Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:31 am

If there are any B462/3 frames not converted to freighters (this is where those ex-SN frames could have come in handy before they were scrapped), they would be useful. However, for the major operator, N5, that would require new training and support. Basically, I see the DH8D (combi) as the future with more frequent schedules. The F70/F100 is too old and the available frames are basically limited to Australia, operating in a similar role to the B732 in Canada (Canada and Australia being the two major areas where FIFO is most common).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15092
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:50 am

The Bae146/ Avro RJ have been used as combii, freighter, and gravel runway aircraft.

https://www.regional-services.com/wp-co ... ations.pdf
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
bkmbr
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:51 am

Wayfarer515 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8iitOBmRdY


The AN-148/158/178 is a really interesting aircraft family but lets be honest, the changes to see them operating regularly in Canada is zero. Not only due the problems related to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia but also because the aircraft is not certified to fly in the west and the russian aircraft have a terrible record related to the support of their aircraft (look for Cubana for example).
 
KFTG
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:37 am

I'd look to the 717 as a future candidate for this role.
There are so many out there that there may be a business case to be made for any STC.
 
CXH
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:37 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:07 am

CanadianNorth wrote:
The 737-200C is/was nearly a perfect aircraft for the job. 727s worked well too, but they're pretty much gone now, as the 737 can do most of the same for 1/3 cheaper.

Sad to see the 737-200Cs fading, I grew up around them and worked on one for years so I will admit I have a bit of a soft spot for them and lots of good memories with JT8Ds as background music.

The problem with the 737-200Cs is they are cycling out. Boeing has it on their website at https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/2/ (Side note: most Boeing and DC/MD jetliners hour/cycle limits are listed there in a chart near the bottom, it's worth a look for any true avgeek) that those birds are only good for 75,000 cycles. Fuel burn from the old JT8s, the maintenance associated with old worn out airplanes, and keeping crew training up to date on what for many operators would now a be small, low utilization subfleet certainly doesn't help their case either. The only thing saved them this long is how good they are at what they do, lack of direct replacement, and readily available spare parts (somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-80% commonality with the 737-3/4/5 if I remember right, and although JT8Ds are old they went on just about everything back in the day so lots were built).

What I've been seeing most of them replaced with is either a paved runway and 737-3/4/5, or more frequency with ATRs and Dash-8s combis and HS-748, ATR and Dash-8 freighters. The occasional item that physically wouldn't fit in one of those can wait for a boat if it's a coastal community or wait for a winter road to be punched through in the case of an inland community, or if it's a hurry then something can be chartered. Nolinor and Canadian North still operate a couple of 737-200Cs they save for specialized work example.

No all season roads to a lot of these communities because in most cases you'd need to build a road thousands of miles long through mountain ranges, over multiple rivers, and then through huge sections of marsh, swamp, and tundra. Then maintain and plow that road through all sorts of extreme weather, and just about every year you'd be re-doing a section due to frost heaves. All of that would be for a community of a couple hundred people, most of which has a boat every summer or a winter road every other winter for big heavy long lasting stuff and a scheduled flight come through several times per week that can bring you people and groceries and mail. The 737-200C really shined in locations where road transport was often avoided for good reasons.

Paving the runways up north is possible, the only catch is it requires millions of dollars spent at a remote mine or a small community (most of which probably can't afford it themselves and would need more govy handouts to do it), plus hundreds of thousands more spent on maintenance as the frost heaves and whatever else do their thing. With a gravel strip you just just run any old grader over it and then spend an afternoon on any old packer and your done, with a proper hard surface you need a garage full of special equipment and the people to operate it. It's doable, but often at more cost than anyone is willing to spend.

As for replacement ideas, to be an idea replacement you'd need to present an airplane that's younger and better on fuel than the 737-200, can do gravel runways, and has a combi option. The latter two are the big catch, and the problem is for airliners getting those things certified is a huge cost and a pain, so a good replacement would have those already approved through the manufacturer or an STC. Not trying to shoot anyone down here but just pointing out some of the reasons I can think of why they're not commonly used...

