Thank you.

You didnt watch the whole video, eah?

Haha, Busted!! :( Nice one.Edit: well coming in the other way is sure to tighten the ol' xxxxx cutter if you have to do a G/A!!!

Just to add on this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeMLQNe57E

Thanks. Additionally, if you're interested in those great planes, this has been posted a while ago somewhere on AVSIM forums, can't remember where, but sure is impressive enough to post it again (doesn't relate to the wind topic exactly but anyways).Furthermore

one, although the wind seems to be just a tad too weak since he has to fly close to stalling in order to hold the aircraft stationary. You can definately do better if the wind is alright.

Haha, Busted!! :( Nice one.Edit: well coming in the other way is sure to tighten the ol' xxxxx cutter if you have to do a G/A!!!

I was thinking of Jon5700's video for some reason.

an empty (real) 737 can brake to standing point in a surprisingly short distance, well bellow 1000m. With a combination of right factors, I sincerely believe you could brake a real 737-600 on distance comparable to one in video. Such combination would, of course, have to include nice headwind, near-to empty aircraft, maximum manual braking right after a positive landing (i.e. slam it down ASAP), and possibly also reverse up to standing point (as used in video). However landing at actual St Barth includes more difficulties than just a short runway. For example its narrowness I believe could be problematic.

an empty (real) 737 can brake to standing point in a surprisingly short distance, well bellow 1000m. With a combination of right factors, I sincerely believe you could brake a real 737-600 on distance comparable to one in video. Such combination would, of course, have to include nice headwind, near-to empty aircraft, maximum manual braking right after a positive landing (i.e. slam it down ASAP), and possibly also reverse up to standing point (as used in video). However landing at actual St Barth includes more difficulties than just a short runway. For example its narrowness I believe could be problematic.

Okay, I'll take the bait.You make some bold claims there. Care to share your sources?"I believe..." must be the most dangerous sentence ever in aviation. If you ever hear a pilot using it you should get off the plane if it is still possible. Belief might help you once you reach afterlife but it could be deadly in an environment where knowledge is everything.Besides I can not see the point of archieving such a stunt. It defies the most important rule in aviation: Safety first.But by all means, we are all allowed to dream :(

an empty (real) 737 can brake to standing point in a surprisingly short distance, well bellow 1000m. With a combination of right factors, I sincerely believe you could brake a real 737-600 on distance comparable to one in video. Such combination would, of course, have to include nice headwind, near-to empty aircraft, maximum manual braking right after a positive landing (i.e. slam it down ASAP), and possibly also reverse up to standing point (as used in video). However landing at actual St Barth includes more difficulties than just a short runway. For example its narrowness I believe could be problematic.

Certain Taxi-Ways/Runways just aren't made to withstand the weight of an airliner and would act like mud under their weight. This is why there are large-sized, perfectly capable taxi-ways at certain airports that a 747 can't use.That said, and this comes from experience in a much smaller aircraft than a 737 - Wind is all you need for lift over an airfoil. If the winds are 55 knots and your Cessna can rotate at 55 knots, pulling up on the yoke while sitting still will raise the nose. I see no reason why the same would not apply to an aircraft with a higher rotation speed.

Okay, I'll take the bait.You make some bold claims there. Care to share your sources?

Actually, source is (was) a chief pilot of now-defunct SkyEurope Airlines, back when their 737-700s were a new thing for us all.However, it can be backed by Boeing performance graphs and/or computer program.Now TOPCAT is not exactly certified, but they claim to use real data in it, and it actually shows quite fitting 737 meters of actual landing distance (1000m LDR). That is for empty 737-700 with only 1t fuel, resulting in some 38.5 tonns of landing weight, flaps 40 and as close to standart ISA sealevel as I could get (Q1013, 13°C, no wind, 12ft elev)

"I believe..." must be the most dangerous sentence ever in aviation. If you ever hear a pilot using it you should get off the plane if it is still possible. Belief might help you once you reach afterlife but it could be deadly in an environment where knowledge is everything.

Very true indeed. If I were to try and land a real 737 on an otherwise fitting, but very short runway, I would get three things first:1) a license to fly it :)2) an experienced captain to sit in the other seat3) an experienced dispatcher to perfect my performance numbersand I would go around until I am sure wheels are down no more than 10m beyound threshold

Besides I can not see the point of archieving such a stunt. It defies the most important rule in aviation: Safety first.But by all means, we are all allowed to dream :(

Neither do I, but we are talking theory, arent we? But it may happen one time, several aircraft have been ferried to museums at some pretty crazy places. Like the Il-62 on grass runway in Germany, or the 747 in South Africa on runway that was barely wide enough for main gear.

Certain Taxi-Ways/Runways just aren't made to withstand the weight of an airliner and would act like mud under their weight. This is why there are large-sized, perfectly capable taxi-ways at certain airports that a 747 can't use.That said, and this comes from experience in a much smaller aircraft than a 737 - Wind is all you need for lift over an airfoil. If the winds are 55 knots and your Cessna can rotate at 55 knots, pulling up on the yoke while sitting still will raise the nose. I see no reason why the same would not apply to an aircraft with a higher rotation speed.

Like I said, for example. Runway bearing capacity could very well be another.--Peter Fabian

You make some bold claims there. Care to share your sources?

What bout manuals. Still, as far as Wikipedia knows St Barth's has a 640m runway. At light weight, a 40° flap landing using max manual brake should still render a 700+m landing distance (if performed correct). Time to wait for head wind lol... Better for that steep dive after the hill anyways. Seriously, don't try this at home, folks.

The runway at TFFJ is only 650m long. So even with your figures the landing would still be impossible under realistic conditions.The Interflug Il-62 was modified to make the landing possible. Also landing on grass (a soft surface) is a lot different than landing on concrete runways. During the landing at Stölln the Il-62's landing gear plowed into the turf which of course provided additional braking but was extremely dangerous. In fact a special landing procedure was devised to prevent the landing gear from sinking in as much as possible. There was still a chance for an absolute desaster. Besides the aircaft was not expected to fly again.These "theory" discussions are ridiculous and pointless. In theory I could stop a Porsche from 200 kph to 0 kph within 2 meters. All I need is a concrete wall. :(

Alexander,on the other hand I thoroughly enjoy such theoretical discussions. To everybody his own, or so they say, if I remember correctly. (much better idiome we have in Slovak, but, not translateable)Badderjet,in video, reverse thrust was used until standing point. I believe this could shave off several meters of braking distance, although I understand that reverse thrust effectivity is worse at lower speeds. another thing that might have helped could be removal of insides (seats, galley equipment etc.). And, if we were to try and set world record of shortest landing distance for 737 airliner :) , I seem to remember that Boeing offers an optional ceramic brakes package for NGs. That would help too.--Peter Fabian