CO Acft #401 Gets Winglets

CALTECH · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:41 pm

CO Ship #401, a regular basic 737-900, has received its' winglets and should enter service today. First modification of our basic 737-900s, they will all receive winglets.

CALTECH · Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:45 pm

Ship 401 is nice looking, she received a new paint job on September 22 ? 2007. With the winglets added on, she looks mighty fine. Nice addition to the fleet.

IAHFLYR · Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:34 pm

Excellent, can't wait to see her, nice addition to the winglet NG's in the fleet. What is the first flight? Are the other 11 900's going to be getting the mod as the 900ER's start rolling in?

ConcordeBoy · Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:50 pm

Hmm, with this addition... what, besides the larger additional doors, can be used to externally distinguish the 739ER from these?

IAHFLYR · Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:31 pm

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 3):
Hmm, with this addition... what, besides the larger additional doors, can be used to externally distinguish the 739ER from these?

longer fuselage.......I'm guessing the possible different series of ship numbers, hopefully out of the 400 series.

eraugrad02 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:48 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
longer fuselage.......I'm guessing the possible different series of ship numbers, hopefully out of the 400 series.

The -900ER is no longer than -900A. Just the exit doors can distinguish the two.

mcamargo · Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:49 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
Hmm, with this addition... what, besides the larger additional doors, can be used to externally distinguish the 739ER from these?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the 739ER have an additional door just aft of the wings?

EWRCabincrew · Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:58 pm

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 3):
what, besides the larger additional doors, can be used to externally distinguish the 739ER from these?

Those exits behind the wings are pretty much a dead give away. As for CO's, I am unsure how they will be (with or without the additonal exit). The longer fuselage should be obvious, at least to a.netters (isn't that who really matters, anyway Big grin

).

MX757 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:06 pm

Quoting Mcamargo (Reply 6):
Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the 739ER have an additional door just aft of the wings?

You are correct there are 2 escape hatches aft of the wing. These are in addition to the overwing doors.

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 5):
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
longer fuselage.......I'm guessing the possible different series of ship numbers, hopefully out of the 400 series.

The -900ER is no longer than -900A. Just the exit doors can distinguish the two.

The 900ER and the 900 are exactly the same length. The biggest difference is that the 900ER has a flat aft pressure bulkhead, instead of the old dome style, that enables the 900ER to carry more seats.

Read more about the 737-900ER here: http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/background.html

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
I'm guessing the possible different series of ship numbers, hopefully out of the 400 series

CO's first 900ER (Ship 413) is scheduled for delivery next month. 01/08

iahcsr · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:13 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
.......I'm guessing the possible different series of ship numbers, hopefully out of the 400 series

No such luck.... 739A: 401-412 739ER: 413-499

Quoting Mcamargo (Reply 6):
Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the 739ER have an additional door just aft of the wings?

You are not wrong .... However.... IIRC CO will not need this door, so it may not be visibly marked as an exit.

IAHFLYR · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:20 pm

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 5):
The -900ER is no longer than -900A. Just the exit doors can distinguish the two.

No longer?? Oh well, guess they're going to cram the additional bodies inside the overhead bins?

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 7):
Those exits behind the wings are pretty much a dead give away

So I will have a fighting chance to recognize it! Big grin

EWRCabincrew · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:26 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 10):
So I will have a fighting chance to recognize it!

Now that I see this....

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 9):
However.... IIRC CO will not need this door, so it may not be visibly marked as an exit.

You may have to rely on the tail numbers

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 9):
739ER: 413-499

We'll know next month, for sure.

IAHFLYR · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Quoting MX757 (Reply 8):
The 900ER and the 900 are exactly the same length. The biggest difference is that the 900ER has a flat aft pressure bulkhead, instead of the old dome style, that enables the 900ER to carry more seats.

And now I see this! Smile

Just read the link as well, thanks!

IAHFLYR · Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:37 pm

However my initial question still is regarding the thread about ship #401:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 2):
What is the first flight?

A340Spotter · Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:21 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 13):
However my initial question still is regarding the thread about ship #401:

Landed this morning on CO1087 from MCO-IAH. I was up on the frosted over parking garage roof awaiting it at 0745 but the original gate of C-14 was occupied by a 753 that went tech so it turned into D-5 before photos could be had. It's parked down by the hangar now and isn't scheduled out today.

