Hello!

With the 737-200 program almost 30 years old, the need for a versatile airliner that has the ability to utilize small, unpaved, and secluded runways is only increasing. With airlines such as Canadian North, Air Inuit, Air North, Nolinor (which just refitted their 732s with modern avionics) and Alaska (which retired them 10 years ago now.. but probably could use something to rival everts and northern air cargo, which both rival Alaska in that aspect of flying.), and more airlines in South America, Africa etc.. Even though the need isn't that great since only a handful of airlines need this versatility, these villages rely on aircraft to receive goods, resources to survive. With that being said, the 737-200 is old, pretty much none low time airframes are left, and I suppose upgrading them will only give the plane an extra few years on the air. Here's my question: Are there any plans to replace the 737-200? I've seen people say the a319, which I wouldn't see fit since it's not possible to fit a gravel kit on their engines. Other people have mentioned the Avro, which is an ok short term solution, but not the best due to it having its production ended.. and the Dash 8, which is again an ok idea, but still doesn't have the capacity or speed or range of the 737-200. What are your thoughts?

-3star

WN did replace its 737-200's with the 737-500's, which was smaller than the 737-300 and similar in size to the 737-200's. However, WN did retire its last 737-500 planes in September 2006.

The successor to the 737-500 was the 737-600, but no US-based airline operated any 737-600 planes. Boeing also has does not currently have any plans to release a 737 MAX 6 plane.

I understand your logic, for regular operation, but what i'm trying to get out of here is trying to find a replacement to the 737-200's gravel, and unpaved runway operation... I probably didn't make that clear enough.. sorry

Those Canadian operators don't have money to spend on new, or even current gen second hand, so will always be well used frames. Most of those -200 frames are combis, so what seems to be happening is replacing both halves for example with two Dash 8's which are now being converted to freighters.

However, the need for gravel strips are rapidly diminishing and the replacement of choice has largely been the 737 classic. As the MAX takes over in the world fleets in larger numbers, Im sure NG's will become cheaper and they will be the next choice in 5-10 years time.

My understanding is the 732 is good while later 737 variants aren't is due to engine diameter/engine bypass ratio.

As a result, wouldn't tail mounted aircraft be able to be gravel lit equipped? 717/MD80s or even CR1000s?

Not really what’s being asked though


While the 737-500/ 600 models are fairly close in size to the 732 they can’t operate the same kind of missions, fly one into a gravel runway and you’ll trash the engines, not to mention damage to the fuselage



A turbofan engine will suck up all that gravel like a vacuum cleaner and the lack of a nosewheel deflector makes the fuselage highly vulnerable to the same



The 732 is unique, it may be old but it’s capabilities are irreplaceable at this point


The only reasonably modern aircraft that might be capable of doing the same job would br the 717


It’s probably feasible to install a gravel deflector on the nosewheel and the engines are reasonably well protected from FOD with their high mounted rear position and the wing providing a substantial ‘shield’



Not sure about it’s ACN rating though or whether it can be fitted with lower pressure tires

LM-100J?

fwiw, Air North's sole 737-200 was flying the pattern today at Whitehorse (CYXY), gearing up for the summer charter season - flights in and out of Dawson City.

The Bae-146/RJ-85 series is used both in the unpaved and cargo roles.

Max Q wrote:

Not really what’s being asked though


While the 737-500/ 600 models are fairly close in size to the 732 they can’t operate the same kind of missions, fly one into a gravel runway and you’ll trash the engines, not to mention damage to the fuselage



A turbofan engine will suck up all that gravel like a vacuum cleaner and the lack of a nosewheel deflector makes the fuselage highly vulnerable to the same



The 732 is unique, it may be old but it’s capabilities are irreplaceable at this point


The only reasonably modern aircraft that might be capable of doing the same job would br the 717


It’s probably feasible to install a gravel deflector on the nosewheel and the engines are reasonably well protected from FOD with their high mounted rear position and the wing providing a substantial ‘shield’



Not sure about it’s ACN rating though or whether it can be fitted with lower pressure tires

Has anyone ever notice on the Super Stallion helicopters used by the USMC that they have some kind of thing that at least looks like an air filter for the engines? Would a device like that be able to be made and certified for 737NGs? As far as the nose hear is concerned, I'm pretty sure a well placed slab of steel like any other gravel deflector would do just fine and wouldnt have a problem being certified.

alex0easy wrote:

LM-100J?