ATR: Smaller and slower than a 737 for sure, but they are reasonably easy to find and operate, and are combi and gravel capable. Many northern routes now have ATR combis on them with frequency increases as required, and charters can be arranged for the occasional load that doesn't fit. Seems to be how most gravel runway communities are being served now.
Dash-8: Basically the same story as the ATR.
BAe 146: Fair option for mine crew changes and things like that, but no combi option. Also not a super young airplane any more either, and the four engines to break and fix isn't ideal either. Basically yes it works, but it's quite a bit more to run than the ATR or Dash and still not as capable or versatile as the 737-200C.
DC-9: Probably could work, but all the same aging problems as the 737-200, thirsty engines on a tired airframe. Plus the narrower cabin I don't think fits all the same pallets and containers as the 737-200Cs have been using for decades up north.
MD-81/82/83/87/88/90: Might work, but I've yet to see a combi one, nor a gravel kitted one. Also one concern I can name would be yes the engines are high up, but would the main gear throw any gravel into them? (Actual question as I don't know enough about the MD-80 to say).
717: Limited airframes for sale, parts availability might be an issue, no formal gravel kit, no combi options.
737-3/4/5: Works good as long as there's a paved runway, and this seems to be the way many places are doing it. If the runway can be practically paved, then it is and in comes the 737-3/4/5 in most cases. -300 and -400 are also certified as combis. Not as great as the -200 because the bulkhead is in a fixed permanent location instead of moveable due to the newer regulations (-200s are grandfathered through), but still better than nothing. The -500 is not because I'm told the CFM hanging out front and the shortie fuselage combination would mean the engine inlet would be in the way of trying to load through the standard issue 737 cargo door. No gravel kit because the CFMs suck in too much air too close to the ground to make a gravel kit practical at a reasonable price. JT8Ds on a classic probably aint going to happen, it probably could technically be done but you'd have to spend millions of dollars on an old airplane to make it worse at 9 out of 10 missions you could do with it. Probably cheaper and easier to just fix an old -200.
737NG: I would imagine it would be pretty much the same story as the -3/4/5, if someone were to certify it as a combi, which I haven't seen yet.
727: All the same issues as the 737-200C plus an extra engine to fix and an extra pilot to feed. As a side note I've heard that when Canadian formed their subsidiary Canadian North to operate in the far north AC floated the idea of off roading their 727s to compete, but instead opted to farm out the work to people with more experience at northern flying and got together with Northwest Territorial and branded it as NWT Air. For these Air Canada Connector schedules initially L188s were used and then 737-200Cs were aquired. Eventually Canadian North separated from Canadian Airlines and became an independent airline, meanwhile NWT Air was sold out to First Air.
A318/319/320/321: No combi, no gravel kit. There are A319s out there operating on rough fields and ice strips, but not on gravel as far as I'm aware. A320s are out there with extra wheels on the main gear for softer rougher ground, but again not for actual gravel runway use as far as I know. The gravel being thown up at the underside and flaps and being sucked into the engines is just as much of an issue on these northern strips as the roughness and softness is. The engines do sit higher than the CFM powered 737s, but still would require some gravel protection which to my knowledge has not been developed yet.
C130/L-100: A lot of airplane, a lot of cost, not a lot of passenger comforts, not sure if it's certified to carry people in Canada, technically would work yes but I'm not sure you'd be saving any money vs just keeping the 732s going.
AN-148 or other Russian/Ukrainian/Etc. types: Pretty sure many are not certified in Canada, not sure if it has a combi, probably pretty hard to get parts for. One of the nice things about the 737 in Canada is training is easy to arrange, spare parts are easy to source, and specialized tooling and knowledge of the airplane is plentiful.


Thanks CanadianNorth! A comprehensive answer to the OP's question. Since most of us on a.net haven't been north of Edmonton, including me, while you have lots, your insight is appreciated.
I've seen the future, I can't afford it. - Martin Fry
 
f4f3a
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:02 am

What about a dornier 328? High mounted engine reasonably short field performance ..comes in either jet or prop
 
vfw614
Posts: 3846
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:37 am

As the Q400 appears to be increasingly used - how about the CRJ700/900? No wing-mounted engines, same fuselage diameter?
 
Ozair
Posts: 5217
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:55 am

planecane wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Far fetched but the MiG 29 has engine inlet shield-like devices. Would it be possible to add these to commercial airliners like the 737NG or 320?

Don't those kill fuel efficiency which isn't too good on the 732 to begin with?

Not really. Their sole purpose is to take off from rough strips. Once the aircraft is in the air the shield is lowered and the upper louvres closed.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13113
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:45 am

About rear mounted engines, aren't they at risk of taking gravel from the main gears ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
bkmbr
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:56 pm

f4f3a wrote:
What about a dornier 328? High mounted engine reasonably short field performance ..comes in either jet or prop


To small. 328 jet for example have only 3.2 ton / 7,200 lbs of max payload. The Q400 for example have a 8.6 ton / 19,112 lbs of max payload in comparison.
 
yzfElite
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:31 pm

Isn't Summit Air already flying the RJ-85 and potentially the RJ-100 from YZF to destinations previously flown by the 5T/7F 732C's and 7F hercs?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13113
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:46 pm

Ozair wrote:
planecane wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Far fetched but the MiG 29 has engine inlet shield-like devices. Would it be possible to add these to commercial airliners like the 737NG or 320?

Don't those kill fuel efficiency which isn't too good on the 732 to begin with?

Not really. Their sole purpose is to take off from rough strips. Once the aircraft is in the air the shield is lowered and the upper louvres closed.


Is that the same system :
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:50 pm

If this was FSX I would have swapped it for A380.

Anyway, in terms of jets, maybe CRJ700/900 conversion?
I mean, the main problem with gravel gonna be the location of the engines, so, all aircraft with engines mounted on higher position would be possible for such missions.

They also have special CRJ200 Freighter variants currently on service. So maybe CRJ700/900 would also be possible?

Cause using MD80 is a bit redundant isn't it? It's as old as B737-200.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4426
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:39 pm

CanadianNorth wrote:
The 737-200C is/was nearly a perfect aircraft for the job. 727s worked well too, but they're pretty much gone now, as the 737 can do most of the same for 1/3 cheaper.

Sad to see the 737-200Cs fading, I grew up around them and worked on one for years so I will admit I have a bit of a soft spot for them and lots of good memories with JT8Ds as background music.

The problem with the 737-200Cs is they are cycling out. Boeing has it on their website at https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/2/ (Side note: most Boeing and DC/MD jetliners hour/cycle limits are listed there in a chart near the bottom, it's worth a look for any true avgeek) that those birds are only good for 75,000 cycles. Fuel burn from the old JT8s, the maintenance associated with old worn out airplanes, and keeping crew training up to date on what for many operators would now a be small, low utilization subfleet certainly doesn't help their case either. The only thing saved them this long is how good they are at what they do, lack of direct replacement, and readily available spare parts (somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-80% commonality with the 737-3/4/5 if I remember right, and although JT8Ds are old they went on just about everything back in the day so lots were built).

