NAC

[Nathan Ford - HJG]

I'm surprised that Mark hasn't mentioned that NAC where looking at DC-9-10's and 727-100's before they placed the order for the 737-200. Would be interesting to see them both in NAC and Air New Zealand colours 

Cheers

Nathan.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

That's right .... they were too .... and had we bought it then would have supported the late 1960's NAC livery version (large Godwit logo on the tail, solid red fuselage stripe, and sky blue "NAC" and "NATIONAL AIRWAYS" titles of that particular period.

NZNAC were interested in the DC-9 .... at first ..... and MDC was particularly keen to sell the -10 to them/us .... as was BAC in also regard to its BAC ONE ELEVEN.

BUT .... in the Jet War that followed .... it was "WELLINGTON" International Airport that dictated the decision .... and which, due to it's unique meteorological influences, is "the worst" airport in NZ to fly into on a bad day .... the turbulence and wind shear there being "absolutely legendary" .... as some of the following footage may demonstrate ....


www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LaAkAyoz0


www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfS4X-xF_Y0


The British government (this was during the period on NZ's "buy British mentality") applied enormous political pressure upon us/NZ to buy the BAC ONE ELEVEN .... even going so far as to threaten our export trade agreements with the UK if we didn't buy it .... but .... their aircraft was simpy "no good" for our type of services/the NZ conditions and was just "too small" anyway .... plus .... being the "individualists" we're (all NZ'rs) internationally reknown to be, we just "WERE NOT" going to be pushed around/dictated to.

The slat-less wing of DC-9-10 .... meant it (as was later demonstrated to be the case) couldn't fly slow enough within the confines of the Wellington Harbour circuit during .... especially particularly during poor weather and when conditions/the turbulence got "REALLY ROUGH" .... but .... the B737-200 could and basically ticked all the boxes so to speak

SO .... we bought the B737-200 instead and before before it had even flown (based on known B727-100 capabilities) .... much to the dismay of the UK .... and we never ever looked back after that.

The B737-200 transitioned from NZNAC to AIR NEW ZEALAND service with the merger of the 2 airlines, during 1977, and it remained in service (later ADV batches of the same aircraft type though) until just several years ago (although one .... ZK-NQC .... did remain in service with AIR WORK for much longer) .... the type not quite making 50 years of Kiwi service.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Peter Liddell]

Nov 16, 2016 4:21:31 GMT aerofoto - HJG Admin said:

The slat-less wing of DC-9-10 .... meant it (as was later demonstrated to be the case) couldn't fly slow enough within the confines of the Wellington Harbour circuit during .... especially particularly during poor weather and when conditions/the turbulence got "REALLY ROUGH" .... but .... the B737-200 could and basically ticked all the boxes so to speak

Wonder Douglas didn't try to shove the slat equipped DC9-20 at NAC (or -30/40/50)... perhaps it was just too late to the party?

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Not sure if the -20 was available when we were negotiating .... and which would probably have been around 1963/64 for around 1967 delivery .... BUT YEAH .... I've wndered the same myself too .... and more-so in regard to AIR NEW ZEALAND negotiation with MDC for DC-8-52's around the same period also.

Our B737-200's were originally configured for 98 seats .... and which was inceased to 115 during by the mid 1970's. Not sure how that compares with the DC-9-10.

I suspect that BOEING probaqbly put together a better/more economic package too .... not just in regard to the 3 initial aircraft purchases (ZK-NAC, -D, and -E), but, also in regard to training, spares, and othr support too .... and which evenually "clinched the deal" in BOEING's favor.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Peter Liddell]

Dc-9-10 and 20 series had a certified capacity of 90, 109 with extra overwing (total 4) exits. By comparison the 737-100 was certified to 124, 737-200 to 136 (130 in some countries). DC-9-30 max 127, DC-9-40 128 (exit limitations) and DC-9-50 139.