How about the IL76? A bit quicker. How about An72?

this is an interesting and tough one. I guess the big question is how many towns are served by these gravel runways still?
If not that many anymore, it may be the case that the government needs to bite the bullet and seal some of these runways.
However if theres still plenty (and by the fact 732s are getting upgraded avionics etc would point to that) Then upgrading all of them
may be too expensive. A deflector for a nose wheel shouldn't be too hard to come up with and get certified. The 717 may be able to do it
but forget getting your hands on them. The handful of main operators pounce on them and won't be letting go of them for a while.

That leaves just a few options. the Fokker F100, (though would need a combi conversion so unlikely), the Bae 146 (about but limited life left on many frames) and possibly something like an MD80 (possibly too big for shorter runways).

Civilian C-130?

I also recall some issue about the old 732s being grandfathered in for rules that would limit the ability to use moveable bulkheads. Does anyone else recall this issue or if it has come to pass? I always found it interesting to see them add/remove pallets of seats to reconfigure mid-day on the YEG-YZF-YVQ-YEV-YVQ-YZF-YEG run or as those of us familiar, 444/445. If they can't run combi configuration, my guess is there are cheaper cargo only options.

This topic was discussed fairly exhaustively over in the Nolinor thread, though I had forgotten about the bulkhead issue.

Maintenance, fuel, regulations, etc will eventually render the 732 obsolete even in the arctic.

The 732 is really limited in regular use now to Dawson (which is most of the time ATR now) and Cambridge Bay for scheduled passenger service, along with some charters to the NWT diamond mines, perhaps the Nunavut gold projects and maybe oil sands. Overall pretty hard to continue to justify the subfleet, which is why I'm guessing 7F got out of the business altogether.

Does anyone know if the 734 and other newer variants can land on the ice/lake strips?

Canada will be a unique example, especially Nolinor, which uses that aircraft into the tundra, and they still fly 65-year old Convairs (are they pressurized?). The Dash 8 combi is available (although I don't believe any Canadian operator flies it) as a replacement for the 737-200 when they finally run out of hours; is there a gravel kit available for the Q400? If not, why doesn't Bombardier offer the Q300 as an option again with a gravel kit? That is what I could see as a replacement.

greg3322 wrote:

Civilian C-130?

That's called the L-100, which would indeed be a suitable aircraft however expensive.

Another option would be the AN-148/158. Designed for similar operations in northern Russia and Siberia, it could do a great job in Canada as well.

yzfElite wrote:

Does anyone know if the 734 and other newer variants can land on the ice/lake strips?

No, they can't.

Turbo props.

yzfElite wrote:

Does anyone know if the 734 and other newer variants can land on the ice/lake strips?

There are regular flights with A319s to the Australian Government ice runway in Antarctica.

https://www.google.com.hk/amp/amp.abc.n ... le/9516760

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Canada will be a unique example, especially Nolinor, which uses that aircraft into the tundra, and they still fly 65-year old Convairs (are they pressurized?). The Dash 8 combi is available (although I don't believe any Canadian operator flies it) as a replacement for the 737-200 when they finally run out of hours; is there a gravel kit available for the Q400? If not, why doesn't Bombardier offer the Q300 as an option again with a gravel kit? That is what I could see as a replacement.

Many Canadian airlines are settling on the ATR family. Especially the ATR 42 combi seems to be popular up North. The big hatch and larger fuselage diameter probably make it a better choice than any Dash 8. They also have a very long range, have very cheap operating costs and can take off from any runway a 737-200 can.

TWA772LR wrote:

Has anyone ever notice on the Super Stallion helicopters used by the USMC that they have some kind of thing that at least looks like an air filter for the engines? Would a device like that be able to be made and certified for 737NGs? As far as the nose hear is concerned, I'm pretty sure a well placed slab of steel like any other gravel deflector would do just fine and wouldnt have a problem being certified.