A very frustrated JSD

AlexPorter · Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 pm

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 9):
You are not wrong .... However.... IIRC CO will not need this door, so it may not be visibly marked as an exit.

I'm confused. I thought those exits were needed to fit more seats in, because the current capacity is restricted due to not enough emergency exits. Wouldn't CO have to use the doors if it wanted to fit any more seats in?

iahcsr · Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:16 pm

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 15):
Wouldn't CO have to use the doors if it wanted to fit any more seats in?

CO is adding only 5 more seats... from 20/149 to 20/154..Total 174. Again IIRC, the additional exits are only needed if capacity is increased beyond 189.

akelley728 · Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:15 pm

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 15):
I thought those exits were needed to fit more seats in, because the current capacity is restricted due to not enough emergency exits.

You'll only see these come into play with carriers who will do a 1-class configuration. Even in a 1-class configuration the 739 can fit only 189 seats (even though it could physically hold more). The 739ER can go as high as ~210 seats.

AlexPorter · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:31 pm

So did CO just order the 739ER for the flat bulkhead, or what?

brendows · Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 16):
the additional exits are only needed if capacity is increased beyond 189.

Correct

The exit can be deactivated and be used as a normal passenger row if the seat count is 189 or below.

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 18):
So did CO just order the 739ER for the flat bulkhead, or what?

It offers longer range and/or a higher payload over the same distance compared to the 739.

iahcsr · Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting Brendows (Reply 19):
It offers longer range and/or a higher payload over the same distance compared to the 739

I think

the range/payload numbers are similar to the 738. dollarsign

seabosdca · Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:03 am

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 18):
So did CO just order the 739ER for the flat bulkhead, or what?

The 739ER should be able to do transcons without trouble in most cases. The 739A is challenged on many transcons, especially in the winter. The 739ER, in addition to the flat pressure bulkhead, has other technical improvements, most notably a short-field performance kit that gives it better field performance than a 739A.

I don't believe Boeing offers the 739A for sale anymore, so even if CO wanted some for some reason, they couldn't get them. (The 739A is listed as out of production on Boeing's site.) Anyway, there's no reason to want a 739A when the ER is available.

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 20):
I think the range/payload numbers are similar to the 738.

... although range with a full pax load is slightly shorter, because of the extra weight, unless the customer purchases the aux tanks. I don't know if CO did but I doubt it.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 3):
Hmm, with this addition... what, besides the larger additional doors, can be used to externally distinguish the 739ER from these?

The flat bulkhead. Just use your x-ray vision. Wow!

calpsafltskeds · Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:38 am

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 21):
Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 20):
I think the range/payload numbers are similar to the 738.

checkmark ... although range with a full pax load is slightly shorter, because of the extra weight, unless the customer purchases the aux tanks. I don't know if CO did but I doubt it.

I'd be very surprised if CO doesn't have the aux tanks installed. According to Boeing's site, the 738 has a range of 3060nm and the 739ER has a range of 2700nm with a single class layout (who knows what payload hit they take with a single class layout) and a range of 3200nm with the 2 aux tanks, which should be for an extra 962 gallons (if the 739ER regular tanks are equal to the 738 tanks). That would equal 6580 lbs.

Vs. the 738 the 739ER has a 13500 lb higher GTOW. Minus the added 739ER empty weight of 7,195 lbs (vs. 738), the 739ER can takeoff with 5,305 more payload/fuel combination than the 738. If you guess the 17 extra passengers with bags weigh 200 lbs. each, then you have nearly 2,000 lbs more weight capacity with the 739ER than the 738. That weight can be in fuel or cargo. It might make sense to split the difference and order the 739ER with one aux tank, which would put the range at just about 738 range and allow a similar full passenger mix of bags, cargo and fuel.

Even with both aux tanks, the 739ER has more cargo space than the 738.

With both aux tanks, the aircraft would be more realistic for potential Hawaiian operations or Micronesian operations. Note that AS had to make an OAK fuel stop on its SEA-HNL flight this week due to winds.

iahcsr · Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:42 pm

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 14):
. It's parked down by the hangar now and isn't scheduled out today.

A very frustrated JSD

Ship 401 is assigned just one, single, solitary flight on the 5th: CO 5 IAHMSY
and then just 222 MSYIAH on the 6th..
It gets more ambitious on the 7th : IAH SEA IAH SAT

mcamargo · Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:24 pm

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 23):
It gets more ambitious on the 7th : IAH SEA IAH SAT

Any chance of it coming to AUS? Smile

eraugrad02 · Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:26 pm

Will someone take pictures. Why was this aircraft already repainted? How old is this bird?

FlyHoss · Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:21 pm

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 25):
Will someone take pictures. Why was this aircraft already repainted? How old is this bird?

Ship 401 was the first 737-900 delivered to CO in late May of 2001. I don't think it's been repainted until now. The last time I saw it, the paint seemed rather dull. I don't recall what repainting schedule CO has the fleet types on, but the aircraft are routinely rotated through paint shops for repainting.

eraugrad02 · Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:59 pm

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 26):
Ship 401 was the first 737-900 delivered to CO in late May of 2001. I don't think it's been repainted until now. The last time I saw it, the paint seemed rather dull. I don't recall what repainting schedule CO has the fleet types on, but the aircraft are routinely rotated through paint shops for repainting.

Do they wax large airplanes? I remember when i worked for ACA, the J-41's got waxed. Some would have spots that were missed from buffing.

CALTECH · Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:34 pm

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 28):
Do they wax large airplanes? I remember when i worked for ACA, the J-41's got waxed. Some would have spots that were missed from buffing.

I do not believe Continental does waxing. We do wash them. I do not believe the big airplanes get waxed, haven't heard of it.

ikramerica · Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:05 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 22):
It might make sense to split the difference and order the 739ER with one aux tank, which would put the range at just about 738 range and allow a similar full passenger mix of bags, cargo and fuel.

This is what I thought CO would do. The single aux tank bumps the range up to the 738 level, and with pax bags, basically makes the two interchangeable in terms of range and cargo planning. This is a key factor to consider for an airline, because then they don't have to be so careful about which plane they use on a route. I would assume that while there are only a couple 739ERs in the fleet they will simply be used in place of 738s randomly anyway until there are enough to make them regular on some routes...

calpsafltskeds · Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:24 pm

The question is why CO would not add aux tanks as the 739A, 738 and 739ER base model all have the same fuel capacity. With the 739ERs higher takeoff weight, the full tanks would mean the range is below both the 739A and 738. We know the 739A is not a transcon aircraft.
The only question is whether the standard tanks on 738 and 739A aircraft do go out full on long haul flights. Is the MGTOW limited on these flights by passengers and cargo so that the tanks cannot go out full without a weight restriction?
If the tanks do not go out full on such flights, then the 739ER would allow full tanks and range may be greater than the 739A.

IAHFLYR · Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:27 pm

Just reading the thread about ship 401's schedule today and look out the window at IAH to my surprise to see ship 401 zippin by on taxiway Whil-key Bee headed to Runway 15R for departure to OAK as CO 673. No time to grab a camera but she looks awesome with the new bent wings! Smile

CALTECH · Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:40 pm

I believe the 737-900ERs ordered by Continental are with 2 Aux Tanks installed to get the 3200 NM range, which is better than the -800s range of 3060NM. Not 100% on these figures. I think this is what Continental announced, and the Boeing site says 2 Aux Tanks gets the -900ER to 3200 NM range. Which with other improvements, gets the -900ER about 500 NM more range then the baseline -900 model Continental has, but now we will install winglets on all the -900s so they should get a 3-5% increase in range .

seabosdca · Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:03 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 31):
With the 739ERs higher takeoff weight, the full tanks would mean the range is below both the 739A and 738.

Not necessarily, because the 739A is not fuel volume limited but weight limited. With the same passenger load, the extra MTOW of the 739ER could be used for fuel, increasing the range. A 739A with a full load of fuel cannot carry anything close to a full payload; that is one of the problems with the 739A.

I'll be interested to hear a definitive answer about whether CO's 739ERs will come with 0, 1, or 2 aux tanks. It's good to know that the cargo volume of the 739ER is comparable to that of the 738 even with 2 aux tanks and the extra luggage. Those in the know, keep us posted! Smile

FlyHoss · Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:04 pm

No mention yet in the CO 737 Flight Manual of the fuel quantity for the -900ER. Therefore, another revision - or bulletin - is imminent, no doubt.

dutchjet · Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:18 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 33):
I believe the 737-900ERs ordered by Continental are with 2 Aux Tanks installed to get the 3200 NM range, which is better than the -800s range of 3060NM. Not 100% on these figures. I think this is what Continental announced, and the Boeing site says 2 Aux Tanks gets the -900ER to 3200 NM range. Which with other improvements, gets the -900ER about 500 NM more range then the baseline -900 model Continental has, but now we will install winglets on all the -900s so they should get a 3-5% increase in range

