Mf3864 From United States, joined May 2002, 118 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
I flew from MIA to EYW last week on American Eagle. For years it was done with a Saab 340B. For about 2 years now, they've been making the run with an ATR-42, or ATR-72. Last week both down and back was on an ATR-72. On takeoff and landing we used most of the runway. Delta/ComAir now flies in from ATL with an RJ, which uses almost all the runway too. I guess my question is, how short is too short? Will that RJ and ATR have abnormal wear and tear on the brakes, engines, etc...? Or is this within the design limits of the aircraft? According to one comair f/a, if its hot, they cant leave with a full load. However they can land fully loaded. I guess the economics must work for both airlines, otherwise they'd still be using Saabs, and Beech 1900D's...
Timz From United States, joined Sep 1999, 4990 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
Hm! 4800 ft... don't offhand know who flies ERJs or CRJs into a runway that short, tho I assume someone does, somewhere. Somebody flew 737s or DC-9s in there once, didn't they? And EA and PA flew 727s into STT when it was supposedly 4650 ft. But dunno about RJs.
OPNLguy From United States, joined Jun 1999, 12725 posts, RR: 75 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
>>>Somebody flew 737s or DC-9s in there once, didn't they?
We did when I was at Air Florida back in the early 1980s. There were lots of restrictions, like only going down there when the runway was dry, using flaps-40 (versus 30 or 15), and using minimum fuel. Takeoffs were "bleeds-off" usually at flaps-15. We had -15 or -17 engines, so we could still haul some respectable loads, just as long as we weren't going any further than MIA.
Carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.
EssentialPowr From United States, joined Sep 2000, 1760 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months ago) and read 1434 times:
So, if one wants to lift a certain weight greater than a certain number, higher thrust ratings are used to enable an airline to make $$$? Not rewinging the a/c? Thrust to weight ratio?????? What does that mean?
John From United States, joined Sep 1999, 1284 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
Don't know about the ERJs, but they say the CRJ-100/200 drags ass off the runway and has a lousy climb performance. The CRJ-700 however, has a much improved wing design and climb performance, with obviously, more powerful engines. My guess, should operate okay from EYW. Usually a good breeze there too, so that helps performance quite a bit.
KLAX From Japan, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1412 times:
I have seen CRJs use WAY more runway for both landing and takeoff then ERJ.s I dunno why that is, or any of the exact specs, but it just seems the ERJS can use shoorter runways.
OPNLguy From United States, joined Jun 1999, 12725 posts, RR: 75 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
>>>Thrust to weight ratio?????? What does that mean?
The 737 could be equipped with any one (two, actually) of a number of JT8D variants, namely, the -7, -9, -15, or -17. The -7 was the oldest, and as Pratt made improvements, subsequent variants would offered, and Boeing would so equip your new aircraft.
Performance-wise, it's was akin, in the automotive sense to having a Ford F-150 pickup with a choice of engines: a 4-cyliner, a V-6, a V-8 300ci, or one of those 440ci V-8 jobs that the State Troopers have in their patrol cars.
All the engines would power the vehicle, it's just a matter of how well, how economically, and what limitations you were willing to live with.
It was the same with the aircraft, and the higher dashed engines could lift more weight off the ground than the lower dashed versions. It wasn't much of a critical factor on short-medium flights, or at airports with 8,000 foot to 12,000 runways, but make it a long flight, or one using a 4,800 runway (or other factors like high airport elevation), and now the problems arise.
The "solution" to those problems was to limit those factors to keep the aircraft able to accomplish the main mission. It may involve limiting payload (pax and freight), or it may involve turning one long flight into two shorter ones (a fuel stop at the midpoint).
For the most part, an airline would select the engine variant it needed for the majority of its operations, and then "make do" with some of the above solutions whenever an occasional "problem" flight would arise.
As far as our EYW flights were concerned, every one was a "problem" given the 4,800 foot runway, hence our keeping either a -15 or -17 powered 737 on them. We sure didn't send any -7s or -9s down there....
Hope this helps...
Carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.
RJ From United States, joined Mar 2001, 197 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1365 times:
I only have a minute to respond so this will be short. We (Comair) fly the CRJ into EYW from MCO. There are restrictions such as VFR weather and you always have an alternate filed. Initial reactions from the fellow pilots I have spoken to that have flown the CRJ into EYW is that is hasn't been a problem at all. You are weight restricted, but the aircraft does just fine.
Mf3864 From United States, joined May 2002, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
I think both were COMAIR, one from MCO, and one from ATL. I can see the weather restriction, when it rains the end of the runway floods. The ATR-72 we flew rotated about 3/4 down the runway. The RJ rotated about the same spot. I heard Eastern used to fly DC9's into there from MIA in the 80's.
Kellmark From United States, joined Dec 2000, 528 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1308 times:
To my memory (23years at Eastern) Eastern did not fly DC9s into Key West. We did fly B727-100s in there. They were a good performer. Had lower approach speeds than the DC9s.
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1119 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
The CRJ 700 series has leading edge slats, which improves short feild performance significantly. There was a rumour that Comair was trying to coax Bombardier to build special -200 series with -700 series wings. Obviously, this didn't pan out, but it would have been great for KEYW ops!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2002, 118 posts, 
From Japan, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1119 posts, 
Printer friendly format