Something like the air intake door on the Mig-29

For several reasons the A319 with IAE V2500 engines intrigues me for this role. The shape of the engine nacelle and height of the airframe could lend itself to a rough/ice field conversion.

These are starting to become available in volume so maybe one or two could find themselves in northern Canada once freighter versions are developed, or the A320 if the A319 is too short.

KC-390 could also work. But realistically it will be used planes, so Dash-8s or ATRs.

CS100, but well good luck with that, the last delivery was 1 year ago.

Sukhoi Superjet could also be a good replacement.

What a pity this model wasn't more successful (.... or successful at all ...):


Source: https://www.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/ ... 4/695352#1

But it would have been too small as well.

You've answered your own question. There are such limited numbers of aircraft required with this flexibility and none of the current models are perfect or the carriers that need them wouldn't be doing things like replacing avionics on a 737-200. It's more than just the gravel kit. The aircraft also has to be able to handle the variable cargo/passenger needs and be able to operationally perform in the weather conditions. I suspect the carriers will muddle through and something to replace the requirements may come along but it will be accidental.

It sounds like a similar issue that Kiwirail in NZ has run into with the rail ferry between the two main islands. There is so little demand for such a ship that to get one built would be a very custom job for a very small market.

Same applies to this sort of gravel use. Very small market that has shrunk over time. I imagine as people have been pointing out you may need to downsize the aircraft to smaller turboprops or buy dedicated civilian version of military transports, L100J, KC-390, etc. Hell, maybe for Canada the users of these services can do a deal with the Canadian Air Force to get some services done by transport planes.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Hell, maybe for Canada the users of these services can do a deal with the Canadian Air Force to get some services done by transport planes.

RCAF could offer CC-130 or CC-177 for the purpose, and that's it, correct?
Upthread (or was it on Nolinor thread?) it was mentioned that 732 operations were more cost-efficient than C-130/L-100, so CC-130 on these routes would be a subsidy to airlines, operating them. In any case, L-100 is available commercially new; and existing operators already own some examples..

CC-177 is not only yet more expensive to operate, it's an irreplaceable asset. They don't build these anymore, and when (and what type of) replacement will come by -- is not clear yet.
So, you will be asking RCAF to burn irreplaceable airframe hours, simply because some airline thought it was too much hassle to reactivate their L-100? I don't really know particulars of how Canadian parliament system works, but if other Westminster system parliaments are a good example -- with such a decision in place, the (then current) opposition will have a field day, beating the living daylights out of the government of the day.

The Mighty 757? There are an increasing number on the second hand market.

Not a lot out there can directly replace the 737-200C with a gravel kit.

The issue is to truely replace it you'd need an airliner that can land on gravel runways AND has a combi option with a good cargo door. The 737-200Cs in Canada's north are often flown with a mix of passengers and cargo, ~ 60 seats plus three big pallets of cargo packed with everything from pop and diapers to cars and trucks is a common example.

The gravel runway bit rules out the CFM powered 737s and basically all of the Airbus lineup. High bypass engines that low to the ground will suck up gravel and be ruined pretty quickly. Also with rear mounted engines one would be safe from vacuuming up gravel, but you'd still have to go through a certification process and make sure the angles and distances and such don't result in the landing gear slinging gravel up and into your aft mounted engines.

The lack of a combi option severely reduces the usefulness of the 717 and I don't believe the BAe146 / Avro RJ has a combi option. As for CRJs they certainly can be a good aircraft in the right time and place, but are basically useless at hauling a meaningful cargo load along with passengers up north. When Air Canada / Jazz moved to CRJs on the YVR/YXY route they basically gave away all of their share of the cargo market on that route, as the CRJ sometimes struggles just to fit the passengers' luggage on the northbound leg. People in YXY/YZF/YFB often go south for weekend shopping trips, so coming home with 2-3 bags @50lbs each is fairly typical, plus much of the mail-order stuff comes by air. Once you continue north from there, many places don't have roads at all so apart from the occasional barge in summer and maybe an ice road every other year everything including the kitchen sink arrives by air.

