panda-k-bear
Let me provide a bit more detail about my reply to your statements regarding the "newness" of the 737NG wing.
1) "The wing isn't new" panda-k-bear
My reply is based on the published 737NG characteristics vs those of the 737 Classic. These include:
Increased span
Double slotted trailing edge flaps vs triple slotted
Increase in cruise Mach number of .05.
From an airplane performance standpoint, these features, particularly the cruise speed change support the claim that the wing is "new".
2) "The wing doesn't meet the latest standards" panda-k-bear
Your concern on this item appears to stem from questions about the fatique testing that was performed. I can't help you there as the certification compliance data Boeing had to submit to the FAA and JAA is not in the public record. This is normal as it will include intellectual property that all airplane manufacturers consider confidential.
What I can do is describe the process that insures that whatever data was submitted met the standards in effect during the mid '90s when the 737NG was certified.
When an airplane manufacturer begins the certification process of a new airplane or a major derivative, an application for a new Type Certificate or an Amended Type Certificate is submitted to the FAA/JAA. In doing this, the manufacturer commits to meeting the certification standards in effect at that time. At the same time it also frees the manufacturer from the need to comply with new certification standards that may be enacted over the next five years. This assurance is necessary since it's difficult to design an airplane if the requirements are constantly changing.
The types of changes described above in 737NG wing "newness" question would have required a step up to the regulations in effect in the 1992 or so time period since the 737NG certification date was 1997.
As to your specific question about fatigue testing, let's look at the relevant regualtion, FAR/JAR 25.571. This regulation states:
(a)(1)(iii) An analysis, supported by test evidence, of the principal structural elements and detail desigh points identified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section
(a)(2) The service history of airplanes of similar design, taking due account of differences in operating conditions and procedures, may be used in the evaluations required by this section.
Based on these words, it's entirely possible that little, if any, new fatique testing as required if the structural arrangement on the 737NG as sufficently close to the 737Classic. However, the application of these data would have had to meet the mid-90's structural standards.
If you have the concern that the FAA could have been offering Boeing a "sweetheart" interpretation, remember the JAA also certified the 737NG and they would have had no incentive to do so. From my own 25 years of airplane certification experience, I've seen no mercy from the FAA.
Hope this answers your concerns. Any other discussion should take place another thread