This is basically my understanding as well.....two aux tanks. From what I have heard, CO would would like to have the ability to dispatch the 739ER on any mission or route now flown by a 738, giving the airline flexibility to up-gauge any flight now operated by a 738 to a 739ER without any operational issues. One of the primary missions of the 739ER, from what I have heard, will be EWR-West Coast transcons, thus the 2 aux tanks are more or less required.....the 739ER (with the two tanks) will gave the 739ER just a bit more range than the 738s, and that extra range will be very much appreciated by the operations people (especially the dispatchers) on westbound transcon flights when loads are heavy and winds are strong....and even on eastbound flights when EWR is a mess due to ATC issues.

The 739A is an airliner with many ""compromises"" and the 739ER address most of those issues. Look for CO to utilize its 739As on shorter haul routes once the ERs are delivered; even with winglets adding some range to the 739As, its seems that many expect the 739As to spend a lot of time flying between EWR and Florida cities and between IAH and MSY, CUN, etc.

calpsafltskeds · Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:38 am

The aux tanks must be installed to have CO state the capability of the 739ER.

Looking at the Boeing performance charts, the point where the MGTOW meets the Max fuel load gives some indication of performance for transcons. I've calculated payload by reading the chart and removing EOW from the EOW+payload reading on the Boeings website http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/737.htm

In Section 3 pages 98 through 103.

The 738W shows about 2950 nm range with a rough payload of 36700. At 155 pax, that's an average of 237 pounds/pax, which might allow some cargo. It would seem obvious the 738 can takeoff with a max pax and max fuel.

The 739ERW shows about 3200 nm range with a rough payload of 37505. At 174 pax, that's an average of 216 pounds/pax. To equal the 738's average of 236 pounds/pax, you need to go up the chart to remove 3,654 pounds of fuel - at that point the range appears to be about 2800 nm. It might be interesting to note that a single aux tank would remove about 3,000 lbs. of fuel vs. 2 tanks, meaning a like load between the 738 and 739ER could only utilize just one aux tank.

The 39A shows about 2800NM range and has a rough payload of 33,420. With a full load, the average per passenger (including bags) is only 200 pounds. If you remove enough fuel to equal the 236 pounds of the 738 and go up the chart to remove 6,000 pounds of fuel, the range appears to be about 2300 nm.

So, the 739ER is very close to the 738 for full passenger loads (with the same average per passenger weight). Both aircraft seem capable to handle westbound transcons or even Hawaii (pending headwinds). On the other hand the 739A has at least 500 nm less range on like passenger/cargo density.

[Edited 2007-12-07 18:43:26]

SpdBrdConcorde · Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 23):
Ship 401 is assigned just one, single, solitary flight on the 5th: CO 5 IAHMSY
and then just 222 MSYIAH on the 6th..
It gets more ambitious on the 7th : IAH SEA IAH SAT

and soon EWR-SNN or EWR-DUB or EWR-LIS.... Big grin

...non-reving goes out the window the 739ER and CO... Silly

dutchjet · Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:30 pm

Quoting Spdbrdconcorde (Reply 38):
and soon EWR-SNN or EWR-DUB or EWR-LIS....

Nope......as advised about a zillion times before on a.net, CO has absolutely no intention to send any of its 737s to Europe on TATL services.

RJdxer · Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:03 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 33):
believe the 737-900ERs ordered by Continental are with 2 Aux Tanks installed to get the 3200 NM range, which is better than the -800s range of 3060NM. Not 100% on these figures. I think this is what Continental announced, and the Boeing site says 2 Aux Tanks gets the -900ER to 3200 NM range. Which with other improvements, gets the -900ER about 500 NM more range then the baseline -900 model Continental has, but now we will install winglets on all the -900s so they should get a 3-5% increase in range .

This is what I have been told to expect. The word is that the 900ER's will have about 500nm more range than the A's. The winglets on the A's will improve efficiency but not add as many miles as the aux tanks on the ER will.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 36):
One of the primary missions of the 739ER, from what I have heard, will be EWR-West Coast transcons, thus the 2 aux tanks are more or less required.....the 739ER (with the two tanks) will gave the 739ER just a bit more range than the 738s, and that extra range will be very much appreciated by the operations people (especially the dispatchers) on westbound transcon flights when loads are heavy and winds are strong....and even on eastbound flights when EWR is a mess due to ATC issues.

This is also the rumor I have heard. I have yet to see the actual numbers but it all adds up pretty neatly.

iahcsr · Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:19 pm

Ship 401 perplexes me on one minor matter.... Since it was in MCOMX for the wing job, I am wondering why the FC seat mod ( adding two additional seats) was not accomplished at the same time. ??? confused

MX757 · Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:55 pm

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 41):
Ship 401 perplexes me on one minor matter.... Since it was in MCOMX for the wing job, I am wondering why the FC seat mod ( adding two additional seats) was not accomplished at the same time. ???

Good question.

Here's the answer:

Fuel savings first; seats second. We don't have time to do both.

iahcsr · Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:31 pm

Quoting MX757 (Reply 42):
Fuel savings first; seats second. We don't have time to do both.

Very good answer... bigthumbsup

CALTECH · Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:55 am

Acft #401 was here long enough to do a Seat Mod, the winglets take much longer than the seat mod. Sheet Metal Techs do most of the winglet mod, A&Ps Techs and Avionics Techs do most of the seat mod. On Acft #401, a Supv said we ran out of kits from the German manufacturer of the skinnier fwd G-7 galley. When I went up on 401, it had a mid-lav, 2 extra coach seats up front, and one more row of first class seats than a -800. Don't see how a seat mod would increase the seats in that config. 401 had 5 rows of first class seats. The -800s after the seat MOD, go from 3 1/2 to 4 rows of first class seats. The skinnier G-7 galley is to make room for the extra seat assy 1AB on the -800s.

iahcsr · Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:50 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 44):
Don't see how a seat mod would increase the seats in that config. 401 had 5 rows of first class seats.

Hmmmm..... I had it in my mind that all 18 seat 73s would go to 20... Both 738 and 739. Upon reflection I see I was in error... the 739s can only be 18... My Bad.. footinmouth

But I noticed when 401 pulled up to E16 a few minutes ago, it still had it's 'eyebrows'... I would think that mod is handled by the same team busy with the winglets, so that would follow on the next visit.

CALTECH · Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:31 pm

Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 45):
Hmmmm..... I had it in my mind that all 18 seat 73s would go to 20... Both 738 and 739. Upon reflection I see I was in error... the 739s can only be 18... My Bad..
But I noticed when 401 pulled up to E16 a few minutes ago, it still had it's 'eyebrows'... I would think that mod is handled by the same team busy with the winglets, so that would follow on the next visit.

We ran out of eyebrow window kits. I am pretty sure that Ship #401, a -900, has 20 first class seats, 5 full rows, and I swear I saw coach end with the famous row 29, with 29D right next to the lav. Unless I was higher than the airplane will ever get when I did the final walk-through. Ship #401 might have had a seat mod somewhere else. The -800s go from 14 to 16 first class after we get done with them, 4 full rows of first class. Now we do have a few oddball -800s with the mid-lav, which changes the seating in coach yet again.

panam330 · Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:21 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 29):
I do not believe Continental does waxing.

They do. Or, at least they used to.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

A342 · Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:56 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 31):
The only question is whether the standard tanks on 738 and 739A aircraft do go out full on long haul flights. Is the MGTOW limited on these flights by passengers and cargo so that the tanks cannot go out full without a weight restriction?

You're right, that's the real question.

I actually doubt that the fuel volume isn't enough without aux tanks. On nearly all commercial aircraft, in order to have even the standard tanks completely filled, a big payload penalty is taken. Nearly all airliners are limited by MTOW, and not by fuel volume, except on ferry flights that go empty.

CALTECH · Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:52 pm

Quoting PanAm330 (Reply 47):
They do. Or, at least they used to.

No matter what the photographer wrote, what you are probably seeing is a enviroment friendly safe aircraft wash. Talked to some of the guys here from HNL, they never waxed out there. We do polish inlet cowls and some leading edge areas, every now and then, but not wax.

iahcsr · Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:20 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 46):
I am pretty sure that Ship #401, a -900, has 20 first class seats

Nope, only 18 .
The 'oddball' 738s (73X, Ships 260-277), are going to 20 with the Galley mod. So maybe it's possible the '9s' could get the same mod as well ... goodvibes

. Ship 413 will provide the answer to that I suspect.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net