So far the majority of the runways in N.W.T. and Nunavut with jet service are paved, and now operated with 737-3/4/5. Of the ones that aren't some airlines are simply doing more trips with combi-certified ATRs hauling what they can, and leaving the big stuff that doesn't fit in the ATRs to the handful of other operators still operating the 737-200C. As for the Yukon, Dawson City is the only gravel runway left that commonly sees the 737, and it is usually operating in full passenger config for Holland America Line between Dawson and Fairbanks. Word on the street is Dawson might be paved by next season, which would allow a 737-500 to take over. If not again more trips with ATRs might be an option. As for 717s, RJs, and the like it's unlikely Air North will add a whole new fleet type for one route.

Phosphorus wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Hell, maybe for Canada the users of these services can do a deal with the Canadian Air Force to get some services done by transport planes.

RCAF could offer CC-130 or CC-177 for the purpose, and that's it, correct?
Upthread (or was it on Nolinor thread?) it was mentioned that 732 operations were more cost-efficient than C-130/L-100, so CC-130 on these routes would be a subsidy to airlines, operating them. In any case, L-100 is available commercially new; and existing operators already own some examples..

CC-177 is not only yet more expensive to operate, it's an irreplaceable asset. They don't build these anymore, and when (and what type of) replacement will come by -- is not clear yet.
So, you will be asking RCAF to burn irreplaceable airframe hours, simply because some airline thought it was too much hassle to reactivate their L-100? I don't really know particulars of how Canadian parliament system works, but if other Westminster system parliaments are a good example -- with such a decision in place, the (then current) opposition will have a field day, beating the living daylights out of the government of the day.

More just throwing around ideas. :p

On a more serious note you could do something like have the RCAF offer a service at a rate to pay for the ongoing costs of the aircraft. Using it as a way to maybe have more transports should there be a need someday for a surge capability. Again, just throwing ideas around.

The more likely long term fix is the users just adapt to smaller aircraft. With maybe one or two providers with larger aircraft like the L100 for when you need the size. And that honestly appears to be where it's headed with most operators already downsizing.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

More just throwing around ideas. :p

Sure! That never hurts. But as you know, some ideas fly, and some don't (pun intended). Someone should be out there, delivering enough flak, to shoot the least flyable ones out of the sky, hehe.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

On a more serious note you could do something like have the RCAF offer a service at a rate to pay for the ongoing costs of the aircraft. Using it as a way to maybe have more transports should there be a need someday for a surge capability. Again, just throwing ideas around.

The more likely long term fix is the users just adapt to smaller aircraft. With maybe one or two providers with larger aircraft like the L100 for when you need the size. And that honestly appears to be where it's headed with most operators already downsizing.

"CC-177 replacement trust fund" of sorts? Could be, who knows. Trouble is, reinvesting these proceeds will require induction of a new type, or some serious begging for second-hand aircraft from an operator with frames to spare (cough...USAF...cough).

Otherwise, for smaller loads it's either turboprops, An-148/158/178, KC-390, or refurbished older frames (732. Maybe also Avro RJ?).

Slash787 wrote:

CS100, but well good luck with that, the last delivery was 1 year ago.

Sukhoi Superjet could also be a good replacement.

C-Series is too expensive and making a gravel kit could also be very complicated.
Note the last C-Series delivery was 3 days ago to Swiss. There are a few CS-100's on the line right now for both Swiss and Delta.

Sukhoi Superjet would be cheaper but still very expensive for this application and still run into the same issues for gravel.

[quote="MDGLongBeach"]Hello!

With the 737-200 program almost 30 years old, the need for a versatile airliner that has the ability to utilize small, unpaved, and secluded runways is only increasing. With airlines such as Canadian North, Air Inuit, Air North, Nolinor (which just refitted their 732s with modern avionics) and Alaska (which retired them 10 years ago now.. but probably could use something to rival everts and northern air cargo, which both rival Alaska in that aspect of flying.), and more airlines in South America, Africa etc.. Even though the need isn't that great since only a handful of airlines need this versatility, these villages rely on aircraft to receive goods, resources to survive. With that being said, the 737-200 is old, pretty much none low time airframes are left, and I suppose upgrading them will only give the plane an extra few years on the air. Here's my question: Are there any plans to replace the 737-200? I've seen people say the a319, which I wouldn't see fit since it's not possible to fit a gravel kit on their engines. Other people have mentioned the Avro, which is an ok short term solution, but not the best due to it having its production ended.. and the Dash 8, which is again an ok idea, but still doesn't have the capacity or speed or range of the 737-200. What are your thoughts?

-3star[/quote
There are some Boeing 727s, with time on the air frames parked in Mojave Desert.

PEK777 wrote:

The Mighty 757? There are an increasing number on the second hand market.

No. Low turbofans fine work as they Injest travel. You need a smaller turbojet or a turboprop preferably one with a high wing.

Does anyone know if everts has landed their dc9/md80 on any dirt strips yet?

I wonder if a BAe 146 with gravel kit would do the job.
Nice short runway performance, high wing...

The Embraer KC-390 would maybe be nice too, as stated by a friend above.
Embraer needs to make it civilian!

leleko747 wrote:

I wonder if a BAe 146 with gravel kit would do the job.
Nice short runway performance, high wing...

The Embraer KC-390 would maybe be nice too, as stated by a friend above.
Embraer needs to make it civilian!

There are many Boeing 727s, with time on the airframes parked in Mojave Desert

Aviano789 wrote:

leleko747 wrote:

I wonder if a BAe 146 with gravel kit would do the job.
Nice short runway performance, high wing...

The Embraer KC-390 would maybe be nice too, as stated by a friend above.
Embraer needs to make it civilian!

There are many Boeing 727s, with time on the airframes parked in Mojave Desert

First Air retired their 727 combis several years ago. They won’t be coming back.

5T are down to only 2 732Cs. Pretty much to use exclusively now on YCB/YCO and the oil/mine charters. However, they did reappear on YOW-YFB for about 3 weeks last year while a 733C was getting a C check.

leleko747 wrote:

I wonder if a BAe 146 with gravel kit would do the job.
Nice short runway performance, high wing...

I asked the same thing in another thread on a similar topic. I was told that someone is (or was at the time) using a BAe-146 for that purpose. Apparently the reason it's not an ideal replacement is because there's no BAe-146 combi, which is what woulds be needed to make most of these flights economical.

I think we have to remember that when the gravel 737-200 was originally designed and built in the 1960s, there was a definite need everywhere around the world. Certainly all of Canada's arctic airlines, PW, TZ and ND bought them. CP and PV also flew them in the north, but they stuck to paved runways. The attraction was not just the gravel capabilites as noted, but also tremendous short field capability as well as total self sufficiency on the ground and passenger comfort in the air.

Today, 50+ years later, that need has all but disappeared. I am quite certain that Boeing, Airbus, Embraer or even Bombardier could design and build a modern efficient version ... but why? For what now appears to be only one gravel runway left in Canada's arctic?

As many have said in many other threads, the issue was never the cost of paving, but the feasibility. It just wasn't possible looking at the base terrain below the runway. 25 years ago when I was flying in the north, it wasn't possible. However, today ... as just about everything we touch has improved ... how about runway surface design? Surely, the best minds have come up with a solution to something that was impossible when I was a brand new Captain?

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

On a more serious note you could do something like have the RCAF offer a service at a rate to pay for the ongoing costs of the aircraft. Using it as a way to maybe have more transports should there be a need someday for a surge capability. Again, just throwing ideas around.

The more likely long term fix is the users just adapt to smaller aircraft. With maybe one or two providers with larger aircraft like the L100 for when you need the size. And that honestly appears to be where it's headed with most operators already downsizing.

I find it hard to believe that the government/RCAF could do this even remotely close to as economically as other carriers, even with less than perfect aircraft. Food is presently flown in the NWT with old C-46's for example (Buffalo Airways). Folks being paid military wages and the like couldn't come close to competing on cost with someone like Buffalo I'm guessing.

yzfElite wrote:

I also recall some issue about the old 732s being grandfathered in for rules that would limit the ability to use moveable bulkheads. Does anyone else recall this issue or if it has come to pass?

This is an interesting point. When South African Airways lost the 747 combi in the Indian Ocean, Transport Canada was no longer going to allow "combi" aircraft with passengers and freight shairing the same floor and air conditioning system. (It made rise to AC's very strange 747-433 combis). Arctic airlines said there was no way they could make money unless both passengers and cargo were carried at the same time and said they would all but shut down their arctic operations.

Transport Canada relented and never did enact this rule. However, I wonder if you are right and the 737 is the last allowed (in Canada) with a moveable bulkhead.

I do know, as I was flying 737 combis in the arctic at the time, that new smoke/fire detection and fighting rules were started that were very involved.

longhauler wrote:

Transport Canada relented and never did enact this rule. However, I wonder if you are right and the 737 is the last allowed (in Canada) with a moveable bulkhead.

I do know, as I was flying 737 combis in the arctic at the time, that new smoke/fire detection and fighting rules were started that were very involved.

Boeing built the 737-700 combi as the C-40A.Clipper for the USAF and the USN. The engineering is available, it's just not available for civilian airlines.

The 700 also would not solve the OP's question about gravel.

Living in the north myself, this question sits heavily with me most of the time. While 5T has their 300C on the 444 / 445 run (and I believe YOW - YFB?), as mentioned they don't have gravel capabilities.

I can see one of two things happening. The first of which would be improvements at airfields that would best suit on going combi ops.

The second of which I believe would be pax only / cargo only flights, but that still leaves the issue of capacity. A cargo dash doesn't have nearly the space the main cabin does on a combi. This would probably result in infrequent charters of larger cargo aircraft when required.

I would imagine regardless of the outcome for the airlines, the cost will be reflected on the communities that are served by these aircraft. It will truly be a sad day for us up here once they go!

longhauler wrote:

yzfElite wrote:

I also recall some issue about the old 732s being grandfathered in for rules that would limit the ability to use moveable bulkheads. Does anyone else recall this issue or if it has come to pass?

This is an interesting point. When South African Airways lost the 747 combi in the Indian Ocean, Transport Canada was no longer going to allow "combi" aircraft with passengers and freight shairing the same floor and air conditioning system. (It made rise to AC's very strange 747-433 combis). Arctic airlines said there was no way they could make money unless both passengers and cargo were carried at the same time and said they would all but shut down their arctic operations.

Transport Canada relented and never did enact this rule. However, I wonder if you are right and the 737 is the last allowed (in Canada) with a moveable bulkhead.

I do know, as I was flying 737 combis in the arctic at the time, that new smoke/fire detection and fighting rules were started that were very involved.

Lhaul what was strange about AC’s 747 combis ?

Max Q wrote:

Lhaul what was strange about AC’s 747 combis ?

It was only the -400s, as they were being considered when Air Canada was looking for a replacement for its -200 combis when this rule was being suggested. Boeing devised a version where the wall between the cargo and passengers was a fixed (air tight) part of the structure. It could withstand far greater smoke/fume and fire protection than the movable version. The hold also had it's own pack and outflow valve so they could "depressurize" the hold without depressurizing the rest of the cabin. There were other electrical variations too, allowing isolation of the hold.

When presented to Transport Canada, it was deemed acceptable and Air Canada placed the order for three.

However, during construction, Transport Canada announced they were not going to enforce this rule, allowing combi freighters in the arctic. While some of the features of the -400 combis could be reversed, the wall could not. It was a part of the structure. Some unlike most 747 combis where the wall could be placed at doors 4 or 3 or not at all, it was always at doors 4. It made the aircraft very difficult to sell when the time came.

Increasingly, even for NB aircraft, engines are leased and / or on PBTH. Gravel operations wouldn't be acceptable to the engine owner or OEM.

In addition to bringing back the 757, can we now add the 111-475?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Canada will be a unique example, especially Nolinor, which uses that aircraft into the tundra, and they still fly 65-year old Convairs (are they pressurized?). The Dash 8 combi is available (although I don't believe any Canadian operator flies it) as a replacement for the 737-200 when they finally run out of hours; is there a gravel kit available for the Q400? If not, why doesn't Bombardier offer the Q300 as an option again with a gravel kit? That is what I could see as a replacement.

I believe Air Inuit is actually the launch customer for thr Dash 8 300 combi