What I've been seeing most of them replaced with is either a paved runway and 737-3/4/5, or more frequency with ATRs and Dash-8s combis and HS-748, ATR and Dash-8 freighters. The occasional item that physically wouldn't fit in one of those can wait for a boat if it's a coastal community or wait for a winter road to be punched through in the case of an inland community, or if it's a hurry then something can be chartered. Nolinor and Canadian North still operate a couple of 737-200Cs they save for specialized work example.

No all season roads to a lot of these communities because in most cases you'd need to build a road thousands of miles long through mountain ranges, over multiple rivers, and then through huge sections of marsh, swamp, and tundra. Then maintain and plow that road through all sorts of extreme weather, and just about every year you'd be re-doing a section due to frost heaves. All of that would be for a community of a couple hundred people, most of which has a boat every summer or a winter road every other winter for big heavy long lasting stuff and a scheduled flight come through several times per week that can bring you people and groceries and mail. The 737-200C really shined in locations where road transport was often avoided for good reasons.

Paving the runways up north is possible, the only catch is it requires millions of dollars spent at a remote mine or a small community (most of which probably can't afford it themselves and would need more govy handouts to do it), plus hundreds of thousands more spent on maintenance as the frost heaves and whatever else do their thing. With a gravel strip you just just run any old grader over it and then spend an afternoon on any old packer and your done, with a proper hard surface you need a garage full of special equipment and the people to operate it. It's doable, but often at more cost than anyone is willing to spend.

As for replacement ideas, to be an idea replacement you'd need to present an airplane that's younger and better on fuel than the 737-200, can do gravel runways, and has a combi option. The latter two are the big catch, and the problem is for airliners getting those things certified is a huge cost and a pain, so a good replacement would have those already approved through the manufacturer or an STC. Not trying to shoot anyone down here but just pointing out some of the reasons I can think of why they're not commonly used...

ATR: Smaller and slower than a 737 for sure, but they are reasonably easy to find and operate, and are combi and gravel capable. Many northern routes now have ATR combis on them with frequency increases as required, and charters can be arranged for the occasional load that doesn't fit. Seems to be how most gravel runway communities are being served now.
Dash-8: Basically the same story as the ATR.
BAe 146: Fair option for mine crew changes and things like that, but no combi option. Also not a super young airplane any more either, and the four engines to break and fix isn't ideal either. Basically yes it works, but it's quite a bit more to run than the ATR or Dash and still not as capable or versatile as the 737-200C.
DC-9: Probably could work, but all the same aging problems as the 737-200, thirsty engines on a tired airframe. Plus the narrower cabin I don't think fits all the same pallets and containers as the 737-200Cs have been using for decades up north.
MD-81/82/83/87/88/90: Might work, but I've yet to see a combi one, nor a gravel kitted one. Also one concern I can name would be yes the engines are high up, but would the main gear throw any gravel into them? (Actual question as I don't know enough about the MD-80 to say).
717: Limited airframes for sale, parts availability might be an issue, no formal gravel kit, no combi options.
737-3/4/5: Works good as long as there's a paved runway, and this seems to be the way many places are doing it. If the runway can be practically paved, then it is and in comes the 737-3/4/5 in most cases. -300 and -400 are also certified as combis. Not as great as the -200 because the bulkhead is in a fixed permanent location instead of moveable due to the newer regulations (-200s are grandfathered through), but still better than nothing. The -500 is not because I'm told the CFM hanging out front and the shortie fuselage combination would mean the engine inlet would be in the way of trying to load through the standard issue 737 cargo door. No gravel kit because the CFMs suck in too much air too close to the ground to make a gravel kit practical at a reasonable price. JT8Ds on a classic probably aint going to happen, it probably could technically be done but you'd have to spend millions of dollars on an old airplane to make it worse at 9 out of 10 missions you could do with it. Probably cheaper and easier to just fix an old -200.
737NG: I would imagine it would be pretty much the same story as the -3/4/5, if someone were to certify it as a combi, which I haven't seen yet.
727: All the same issues as the 737-200C plus an extra engine to fix and an extra pilot to feed. As a side note I've heard that when Canadian formed their subsidiary Canadian North to operate in the far north AC floated the idea of off roading their 727s to compete, but instead opted to farm out the work to people with more experience at northern flying and got together with Northwest Territorial and branded it as NWT Air. For these Air Canada Connector schedules initially L188s were used and then 737-200Cs were aquired. Eventually Canadian North separated from Canadian Airlines and became an independent airline, meanwhile NWT Air was sold out to First Air.
A318/319/320/321: No combi, no gravel kit. There are A319s out there operating on rough fields and ice strips, but not on gravel as far as I'm aware. A320s are out there with extra wheels on the main gear for softer rougher ground, but again not for actual gravel runway use as far as I know. The gravel being thown up at the underside and flaps and being sucked into the engines is just as much of an issue on these northern strips as the roughness and softness is. The engines do sit higher than the CFM powered 737s, but still would require some gravel protection which to my knowledge has not been developed yet.
C130/L-100: A lot of airplane, a lot of cost, not a lot of passenger comforts, not sure if it's certified to carry people in Canada, technically would work yes but I'm not sure you'd be saving any money vs just keeping the 732s going.
AN-148 or other Russian/Ukrainian/Etc. types: Pretty sure many are not certified in Canada, not sure if it has a combi, probably pretty hard to get parts for. One of the nice things about the 737 in Canada is training is easy to arrange, spare parts are easy to source, and specialized tooling and knowledge of the airplane is plentiful.


