View Full Version : Could there be a 737-900?
CharlieKoczalski
17th Apr 2011, 08:36
So the other day i was searching on google for the 747-8 when Google's automatic calculator stated that 747-8=739 and "739" could represent an aircraft by boeing.. Maybe they saw that and made plans or maybe they have already started it and kept it top secret?
Post comments below , Thanks,
charlie
stuckgear
17th Apr 2011, 08:38
737 TCDS -737-900 added Nov 2006
Racing Snake
17th Apr 2011, 08:46
PSSSST.......Top secret but take a look
http://www.x-plane.org/home/arerecich/B737-900.jpg
170to5
17th Apr 2011, 09:00
pretty sure there are quite a lot of 737-900's flying around already...
BALLSOUT
17th Apr 2011, 09:15
Been on my licence since early 2006
av8r76
17th Apr 2011, 09:48
Have the ER on mine since 2007.
Fargoo
17th Apr 2011, 10:05
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - 737 - The Boeing 737-900ER (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_900ER_back.html)
:uhoh:
JW411
17th Apr 2011, 10:11
KLM have been flying 737-900s since 2001.
STBYRUD
17th Apr 2011, 10:18
Stop rubbing it in, I bet he/she is embarrassed enough already ;)
kotakota
17th Apr 2011, 10:24
While on the subject of 737 development , is it true that the FAA said that any 'New' NG would not be allowed and that the product would have to be completely renamed ie 797 ?
OverRun
17th Apr 2011, 10:34
kotakota,
That is mischievous. The 737 type certificate is perfectly adequate and an expression of the great quality of engineering in 1964 when it was designed. Just because the -100 was a little underweight at 42 tonnes does not lessen the quality of the design, and a modest stretch for later models to anything up to 100 tonnes or 10,000km range would seem quite reasonable. The engineering parameters of the later and larger models are exactly the same as the original. They all have windows at the front and sides, wings on both sides, two engines, and the tail is at the back. Clearly there is no need for re-certification yet, and any suggestion otherwise is unfounded.
captplaystation
17th Apr 2011, 11:46
They were probably hacked off that they couldn't certify the Scarebus as a MercureNG :rolleyes:
World of Tweed
17th Apr 2011, 12:05
Because that would of been a great help seeing as there were so many Mercures operating out there.
dixi188
17th Apr 2011, 14:01
The Mercure was built by Dassault not Aerospatiale.
That would be like Boeing renaming a Douglas derivative.
Oh! they did!!!!! B717.:)
Did it have a new type certificate?
CharlieKoczalski
17th Apr 2011, 18:21
Ahhh Right cheers guys ... My bad i havent heard of it yet :ugh: