Practical Range on 737-800

If you "select" the B737-800, the printed "detail" info shows the range as being 3,060 nm. I'm not sure what my actual range is, but it certainly doesn't seem anything near that number.

Is there a secret to getting anywhere near that range?

Art - N4PJ

Leesubrg, FL

That's probably totally empty of cargo and pax. And flying at 36,000' AGL, no wind, standard day, best cruise speed. There are a LOT of variables that reduce the range, including divert fuel, holding reserve, reserve in general, pax and cargo weight, winds aloft etc etc etc.

I would guess 2500 NMi would be stretching it with real world wx, a nominal pax and c argo and the usual reserves.

Does that help?

Pat☺

here are some specs I found for the b-737-800. and I know the default plane doesn't make it there either.

Can fly 1,115 nautical miles farther at 3,115 nautical miles

Can cruise 1,630 ft higher at 41,000 ft

Can reach a 25 knot (29 mph) higher max. cruise speed at 472 knots (543 mph)

Is 63,200 lbs heavier at 174,200 lbs

Seats 56 more passengers at 162 passengers

The aicraft.cfg and .air files COULD be adjusted to match those parameters, but it would take a total rewrite of those two files...

And give the intricacy of the interactions within the .air file alone it would be a pretty involved project.

Although I bet NapaMule would do it. He gets off on that stuff :D

Pat☺

Since I use my 737 more as a "busines" jet, I *did* make some adjustments, but it still doesn't bring me that close. But at least it's a more reasonable expectation.

I "emptied" some of the rows near the back (rows 19-25, if I remember correctly) and replaced the weight with larger gas tanks.

With a 25 - 35 knot tailwind, there's enough range to get from Honolulu to San Francisco - barely. If one meets the FAA rules on IFR, time to loiter over arrival, sufficient fuel/time to reach an alternate and hold there, etc., there wouldn't be nearly enough fuel to meet the legal requirements.

Looks like if I want to fly my "business jet" to Europe, I'll have to go via Goose Bay, Greenland, Iceland and limp into Ireland!

I remember seeing a program on the Smithsonian channel one day (I think it was one of the "Dangerous Flights" series). A firm was delivering a twin-engine plane (prop) from the US to Africa. They welded a temporary, steel gas tank in the passenger and significantly increased their range. That's kinda tough in a big jet!

Some times real life is stranger than simulation. Remember the Gimli Glider? A 757 ran out of fuel (it's a long story, but essentially a series of mistakes) during a trans-Canada flight. The pilot managed to glide to a safe landing at an abandoned airport. Later, a number of experienced 757 pilots tried on a simulator to glide the thing safely to a landing. None of them were successful! (The plane might have been a 767 - whatever it was, it was pretty much a two-engine wide-body.) It ended up as a made-for-TV movie with William Devane as the pilot. Not a bad flick!

Art - N4PJ

Leesburg, FL

In the aircraft.cfg file, change

Fuel_flow_scalar=1.0

to a lower value.

I flew the default 737-800 from KORF to EINN (Norfolk, VA 2 Shannon Ireland) on a full tank and 120px,6 crew and 8k cargo. If memory is right I landed with between 10-15% fuel left.

I went back to my saved flights but I didn't log the fuel on end.

AD:pilot:

A 757 ran out of fuel (it's a long story, but essentially a series of mistakes)

Most accidents, aircraft in particular due to the huge number of people and complex systems, are a series of small incidents that eventually line up to make an accident. The Navy calls it the Swiss Cheese model. Every small incident is a hole in a slice of swiss cheese. The maintenance guy is tired and doesn't tighten a bolt. The QA is overwhelmed and just signs off without checking. The Pilot is rushed and doesn't verify the repair was done properly, etc etc. Every one a hole in a slice. Each relatively harmless by it's self. But when they ALL line up, BOOM, down goes the plane.

I'd wager the same was true of the "Gimli Glider" situation.

Just thought that was an interesting illustration of the Navy's model.

Good flights to all!

Pat☺

Most accidents, aircraft in particular due to the huge number of people and complex systems, are a series of small incidents that eventually line up to make an accident. The Navy calls it the Swiss Cheese model. Every small incident is a hole in a slice of swiss cheese. The maintenance guy is tired and doesn't tighten a bolt. The QA is overwhelmed and just signs off without checking. The Pilot is rushed and doesn't verify the repair was done properly, etc etc. Every one a hole in a slice. Each relatively harmless by it's self. But when they ALL line up, BOOM, down goes the plane.

I'd wager the same was true of the "Gimli Glider" situation.

Just thought that was an interesting illustration of the Navy's model.

Good flights to all!

Pat☺

At the airline we call it Threat/Error Management. Somewhat same concept except we use company approved procedures/rules, checklists, and other items to help stop the threats from further passes through the "Swiss cheese".

The Navy's system has gotten a LOT better since I was in, as far as preventing accidents, especially "Class A" (severe injury or death of a human, total loss of the aircraft). It used to be the QA system was pretty lacadaisical, and maintennance was somewhat slipshoddy, mostly due to lack of training. That's been mostly fixed (I refuse to say rectified. Without laughing a lot, anyway), with a higher level of training, and a larger QA presence, along with stricter QA standards. And crewmember training as well.

Class A mishaps have dropped WAY down. And that includes when people are shooting at you. Newer planes, by a long shot, help too, although THAT situation is fading pretty quick.

Anyway, whatever you call it, reducing mishaps is the name of the game. I think the trick is to stand up to the bean-counters who apply pressure to cut corners to speed things up. And they exist in the military as well as the commercial airline industry.

Just my opinion of course...

Pat

The classic boo-boo in the Gimli Glider started with a faulty fuel gauge. The crew knew the fuel gauge was faulty, so, at each appropriate point, the tank was dipped to determine the exact levels. When the fuel gauge showed empty, they weren't too concerned - they knew the gauge was faulty and the tank had been physically checked. The massive error - the guy who dipped the tank miscalculated and used pounds instead of kilograms (or vice versa) and, in actuality, there wasn't enough fuel to complete the flight.

Similar boo-boo in the famous incident at KSFO. They *thought* they had far more weight on board than they really did. Consequently, the take-off roll was seriously extended, when it didn't need to be. At the last moment, one of the crew said to hell with it, we've got to get off the ground. And they did. However, they "collected" several pieces of the steel beams at the end of the runway (out over the water) where a light system was mounted. Several big pieces jutted up into the body of the plane. Several people were seriously injured - unbelievably no one was killed - and they circled, dumping fuel until it was safe to land the 747. When they landed, they (a) discovered the arithmetic error and(b) discovered that of the four (count 'em!) four redundant systems for hydraulic control of the rudder and elevator, they were all severed except the last one - the one they were able to use to get the plane back on the ground.

Both of those incidents were good examples of the "swiss cheese theory" of airline accidents.

I don't remember the name of the book, but about 20 years ago I read a book about a dozen or so "incidents" that could have been incredibly fatal, but weren't. Fascinating book.

Art - N4PJ

Leesburg, FL

Had a friend who years ago worked on the flight deck of the USS America. he said that even on a good day there was some pretty dangerous stuff going on!

Art - N4PJ

Leesburg, FL

Had a friend who years ago worked on the flight deck of the USS America. he said that even on a good day there was some pretty dangerous stuff going on!

 

Art - N4PJ

Leesburg, FL

He is correct! Everything about a flight deck from the , planes taxing and being pushed, the fuel and fuel hoses, the lack of side rails when at flight quarters, the plane and ships movement caused wind, the plane elevators, etc. Unless the ship is in a bay with all engines off and no flight operations, a flight deck is hugely dangerous!

And you really don't want to be out there when the big plane disposal fork-trucks are moving!!!! Plane Disposal fork truck? That's the remote controlled fork truck that picks up and or pushes burning planes over the side of the ship.

You'd think a plane elevator would be safe? After all,. it only goes up and down. Well only under specific conditions is it safe. I saw a plane pusher who managed to not be standing on the elevator deck when he started down. He saw the side gates going up and jumped over them to ride down with the plane he was pushing. Sure enough he caught up with the plane elevator. Sadly for him, it had already stopped at the hanger deck before gravity helped him catch it!!:eek::eek::(

Hi Folks,

Yep - a tad dangerous - cable snaps usually lead to a loss of life or limb...

Regards,

Scott

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cable snaps usually lead to a loss of life or limb...

Don't I know it. That is just one (of many, sadly) episode of Mythbusters that REALLY annoyed me. They said a cable snap WOULDN'T cause loss of limb, life or whatever. Did they think to ASK one of the folks that HAD lost a leg (or two)? Nah, just do some half-a$$ test, and say it can't happen! Talk about idiocy! And the sad thing is, most of their viewers believed them. Just pitiful, and a major disservice to the people that serve aboard a carrier flight deck, really, when some moron says "Awww, that cain't happen. Them Mythy-Busters said so!"

I've heard it's the single most dangerous place in the world to work, just by it's nature.

You'd think a plane elevator would be safe?

I think anyone who's gotten a Flight Deck Safety Lecture has heard of that episode! I know I did. They also said anyone crossing the safety barrier, even if it's stuck 1/4" up, would get Captains Mast, at the least. Not the good kind, either. They are serious about trying to eliminate as many slices of cheese as they can, at last.

Yeah, when I was in, they cut a lot more corners to make the flight schedule than they do now. It seems, oddly, the loss or personnel and equipment has gone down too.

Hmmmm, most strange indeed! :)

Pat☺

Hi Pat,

While we didn't get flight deck training - we did have a bunch of deck handling line safety courses - I recall that they even had some people in the training film who had lost limbs telling their story to bring the point home... They weren't even talking about cables - just the nylon mooring lines we used for decades to dock or hook up to a tug... We switched from nylon to Kevlar when I was onboard - supposedly the Kevlar had almost no snap if it parted...

That guy in yellow in the video was both lucky and fast - the guy in green looks like he may have been seriously hurt...

Regards,

Scott

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don't I know it. That is just one (of many, sadly) episode of Mythbusters that REALLY annoyed me. They said a cable snap WOULDN'T cause loss of limb, life or whatever. Did they think to ASK one of the folks that HAD lost a leg (or two)? Nah, just do some half-a$$ test, and say it can't happen! Talk about idiocy! And the sad thing is, most of their viewers believed them. Just pitiful, and a major disservice to the people that serve aboard a carrier flight deck, really, when some moron says "Awww, that cain't happen. Them Mythy-Busters said so!"

I've heard it's the single most dangerous place in the world to work, just by it's nature.

 

I think anyone who's gotten a Flight Deck Safety Lecture has heard of that episode! I know I did. They also said anyone crossing the safety barrier, even if it's stuck 1/4" up, would get Captains Mast, at the least. Not the good kind, either. They are serious about trying to eliminate as many slices of cheese as they can, at last.

Yeah, when I was in, they cut a lot more corners to make the flight schedule than they do now. It seems, oddly, the loss or personnel and equipment has gone down too.

Hmmmm, most strange indeed! :)

Pat☺

Pat,

The issue I discussed here which resulted in huge injuries is that the elevator had exactly as much power from steam going down as it had going up.

This incident happened, unless my memory escapes me on LPH5 also called the USS Princeton. Which was a straight-deck carrier converted to chopper use during Vietnam.

And no, I never liked flying off of any LPH!!!! I remember once we were on the USS Tripoli about halfway between Vietnam and the Phillipine Islands A typhoon came up and we were ordered to "ABANDON SHIP QUARTERS"

So now we're all strapped into our choppers and ready to launch on command. We were several hundred nautical miles in every direction from anyplace to land with about 300 nautical miles of fuel. So upon command we were expected to fly off a still floating ship and fly 250-300 nautical miles then crash into the ocean when we ran out of fuel.

Not everything in the military makes really good sense!!

I read in Approach magazine a large number of stories of choppers flying off LPA's (Among others!). The fun comes when you slide over the side, and are suddenly out of the ground effect, without an added translational lift. If the conditions are right, or wrong if you prefer, the bird can get a triffle moist...

Thank goodness we Marines get Swim Qualified in boot camp! Doesn't always save us, but it gives us a chance! I don't know the full story, but I heard, and it's strictly hear-say, that a '46 went down off a a boat, what kind I don't know, and when they sent divers down to it, the Marines were all still strapped in, as though waiting permission to disembark. Sends a shudder through me every time it comes to mind. Your story brought it to mind for some reason. Sleep well, my brothers, if you existed...

Scott,

I got Flight Deck training on the Enterprise. SMALL for a carrier, huge to us! And naturally, our berthing was under the wires. We heard EVERY landing those birds made as though they were coming into our compartment! Talk about stressful!

But anyway, I got the line handling training again, because after I got out, I went to work on the Aerostat in Yuma. 71M long balloon with a radar slung under it. Normally, we had about 10K lbs free lift on it. For the in-close handling, they use ropes, exactly like you describe. Nylon, braided core, tightly woven sheath. Heck, I have a couple overaged ones I use for snatching vehicles when 4-wheeling :D

And thankfully, chances were, that if one ever broke at least 1/2 of it snapped UP, rather than out, about 3-400 feet up. The worst you could get was a rope falling onto you. Although we had a couple evolutions where they could "get" you, so we all got the training.

The tether started out Kevlar, and I won't comment, much, on the idiocy of Lockheed changing it to a rope with a heatshrink cover when they bribed a General to get the contract, but the Kevlar tether could break and NOT snap anywhere. I actually watched them pull-test one to failure once (nearly 80K lbs pull!), and the only movement it made was the test fixture pulling apart. The tether just...parted. So yeah, your Kevlar ropes were very safe! No stored stretch, I think it's called, to snap back at you.

Have good, safe flights all!

Pat☺

Pat,

Three comments off your latest post here.

Yes, on LPHS we landed and took off by the "slide over the side" method. When landing you flew alongside the craft until you almost reached your assigned spot then you crabbed over, think race-car entering a pit, and set down. To take off you literally hovered then slid outboard till you were over the sea and fell like a stone.

Both takeoff & landing were complicated by the ground effect. When landing at just the wrong time you caught ground effect off the deck and your plane wanted to "fly!" On takeoff you suddenly dove towards the water after losing your ground effect. If you were overloaded, which during combat and even combat training we always were, you typically didn't break your fall until you entered ground effect off the water.

IMO the H-46 was the worst to takeoff from a ship with too many troops aboard. Not because it fell further, but because of their viewpoint. Troops sitting in the cabin could look out the back of the plane over the raised ramp and through the hole left by the open hatch. Many a "brave" Marine spilled his beans on the deck of a '46 cabin when he noticed that most of the ship above the water-line was much higher than he was and the ship appeared to be about to run into or over the plane!

Interesting point of view "the Enterprise. SMALL for a carrier, huge to us!" I can well remember when I first saw the Enterprise I wondered why a ship that tall out of the water didn't capsize! The flight-deck on a typical LPH wasn't nearly as high out of the water as the hanger-deck on the Enterprise!

BTW: Often when I think about ground effect on this forum I remember when a regular poster and high wing RW GA pilot commented that ground effect wasn't an issue in RW flying. I'd say anyone who ever operated a chopper on or off of oil-rigs, tall buildings, ships, etc. would hugely disagree!

I tried to fly from Tucson to Fairbanks in a 737. Even after cruising at FL396 with 65 to 70% throttle, I ran out of fuel. Try this: The 737's maximum allowable fuel is 6,875 gallons. Go to fuel and payload, and insert 1,913 gallons into the left and the right tank, then click on the center tank and click "ok" and there you go. This allowed me to fly from New York to Dublin. I cruised at FL396 and maintained 264 knots.

In real life, the 737 can fly from Panama City to San Francisco and Panama City to Buenos Aires. Those are 7 and a half hour flights! What ticks me off is that I would run out of fuel if I tried to fly a route a few hundred miles shorter than that on the simulator, even only using 65 to 70% throttle during cruise. More details: When the 737 flies from Panama City to San Francisco, it's pretty obvious that the pilot uses 100% or almost 100% throttle during cruise and cruises a few thousand feet lower than FL396, such as FL350. Some routes I want to fly on the 737 are Caracas to Buenos Aires and Seattle to Henderson Field.