What about the ATP? Granted, very few available and most seem to be hauling cargo for West Atlantic, but how useful would the airframe be?
 
diverted
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:27 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
The Indian Airlines Airbus A320's with the bogie landing gear.


That wouldn’t do anything to help on gravel/dirt.

The future of places like YCB and YCO will be DH8s and ATRs. However, 5T’s two remaining 732s still have a lot of life left in them. 5T now rarely use the 732s to anywhere beyond those two destinations out of YZF. Everywhere else they use the 733/734 fleet almost exclusively.

The future of mines will probably be split ops between Hercs bringing the equipment and supplies, with Dash 8s bringing in the workers.

Again though, it’ll be at least a decade before the combi operators will be forced to make a post-732 combi decision. See AS as an example for what will happen in Canada.


I foresee the two 5T 732's disappearing sooner rather than later. Doesn't make a ton of sense for a subfleet of two aircraft when the rest of the 737's are 3/400's. Honestly, as most of 5T's 733's are leased, I could see the 7F -400's end up as full freighters, the -300's exiting the fleet, and the new 5T operating NG's in the next 3-4 years. PEMCO is working on or has a flexcombi STC with three seating configs. Looks like the -400's in the fleet have 78 seats, so they might need the bulkhead farther forward, but I imagine it could be done.

For the gravel work, Nolinor is there. They bought a 732 with only 32,000 hours a few years ago, and have spent a few million retrofitting glass flight decks in them. They'll keep them flying for at least the next 10-15 years. Everything else can go on an ATR. The only airports Canadian North flies to on the 737 that need a -200 is Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk. YCB is already supposed to be getting paved eventually,maybe a scheduled retirement date would get that expedited, or maybe the new 5T can wetlease Nolinor to operate YCB/YCO for them. It really doesn't seem cost effective to keep 2 ancient aircraft flying for two destinations. Maybe even run an ATR twice a day. Would come reasonably close to replacing the lost payload(I imagine it's mostly freight, not very many pax), and one would think 2 ATR42 combi's with 10 seats each should be close. Send a freighter as necessary when cargo volumes demand it.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3255
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:49 pm

zeke wrote:
The Bae146/ Avro RJ have been used as combii, freighter, and gravel runway aircraft.

https://www.regional-services.com/wp-co ... ations.pdf

Interesting read, thanks! The RJ85 has been used on gravel with success by Summit, but I believe they run full pax only. I haven't seen a combi one around certified for airline use in Canada yet. A little digging I found some references on their website showing combi layouts, so I guess it is a thing. Again though I'm not sure that it's certified for airline use in Canada that way. Could be done I suppose though. Also still more expensive to operate than an ATR, while still being less payload than a 737, so not a 1 for 1 replacement by any means but it is one of the closest things at this point.


KFTG wrote:
I'd look to the 717 as a future candidate for this role.
There are so many out there that there may be a business case to be made for any STC.

I doubt we'll see much of the 717 for this role. Only 156 built, and from what I've read on this forum Delta, Hawaiian, and Qantas have been flying the piss out of most of them and jumping on any good ones that come up for sale. Gravel kit probably wouldn't be too hard to do and a cargo door wouldn't be too hard to do but not sure how a combi layout would work as there's only space for a cargo door at the front and I don't think there is any entry doors at the back, and I think it would require all new containers and pallets due to the narrower fuselage. The nice thing about the 737-300C and 737-400C is you basically need new engine tooling, some new avionics parts, some quick differences training, and most everything else you can just carry on using all the same junk you had for the 737-200C.

Aesma wrote:
About rear mounted engines, aren't they at risk of taking gravel from the main gears ?

I also wonder this. I know on the 737-200C we had part of the gravel kit was a special rubbery coating on the underside of the inboard flaps, as they would get pelted pretty good by gravel being thrown up by the main gear on landing. I don't know though, I've never had anything to do with the DC/MD jets other than I flew as a pax on an MD-80 once as a kid so hopefully someone with some DC-9/MD-80/717 experience could chime in.

f4f3a wrote:
What about a dornier 328? High mounted engine reasonably short field performance ..comes in either jet or prop

Probably not a bad airplane, but pretty small and I don't think it would present any real advantages over the ATRs and Dash-8s that are already around up here.

ewt340 wrote:
Cause using MD80 is a bit redundant isn't it? It's as old as B737-200.

Yup.

vfw614 wrote:
As the Q400 appears to be increasingly used - how about the CRJ700/900? No wing-mounted engines, same fuselage diameter?

ewt340 wrote:
Anyway, in terms of jets, maybe CRJ700/900 conversion?
I mean, the main problem with gravel gonna be the location of the engines, so, all aircraft with engines mounted on higher position would be possible for such missions.

They also have special CRJ200 Freighter variants currently on service. So maybe CRJ700/900 would also be possible?

CRJs never were super popular with people up here as in a pax configuration they have limited baggage and cargo space for their size and haven't been super reliable in the cold. Also not seen a gravel kit or a combi option. To do a combi would be the same boat as the 717, freight door only fits at the front and there's no entry doors at the back, so a lot of modifications would be needed, all to have an airplane that does basically the same thing as a Q400 could do. Freighter CRJs are a thing but at that point I'm sure a load of lumber and potato chips doesn't care if it takes 1.5 or 2.1 hours to get somewhere, so might as well use the ATRs that are already in the fleet.

VSMUT wrote:
What about the ATP? Granted, very few available and most seem to be hauling cargo for West Atlantic, but how useful would the airframe be?