Boeing was being pretty aggressive with marketing the 737 as a better performing aircraft over the DC-9... so might be why NAC swayed to the 737-200.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Either way .... I suspect MDC probably learned a valuable lesson from loosing out on the NZNAC DC-9 negotiation.

Even so .... only SAS ever bought the slatted DC-9-20 (and production was only a handful of these aircraft too since the market was already evolvving toward larger short/medium range aircraft even then .... with MDC getting the DC-9-30 established) .... a very small number of which (2 only I think) were also fitted with the slightly more powerful JT8D-9 as opposed to the -D7.

Of course a lot of other airlines would fly the DC-9-20 .... after its SAS service. In fact, if I recall correctly, one (or some) even ended up with VALUE JET in the USA during the late 1990's.

Our B737-200's were all D-7 powered (and NORDAM hush-kitted during the 1980's) .... save for a single and additional -D9 powered aircraft (ZK-NAK I think it was) which we picked up from somewhere during the late 1970's .... we could always identify this particular aircraft on T/O just by the unique fan-sound of its engines

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

No .... we didn't require them.

Within the Pacific region on AIR NAURU used gravel delection equipment (but only 1 aircraft was equiped .... C2-RN3 if I recall correctly) .... and it wasn't just a small nose gear trolley since the system also included bloweer tubes located beneath the nacelle intakes of both engines.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[paulopp]

Very interesting and informative discussion, gentlemen. Would be interesting to find out the true reasons.

[Peter Liddell]

Nov 17, 2016 17:49:40 GMT aerofoto - HJG Admin said:

No .... we didn't require them.

Within the Pacific region on AIR NAURU used gravel delection equipment (but only 1 aircraft was equiped .... C2-RN3 if I recall correctly) .... and it wasn't just a small nose gear trolley since the system also included bloweer tubes located beneath the nacelle intakes of both engines.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

The loose surface kit consists of:

Nose-gear gravel deflector
Smaller deflectors on the oversized main gear
Protective metal shields over hydraulic tubing and brake cables on the main gear strut.
Protective metal shields over speed brake cables.
Glass fibre reinforced underside of the inboard flaps.
Metal edge band on elephant ear faring.
Abrasion resistant Teflon based paint on wing and fuselage undersurfaces.
Strengthened under-fuselage aerials.
Retractable anti-collision light.
Vortex dissipators fitted to the engine nacelles.
Screens in the wheel well to protect components against damage.

There is a considerable (it weights about 1200lbs total and increases drag) performance penalty with the kit, and using it actually increases takeoff distance due to the use of bleed air for the vortex dissipators and EPR limit (1.4 instead of up to 1.8).

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Vortex dissipators fitted to the engine nacelles

YEP .... that's the ones .... what I referred to as blower tubes I mean

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[christrott]

Nov 17, 2016 14:36:05 GMT @eal017aharon said:

737-200s could handle unpaved strip runways. DC-9 could not.

Actually, not true. The DC-9 series from the get-go could handle rough field operations due to the high-mounted engines and the MD-80's ubiquitous "mud deflector" was an option from the DC-9-10 on. It was the higher ground pressure of the DC-9 series (more tail-heavy) and concerns about short field performance due to the T-Tail that kept the DC-9 series from being used in such a manner.

This was also a major consideration in the NAC decision. Because of the slow speeds they were wanting to operate at, there were siginificant concerns even from within Douglas that the DC-9 wasn't suited for that sort of operation because of the T-Tail.

Also, the DC-9-10 was built as a direct replacement for the Convair and Martin propliners (and turboliners) that were then operating many feeder routes within the US. These routes focused on climb performance (to get to cruise altitude quickly for fuel savings) and through-station capability (max load between multiple stops so high MZFW compared to MLW and MTOW) and so Douglas made design decisions early that had the knock-on effect of taking them out of the true "rural service" market early on because they couldn't get the same range and efficiency that the 737 could because of its better high-lift devices.