Q400 is beefy enough to handle freight work? Lots of room up front for a big freight door, and I can't see a combi cert on that being any harder than on the ATR?

The Q would have terrible W/B issues if the cargo was in the front. It's a very finniky plane. (Out of the envelope empty, if you want to fly it around empty you almost always need ballast in the back)



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3044 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting canadiannorth (Reply 10):
Until then I think we'll see what's left of the 737-200Cs being flown till their bitter end, and those ATR72 combis seem like the thing to have for a lot of missions now too. Anyone know if the Q400 is beefy enough to handle freight work? Lots of room up front for a big freight door, and I can't see a combi cert on that being any harder than on the ATR?

I guess my take on the Q400 and the ATR72 is that from a passenger point of view they seem to be seriously sensitive to weight and balance issues. While a not a small aircraft those two examples are ones that I have been moved forward or towards the back because of balance issues more than other types. I would imagine that it would take some shifting of freight and passengers around at each stop if on a multiple stop route. Somebody is going to have to be good with the old abacus.

Okie


User currently offlineunityofsaints From Ireland, joined Nov 2011, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 1):
Pretty much the same reasons you don't see built in stairs anymore.

The entire Ryanair fleet of 300+ 737-800s has built in stairs.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 13):
Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 1):
Pretty much the same reasons you don't see built in stairs anymore.

The entire Ryanair fleet of 300+ 737-800s has built in stairs.

As in photos below.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Patric Borg
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stefan Sonnenberg



Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Unpaved Strip Kits - Why None For Modern Aircraft?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Stall Training For Commercial Aircraft Article posted Wed Mar 20 2013 13:12:23 by chuchoteur
De-ice Procedures For Overnight Aircraft posted Sun Mar 17 2013 14:08:22 by flylku
TK Fleet DOW For Each Aircraft posted Sat Jan 12 2013 05:09:02 by sunrisevalley
Why A Pilot For Pax Or Cargo? posted Thu Aug 9 2012 12:16:54 by TonyBurr
Type Rating For Old Aircraft posted Wed Dec 28 2011 16:40:45 by flyingturtle
LHR T5 Gate Ops For NonA380 Aircraft posted Sat Sep 17 2011 18:00:19 by jgw787
Why Do Tugs Pull Aircraft To The Gate In The US? posted Fri Aug 19 2011 23:05:51 by Camohe
DRAG/FF Percentages For New Aircraft posted Thu Jun 16 2011 10:21:40 by krisyyz
US Airline Pilot Bases For Each Aircraft Type posted Tue Jun 14 2011 15:26:46 by Transpac787
Pouring Concrrete For Display Aircraft. posted Fri May 6 2011 09:04:33 by L-188

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format