Probably not a bad airplane for the job, it was developed from the HS-748 which is still in service with some northern airlines. However at this point I don't think introducing ATPs to the fleet would present any advantages over the Dashes or ATRs that are already here.

yzfElite wrote:
Isn't Summit Air already flying the RJ-85 and potentially the RJ-100 from YZF to destinations previously flown by the 5T/7F 732C's and 7F hercs?

They were doing a couple of scheds for First Air for a while, I believe Canadian North was running 737 combis and then First Air would run an all pax service operated by Summit. I think that went away with the First Air/Canadian North merger and last I heard they're back to using ATRs, Dashes and 737s for those scheds. The RJs are still doing charter work as far as I know, but in all-pax configuration.

diverted wrote:
I foresee the two 5T 732's disappearing sooner rather than later. Doesn't make a ton of sense for a subfleet of two aircraft when the rest of the 737's are 3/400's. Honestly, as most of 5T's 733's are leased, I could see the 7F -400's end up as full freighters, the -300's exiting the fleet, and the new 5T operating NG's in the next 3-4 years. PEMCO is working on or has a flexcombi STC with three seating configs. Looks like the -400's in the fleet have 78 seats, so they might need the bulkhead farther forward, but I imagine it could be done.

For the gravel work, Nolinor is there. They bought a 732 with only 32,000 hours a few years ago, and have spent a few million retrofitting glass flight decks in them. They'll keep them flying for at least the next 10-15 years. Everything else can go on an ATR. The only airports Canadian North flies to on the 737 that need a -200 is Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk. YCB is already supposed to be getting paved eventually,maybe a scheduled retirement date would get that expedited, or maybe the new 5T can wetlease Nolinor to operate YCB/YCO for them. It really doesn't seem cost effective to keep 2 ancient aircraft flying for two destinations. Maybe even run an ATR twice a day. Would come reasonably close to replacing the lost payload(I imagine it's mostly freight, not very many pax), and one would think 2 ATR42 combi's with 10 seats each should be close. Send a freighter as necessary when cargo volumes demand it.

Pretty much yep.
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
User avatar
rikkus67
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:01 pm

I have often wondered if a VFW-614-style engine mount could be adapted to the "Classic" series 737's, using the highest thrust rating CF34's (over 20,000 lbf)? Obviously another STC, but that would possible solve the issue of high bypass/low clearance...
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
TerryJohnSmith
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:32 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:37 pm

Thinking out of the box what about either An72 or An74 which could be still in production?

Terry Smith
 
889091
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:05 pm

Punching a few weight classes below the 732, but Australia's Royal Flying Doctor Service just welcomed the second PC24 into its fleet. One nice looking plane, I have to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0aQtBTNxWg
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:23 pm

rikkus67 wrote:
I have often wondered if a VFW-614-style engine mount could be adapted to the "Classic" series 737's, using the highest thrust rating CF34's (over 20,000 lbf)? Obviously another STC, but that would possible solve the issue of high bypass/low clearance...


A fleet of HondaJets for Canadian North!

In all seriousness the 732s at 5T I'd be surprised if they leave the fleet anytime soon. It's a common pilot type rating with the 733/734 and I'm pretty sure 5T retained the two lowest cycle 732s that they had.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:56 pm

TerryJohnSmith wrote:
Thinking out of the box what about either An72 or An74 which could be still in production?

Terry Smith

Kharkiv State Aircraft Manufacturing company lists An-74 as a product:

http://www.ksamc.com.ua/en/production.html

Antonov, their former corporate parent, would try to steer you to its newer offerings:
An-178 for cargo and mixed operations:
https://antonov.com/en/an-178

For mainly pax operations, An-148 and An-158:
https://antonov.com/en/an-148-201
https://antonov.com/en/an-158-100
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
bkmbr
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:23 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
TerryJohnSmith wrote:
Thinking out of the box what about either An72 or An74 which could be still in production?

Terry Smith

Kharkiv State Aircraft Manufacturing company lists An-74 as a product:

http://www.ksamc.com.ua/en/production.html

Antonov, their former corporate parent, would try to steer you to its newer offerings:
An-178 for cargo and mixed operations:
https://antonov.com/en/an-178

For mainly pax operations, An-148 and An-158:
https://antonov.com/en/an-148-201
https://antonov.com/en/an-158-100


The problem will be to be able to operate these planes in Canada without certifying them with the Canadian aeronautical authority. IMHO AN-178 would be ideal for this type of operation together with the KC-390.
 
diverted
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:40 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
rikkus67 wrote:
I have often wondered if a VFW-614-style engine mount could be adapted to the "Classic" series 737's, using the highest thrust rating CF34's (over 20,000 lbf)? Obviously another STC, but that would possible solve the issue of high bypass/low clearance...


A fleet of HondaJets for Canadian North!

In all seriousness the 732s at 5T I'd be surprised if they leave the fleet anytime soon. It's a common pilot type rating with the 733/734 and I'm pretty sure 5T retained the two lowest cycle 732s that they had.


Common type rating, but IIRC the 7F 737's IIRC have an IS&S flight deck upgrade that I imagine has some pretty big differences training. Believe it looks something like thisImage whereas the -200's would still be all steam gauges (unless 5T upgraded them like Nolinor did theirs)

Beyond that, even though the classics are a lot more similar to the -200s than NG's, there are still lots of differences. It's got to be obnoxiously expensive to run those two dinosaurs. 7F phased the last four out of their fleet in 2015/2016 IIRC. There's two stations that require the 732 aside from any gravel charter work, both destinations easily reachable from YZF with an ATR42 or two a day depending on what the actual demand is. Keep in mind, that just because a 737 is flying it, it likely isn't full. From anecdotal evidence from travelling up there, it probably averages 10-20 pax. The rest would obviously be freight, but no reason it couldn't go on a combi or freight ATR. IMHO the smartest thing they could do is schedule it on an ATR(all the Dashes are parked AFAIK) and run freight flights as demand necessitates. Those -200's are ancient, horrible on fuel, and my personal opinion is they're the first on the post merger chopping block after the Dashes
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3255
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:31 am

Nolinor does indeed have a glass cockpit fitted to the -200C, pretty neat but I'm sure the cost was astronomical and you still have the issues of old airframes and thirsty engines. Cool to see as I quite liked the JT8Ds, but I'm surprised it happened.

At the airline I worked on the 737-200C for they initially had an all -200 fleet but replaced all save for the one -200C with the -400/500. Before long the -200C was only being used on missions requiring the gravel kit, and it wasn't cheap stocking -200 engine parts and tooling, -200 avionics spares, keep the crews current on the -200, all for one very high cycle airplane that only really flew enough to make money four months of the year. The gravel runway it saw most often was paved and if I recall right the very next day a -500 came in and that was that. All other gravel stations are served by ATRs on the scheduled flights, and occasionally an HS-748 freighter. Anything too big for that either waits for a winter road or goes on someone else's airplane now as there just wasn't enough to make it worth keeping a -200C around.

For pilots it was the same pilots flew all of the 737s in the fleet, but in the last couple seasons they all flew the -400/500 but only some of them also flew the -200. I believe once a pilot had one then it was fairly easy to "add-on" the other, but the trick was to stay current with such a small subfleet.

Flight attendants were all trained on all of the 737s. It was only a couple hours training to include the -200C, but I believe that had more to do with it being a combi, so there was the combi interior layout to learn and also the aft entry door was different due to the integral airstairs back there.

Maintenance we all received our 737 type course as a three week long 737-100/200 course to sign out the -200s, and then a one week long differences course to sign out -300/400/500.
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
gloom
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:55 am

If we look at C130, perhaps a smaller turboprop would do as well, I mean something in class of CN295/C27J. It's not a lifter really, but should work gravel out of the box and have a cost similar to standard civilian aircrafts.

Cheers,
Adam
 
diverted
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sat Jun 20, 2020 5:23 pm

CanadianNorth wrote:
Nolinor does indeed have a glass cockpit fitted to the -200C, pretty neat but I'm sure the cost was astronomical and you still have the issues of old airframes and thirsty engines. Cool to see as I quite liked the JT8Ds, but I'm surprised it happened.

At the airline I worked on the 737-200C for they initially had an all -200 fleet but replaced all save for the one -200C with the -400/500. Before long the -200C was only being used on missions requiring the gravel kit, and it wasn't cheap stocking -200 engine parts and tooling, -200 avionics spares, keep the crews current on the -200, all for one very high cycle airplane that only really flew enough to make money four months of the year. The gravel runway it saw most often was paved and if I recall right the very next day a -500 came in and that was that. All other gravel stations are served by ATRs on the scheduled flights, and occasionally an HS-748 freighter. Anything too big for that either waits for a winter road or goes on someone else's airplane now as there just wasn't enough to make it worth keeping a -200C around.

For pilots it was the same pilots flew all of the 737s in the fleet, but in the last couple seasons they all flew the -400/500 but only some of them also flew the -200. I believe once a pilot had one then it was fairly easy to "add-on" the other, but the trick was to stay current with such a small subfleet.

Flight attendants were all trained on all of the 737s. It was only a couple hours training to include the -200C, but I believe that had more to do with it being a combi, so there was the combi interior layout to learn and also the aft entry door was different due to the integral airstairs back there.

Maintenance we all received our 737 type course as a three week long 737-100/200 course to sign out the -200s, and then a one week long differences course to sign out -300/400/500.


Ah, I never got to catch a 4N -200, but I have ridden one of their -500's that had WN seat covers
 
yzfElite
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:37 pm

The days of flying 5T 444/445 on the combi are now in the past. I remember a long day YEV-YQV-YZF-YEG on the 732C to catch the AC red-eye for YEG-YYZ-BOS only to arrive in BOS during the marathon bomber man hunt. Many memories rocketing down the YZF/YEG runways to take off in those birds.
 
ryanov
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:43 am

ewt340 wrote:
Cause using MD80 is a bit redundant isn't it? It's as old as B737-200.


No it isn't. the 732 first flew in 1967. First flight of the MD-80 was in 79.
 
Jonjo757
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 4:24 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:57 am

I have a soft spot for the CRJ-700, I think that it has the best proportions of the CRJ family. The aircraft shown below currently registered XC-BDM has a (smallish) cargo door, it is owned by Banco de Mexico. I don't know whether the cargo door could be made larger or if it even has any passenger seats, but it would make for and interesting, Canadian built combi aircraft.

The nose down attitude the CRJ has on the ground might make loading cargo interesting, maybe it would need a fix like the A330F. Of the CRJ-700, -900, -1000, the -700 has the least fuselage plugs added between the landing gear and the engines so FOD being kicked up is less of an issue and the engines are mounted over 2m (7.5ft) off the ground. They also hold a small amount of cargo in the rear fuselage between the engines and in the forward belly.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:59 am

ryanov wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Cause using MD80 is a bit redundant isn't it? It's as old as B737-200.


No it isn't. the 732 first flew in 1967. First flight of the MD-80 was in 79.


Yes, OLD.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:31 am

Jonjo757 wrote:
I have a soft spot for the CRJ-700, I think that it has the best proportions of the CRJ family. The aircraft shown below currently registered XC-BDM has a (smallish) cargo door, it is owned by Banco de Mexico. I don't know whether the cargo door could be made larger or if it even has any passenger seats, but it would make for and interesting, Canadian built combi aircraft.

The nose down attitude the CRJ has on the ground might make loading cargo interesting, maybe it would need a fix like the A330F. Of the CRJ-700, -900, -1000, the -700 has the least fuselage plugs added between the landing gear and the engines so FOD being kicked up is less of an issue and the engines are mounted over 2m (7.5ft) off the ground. They also hold a small amount of cargo in the rear fuselage between the engines and in the forward belly.


Not the CRJ700, but there are cargo versions of the CRJ100 and 200. They're known as the CRJ100SF and CRJ200SF.

https://www.aircargonews.net/services/f ... freighter/

Not sure how well they perform on gravel runways, some adaptions might be needed.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:45 am

bkmbr wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
TerryJohnSmith wrote:
Thinking out of the box what about either An72 or An74 which could be still in production?

Kharkiv State Aircraft Manufacturing company lists An-74 as a product:

Antonov, their former corporate parent, would try to steer you to its newer offerings: An-178 for cargo and mixed operations: For mainly pax operations, An-148 and An-158:

The problem will be to be able to operate these planes in Canada without certifying them with the Canadian aeronautical authority. IMHO AN-178 would be ideal for this type of operation together with the KC-390.

These aircraft are so obviously ideal for this operation that some efforts should be made to relax the costly certification requirements, maybe fly these birds on an "experimental" certificate, in conjunction with limiting their use to when & where actually required. Obviously there need to be measures in place to prevent this becoming a back-door to widespread abuse.
You could even employ a waiver whereby all passengers signed away their normal air passenger rights; don't forget these passengers are hardly run-of-the-mill commuters or families going on a beach holiday. (And no, I'm not suggesting they are second-class citizens whose lives don't matter; just that they are not snowflakes and they know what it is like to live with acceptable level of risk and/or discomfort day-in, day out)

That aside, who is to say that these Antonovs are inherently any less safe than a 40-50 year old B732 ? Granted, the original An-72 first flew in 1977; the big difference is you can buy a similarly capable, but somewhat updated machine, fresh out of the factory. What's not to like?

Likewise, if an ATR can do it, what is the problem?

When over-regulation impedes progress, it's no longer fit for purpose. :duck:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:36 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
That aside, who is to say that these Antonovs are inherently any less safe than a 40-50 year old B732 ? Granted, the original An-72 first flew in 1977; the big difference is you can buy a similarly capable, but somewhat updated machine, fresh out of the factory. What's not to like?


You seem to forget that the AN-178 is a whole other plane than the AN-72. Granted, they look kind of similar and serve the same purpose, but where the AN-72 first flew in 1977, the AN-178 first flew in 2015.

The AN-72:



The AN-178:



The AN-178 is the military version of the AN-148 and AN-158 which have been mentioned earlier here. A modern state-of-the-art aircraft that was basically designed for gravel runways.
 
bkmbr
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:22 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
These aircraft are so obviously ideal for this operation that some efforts should be made to relax the costly certification requirements, maybe fly these birds on an "experimental" certificate, in conjunction with limiting their use to when & where actually required.


I'm not 100% sure but aircrafts with experimental certificate can not operate on a commercial basis as far as I know.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:36 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
That aside, who is to say that these Antonovs are inherently any less safe than a 40-50 year old B732 ? Granted, the original An-72 first flew in 1977; the big difference is you can buy a similarly capable, but somewhat updated machine, fresh out of the factory. What's not to like?


You seem to forget that the AN-178 is a whole other plane than the AN-72. Granted, they look kind of similar and serve the same purpose, but where the AN-72 first flew in 1977, the AN-178 first flew in 2015.

The AN-72:



The AN-178:



The AN-178 is the military version of the AN-148 and AN-158 which have been mentioned earlier here. A modern state-of-the-art aircraft that was basically designed for gravel runways.



You are quite right, An-178 is probably the best solution.
That said, if a customer insisted on a plane with Coandă effect, An-74, an offspring of An-72, is still theoretically available for order. The last was built, AFAIR, a couple of years ago, but I see no reason why low-rate production cannot be resumed.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
yzfElite
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:16 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
That aside, who is to say that these Antonovs are inherently any less safe than a 40-50 year old B732 ? Granted, the original An-72 first flew in 1977; the big difference is you can buy a similarly capable, but somewhat updated machine, fresh out of the factory. What's not to like?


You seem to forget that the AN-178 is a whole other plane than the AN-72. Granted, they look kind of similar and serve the same purpose, but where the AN-72 first flew in 1977, the AN-178 first flew in 2015.

The AN-72:



The AN-178:



The AN-178 is the military version of the AN-148 and AN-158 which have been mentioned earlier here. A modern state-of-the-art aircraft that was basically designed for gravel runways.



You are quite right, An-178 is probably the best solution.
That said, if a customer insisted on a plane with Coandă effect, An-74, an offspring of An-72, is still theoretically available for order. The last was built, AFAIR, a couple of years ago, but I see no reason why low-rate production cannot be resumed.



When your main competitors are flying C-46/Electras and ATR Combis, going to be hard to justify the purchase of a new Russian aircraft, not to mention needing to re-start production :) We can all dream here, the reality is that with so few applications for this niche market, the airlines have had to evolve with what is available on the used market...or in the case of Buffalo, keep on going with the C-46.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:37 pm

yzfElite wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:

You seem to forget that the AN-178 is a whole other plane than the AN-72. Granted, they look kind of similar and serve the same purpose, but where the AN-72 first flew in 1977, the AN-178 first flew in 2015.

