Southwest

I have been flying Southwest quite a bit lately. Think they are flying
the 737-300 version, although I rarely read the laminate card about the
plane as I have been on it so much.

Noticed in flights to New Orleans, Houston, Tampa, Pensacola,
Jacksonville, Orlando, Norfolk and Baltimore-Washington, that the planes
have these big winglets on them now. Supposed to improve aerodynamics.

What surprised me about this is how steep the Southwest 737 is taking
off now, and shortly after it goes airborne they have been cranking the
engines to an amazing speed. Pushing you back into your seat as they
zoom up to 10,000, and then to cruising altitude.

I thought this was just something they did at FLL flying out over the
ocean, cranking the engine power as they bank back over land, but
everytime I fly the Southwest plane with the winglets, the 737 seems to
be much more stable, faster, and climbing steeper on take-off.

It is a gas - is this something new for SW? Not complaining, love the
737, and the flying I do is quick hops so don't have to fly the majors
with the big 767/757's.

Also have heard that Boeing isn't doing too well selling the 767 to
customers, of course, the 737 is always a hot seller for them, but
apparently the Airbus is challenging that 767 Boeing for sales and
winning. For my money, the 767 bounces too much in comparison to the
Airbus in the sky.....Stan

Charles Newman wrote:
> That is probably the 737-500. When I fly a 735 in Flight
Simulator,
> I take off at full throttle, accelerating to maximum speed (around
600
> knots), and then incresing the climb rate to 5000 feet per minute.
The
> 737-500 can do that. Southwest pilots are probably doing this. They
> are probably accelerating the plane to full speed (right around 600
> knots, and then increasing the climb rate to around 5000 feet
> per minute.
> The 747-400 can do that too. I can take off at full throttle,
quickly
> accelerate to around 640 knots round speed, and then climb to
atltitude
> ar 6500 feet per minute.

For your information, the FAA limits aircraft to 250 knots indicated
airspeed (IAS) under 10,000'. The only exceptions are for aircraft
whose design characteristics require higher speeds for safe operation
(generally, military aircraft).

Most airliners cruise in the high subsonic range which equates to a
true airspeed of around 500 knots (at typical cruise altitudes of
29,000 to 39,000'). The only time you are going to see 600+ knots
ground speed is if there is a pretty stiff tailwind.

Don't try to equate what some software designer put into a game with
what happens in reality.

JJ

Thanx for the information, generated a lot of good discussion too.
Apparently the winglets don't assist in lift but in fuel economy,
helping Southwest profits.

Since most of my flying is short hop, city to city, not international,
or continental (although Southwest does offer flights to the West
Coast), it is the perfect airline for me - price and comfort wise.

As for takoff roll, climbing speed and steep climb angles - heck - that
is the fun part of flying, the rest is just dull watching the clouds or
ground, and drinking my ginger-ale.

Just another minor question on the Boeing 767, it was my understanding
that the 767 and the Boeing 757 are the exact same aircraft, but have
different cabin and seating configurations, the 757 being much longer.

As I posted before, the 767 seems to bounce a lot in the sky to me, but
the 757 doesn't, even though it appears longer. Is the 757 line in
danger at Boeing too, or just the 767?

Again everyone, thanx for the input........Stam

Stan-Fan wrote:
>
> ... it was my understanding that the 767 and the
> Boeing 757 are the exact same aircraft ...

They are totally different aircraft. What you may have heard is that
the cockpit arrangements on the two aircraft are similar. This allows
pilots trained on one of the two models to fly the other with minimal
additional training. This similarity greatly reduces crewing cost for
airlines flying both types.

> As I posted before, the 767 seems to bounce a lot in the sky to me,
> but the 757 doesn't, even though it appears longer.

It's your imagination. Turbulence will affect both in more or less the
same way. One of the biggest things that affect what you feel in
turbulence is how heavily the aircraft is laden (freight, not
passengers). That might simply the difference you noted between the two
aircraft you were on.

"Stan-Fan" <Windstar4@> wrote in message
news:5109-41E4C419-709@storefull-3332.bay....
> Thanx for the information, generated a lot of good discussion too.
> Apparently the winglets don't assist in lift but in fuel economy,
> helping Southwest profits.
>
> Since most of my flying is short hop, city to city, not international,
> or continental (although Southwest does offer flights to the West
> Coast), it is the perfect airline for me - price and comfort wise.
>
> As for takoff roll, climbing speed and steep climb angles - heck - that
> is the fun part of flying, the rest is just dull watching the clouds or
> ground, and drinking my ginger-ale.
>
> Just another minor question on the Boeing 767, it was my understanding
> that the 767 and the Boeing 757 are the exact same aircraft, but have
> different cabin and seating configurations, the 757 being much longer.

The 767 is a twin aisle, with 2-3-2 being the normal coach configuration.
The 757 is a single aisle, with a 3-3 coach configuration. The cockpits are
configured the same.
>
> As I posted before, the 767 seems to bounce a lot in the sky to me, but
> the 757 doesn't, even though it appears longer. Is the 757 line in
> danger at Boeing too, or just the 767?

The last 757 rolled off the line in late 2004 (a -200 which went to a
Chinese airline). They built something like 1100 757-200's and 55
757-300's.
>
> Again everyone, thanx for the input........Stam
>

Charles Newman wrote:

>
> Well, in FS2004, with a 735, I start out at 2000 fpm climb rate,
and
> have the throttles at full, until I can get all the speed I can out
of it,
> and
> then set the climb rate to 5000fpm. I reach 600+ knots true speed
> (according to the GPS) at around 9000 feet, and then increase the
> climb rate to 5000fpm (6000 fpm for a 747-400).

Well, that's fine for a video game, but doesn't happen in reality. 250
knots IAS will not give you 600 KTAS until you reach, say, FL450 (just
a wag, don't have my flight computer at the moment).

> And military aircraft are not subject to FAA regulations anyway.
> They come strictly under the regulations of the military.

Ummm... not at all true. When you're talking about operations in US
airspace, the military is indeed subject to FAA regulations. Now the
FAA does make allowances for certain things (such as airspeed),
especially in areas set aside as military training areas (a gunnery
range, for example). ALL military flight plans go into the FAA system,
and I know a few military pilots who have been violated by the FAA for
going outside the bounds of FAA regulations.

JJ