The AN-72:



The AN-178:



The AN-178 is the military version of the AN-148 and AN-158 which have been mentioned earlier here. A modern state-of-the-art aircraft that was basically designed for gravel runways.



You are quite right, An-178 is probably the best solution.
That said, if a customer insisted on a plane with Coandă effect, An-74, an offspring of An-72, is still theoretically available for order. The last was built, AFAIR, a couple of years ago, but I see no reason why low-rate production cannot be resumed.



When your main competitors are flying C-46/Electras and ATR Combis, going to be hard to justify the purchase of a new Russian aircraft, not to mention needing to re-start production :) We can all dream here, the reality is that with so few applications for this niche market, the airlines have had to evolve with what is available on the used market...or in the case of Buffalo, keep on going with the C-46.


one difficulty with such an approach -- at some point, you run out of Electras. You go scavenging the boneyards, but what do you do, when those are empty, too?
You either lose capability, or invest.
And no, Ukrainians will gladly deliver, no need to go to Russia to shop :)
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
ryanov
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:15 am

ewt340 wrote:
ryanov wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Cause using MD80 is a bit redundant isn't it? It's as old as B737-200.


No it isn't. the 732 first flew in 1967. First flight of the MD-80 was in 79.


Yes, OLD.


79 is just the oldest one. There are many floating around that are 15-20 years newer.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:04 am

ryanov wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
ryanov wrote:

No it isn't. the 732 first flew in 1967. First flight of the MD-80 was in 79.


Yes, OLD.


79 is just the oldest one. There are many floating around that are 15-20 years newer.


Yeah that's not great is it? What they need is a replacement that is less than 10 years old.
 
ryanov
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:09 am

Why? Cargo operators have plenty of planes older than that.
 
bkmbr
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:11 pm

ryanov wrote:
Why? Cargo operators have plenty of planes older than that.


The availability of parts will probably be the main factor in accelerating or postponing the withdrawal of services from these planes. The MD-80 series in terms of frame age and availability of spare parts will not be much different than today with the 737-200 series, especially now that the two large fleets of the MD-80 (AA and Delta) have been retired, which diminishes the interest in maintaining the spare parts network.
 
WN732
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:32 pm

Rear mounted jets in the DC-9 family are not good for gravel strips. They easily ingest rocks and debris. Most rear mounted jets will have this problem. And unfortunately the PC-24 is way too small for the job.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:27 pm

bkmbr wrote:
ryanov wrote:
Why? Cargo operators have plenty of planes older than that.


The availability of parts will probably be the main factor in accelerating or postponing the withdrawal of services from these planes. The MD-80 series in terms of frame age and availability of spare parts will not be much different than today with the 737-200 series, especially now that the two large fleets of the MD-80 (AA and Delta) have been retired, which diminishes the interest in maintaining the spare parts network.


The thing is there is still a lot of parts commonality between a 732 and a 733/734 (north of 80%) and some with the NG and even some (wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 40-50%) with the MAX. That’s why they’re still operating - plentiful parts - and it’s the only “western” jet still around that’s capable of the gravel...7F retired the 727 a decade plus ago.

When the 732s cycle out, you’ll see the DH4 combi or AT7 combi take its place. Hopefully by then YCO, YCB and YPX (Puvirnituq for Air Inuit) get paved, though I’m doubtful about that.
 
ryanov
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:59 am

Hundreds of these planes just went to the desert. I imagine parts will be available for quite awhile.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:25 pm

ewt340 wrote:
ryanov wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Cause using MD80 is a bit redundant isn't it? It's as old as B737-200.


No it isn't. the 732 first flew in 1967. First flight of the MD-80 was in 79.


Yes, OLD.


Most of the remaining 732s are 80s builds with only a handful of active 70s builds and anything from the 60s is long since retired.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:06 am

Dominion301 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
ryanov wrote:

No it isn't. the 732 first flew in 1967. First flight of the MD-80 was in 79.


Yes, OLD.


Most of the remaining 732s are 80s builds with only a handful of active 70s builds and anything from the 60s is long since retired.


Yes, That's Old, what they need is an aircraft built at least after 2000s. So they could use that aircraft through to 2040.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:15 am

Funny, how arguments on A.net work. In the same thread, you have folks arguing against purchase of new-builds, because Electras are available in the boneyards; a couple of posts later, a plane built up to late 1980's (732) is being dismissed as too old.

Can we agree on some basics, please?
Like:
gravel is easy to ingest, so:
1) low-wing aircraft, with wing-mounted engines, cannot have high-bypass engine models. Anything later than JT8D is at a risk of FOD.
2) for more modern engines, high-wing is mandatory (OR, subject to debate -- low-wing aircraft, tail-mounted engines with FOD protection?)
3) gravel kit is a plus
4) props are a possibility
and low-wing jet aircraft, with parameters like these, have not been built since 1990's.
This takes a lot of "hypothetical" out of discussion, IMHO...
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
2175301
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: There's any jet alternatives for the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Yes, OLD.


Most of the remaining 732s are 80s builds with only a handful of active 70s builds and anything from the 60s is long since retired.


Yes, That's Old, what they need is an aircraft built at least after 2000s. So they could use that aircraft through to 2040.


I'm quite confident that the 732's will last until at least 2040... perhaps even 2050 or later. There are plenty of spare parts, and the rare ones can easily be stockpiled at this time.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Are there any jet alternatives to the 737-200C for gravel operations?

Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:22 pm

The 732 is likely to be better supported for longer than most of the alternatives you all are dreaming up.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos