Why was 737NG developed?

[UltraFan]

With all the MAX troubles, one question is still bothering me. Why Boeing developed 737NG instead of a clean sheet design? It sure looks like THAT was the point where trouble started. MAX's development was a catch-up race with A320neo, and they had to act fast. But what happened in early 1990s?

They were in the black with 757 and 767. 747-400 was selling well. Initial 777 development was behind them. But still they opted to facelift a model that already was too old. A320 was already flying and selling, so they couldn't have missed it, and they should've realized it's a strong competitor. And they sure had all the ability to develop the electronics bells and whistles they incorporated into 777. It was the time before the disastrous merger with MD, so no influence from there. WHY did they opt to put crutches on 737 "Classic" instead of a fully new machine?

[MechEngr]

G'Kar: Narns, humans, Centauri, we all do what we do for the same reason: because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I presume that otherwise Boeing did a bunch of cost estimates and internal proposals and had a large number of discussions with current and potential customers and decided to build what turned out to be the best selling passenger aircraft on the planet. So the next question is, why did those customers buy it? I look at SouthWest, a company that not only weathered spiking fuel prices but seemed to get stronger and think, they know what they are doing and they have been 100% 737s. I don't know how they decided that, but I expect they also did a large number of estimates. It's very possible that the economics behind the decision won't ever be public as it represents an obvious competitive advantage.

[DaveReidUK]

I'd have thought that 7,000+ sales was the answer to that question.

[FlightlessParrot]

Obviously they made a lot of money out of the decision, and sold a lot of aeroplanes, but is it possible to know whether or not they expected the NG to be such a success?

[Easyheat]

My understanding of why Boeing decided to stay on the 737, is that some major players like SW and Ryanair did put a lot of pressure on Boeing NOT to develop a 797, simply to have one type in their fleet, and not two.

That could however be from around the time when Boeing decided to develop the Max, and not when they decided to develop the NG.

[Jump Complete]

Didn’t Southwest ask for ‘round dial’ display in the PFDs on the NG’s to keep commonality with the ‘classics’ ?

[RexBanner]

Didn’t Southwest ask for ‘round dial’ display in the PFDs on the NG’s to keep commonality with the ‘classics’ ?


If they did it sounds eerily familiar to Flybe asking for round dials on the PFDs on the Q400 as the pilots “wouldn’t understand speed/altitude tapes”.

[FlyingStone]

Didn’t Southwest ask for ‘round dial’ display in the PFDs on the NG’s to keep commonality with the ‘classics’ ?

They did. They also flew without A/T and VNAV until late 2000s.

[AviatorDave]

With all the MAX troubles, one question is still bothering me. Why Boeing developed 737NG instead of a clean sheet design? It sure looks like THAT was the point where trouble started. MAX's development was a catch-up race with A320neo, and they had to act fast. But what happened in early 1990s?

They were in the black with 757 and 767. 747-400 was selling well. Initial 777 development was behind them. But still they opted to facelift a model that already was too old. A320 was already flying and selling, so they couldn't have missed it, and they should've realized it's a strong competitor. And they sure had all the ability to develop the electronics bells and whistles they incorporated into 777. It was the time before the disastrous merger with MD, so no influence from there. WHY did they opt to put crutches on 737 "Classic" instead of a fully new machine?

It was not that different compared to today. Boeing, having rested on their laurels, had missed the train and needed something asap to match the A320ceo which gained popularity with the airlines and proved more efficient, economical and modern than the 737 classic series.
Although doing well from a financial point of view, Boeing just did not have the time to come up with an entirely new design for the short/medium haul market. If they hadn‘t done the NG, they would have lost out big time in that market segment.
Back then there was word that the NG was a stop gap and the need to come up with a new design was very clear to Boeing.
But they got leapfrogged again by Airbus, who came up with the NEO ...

[Section28- BE]

New- Type Certificate vrs Re-Birthing, via 'Grand-Fathering', e.g. the Bombardier journey on 'the' Dash............

Just sayin/kickin 'it' out there............

Merry XMas
Rgds
S28- BE

[compressor stall]

Re grandfathering - I haven't dug into it to look (and seek confirmation), but I was told a while back that if the 737 ng had modern door sizes (eg A320), then there would be one or two rows fewer in the cabin. That's 6-12 pax every sector for the life of the aircraft. That's a (theoretical) lot of $$$.

[cattletruck]

Why was 737NG developed?

The buzzword from the modern school of business management is "value add" which is a term used by corporate flunkies who can't build anything new and simply steal other people's thunder. It's also endemic in the "information" age.

[AndoniP]

Isn't it just to modernise an existing successful aircraft? Digital PFDs and avionics brought into line with the rest of the Boeing line-up.

Much like what they're doing with the 777X - put 787 tech in there and a new wing and call it something slightly different?

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Spot on Section28- BE, they produced the NG because the airlines wanted as little difference between the classic and the NG for crew and maintenance convenience as possible.
The FAA and other national authorities allowed them to do so, with very few changes, notably the one big change being the overwing exit changes demanded by the UK and EASA.
The MAX would never have been certified if it was a new type as it does not meet the latest requirements for certification, the same would be also for the NEO.
Maybe it is time to stop grandfather rights for aircraft that have major differences from the original type certificate.
Just a thought. :uhoh:

[DaveReidUK]

My understanding of why Boeing decided to stay on the 737, is that some major players like SW and Ryanair did put a lot of pressure on Boeing NOT to develop a 797, simply to have one type in their fleet, and not two.

Hmmm.

"Don't stop building the 737, because we won't buy its successor (whatever it turns out to be)" is a pretty idle threat, when you think about it.

[DieselOx]

In new product development, with a built in customer base with physical barriers to entry (interface parameters: ground equipment, maintenance, training etc), if you iterate a clean sheet design, you open up your customer base to direct competition.

If the airlines are going to have to invest in all new logistics and training anyway, now they can look at all the other competition out there. And that competition is going to be willing to make screaming deals to get the new business, and erode your market share.

I've seen this in almost every industry. Standard practice, a whole industry of business strategy consultants and their books exists to help companies analyze their market strengths, barriers to entry, and to maintain those barriers and create new ones wherever possible.

[turbidus]

Just as the 737 NG was a reaction to the 320ceo...the MAX was a reaction to the 320neo....

BA had been focused on the 787, 748 and was not planning the NSA until 2030 and after the NMA....then the neo series caught them off guard.

Currently with the 321 XLR, I wonder if BA is serious about a re-hab of the 767...ie the 767XF a rehab 767-300 (right now a freighter...but....) https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes/boeing-examines-genx-powered-767-x-for-cargo-and-passenger-roles/134757.article

Sad but true...

[Australopithecus]

There seemed to be an element of not wanting to build another conventional aluminium airplane back then. Recall the blended wing/body studies and artists’ impressions. Remember too the focus on composite construction. The 787 seems to have been an incremental step towards the future as we then understood it: a conventional configuration using new materials, and that was to be followed by an unconventional platform using those same new unconventional materials.

The 787 turned out to be too much too fast, and it sapped Boeing of all of its extra engineering talent and R&D money. That left it unable to do yet another clean sheet design while still being able to afford share buy-backs and other crazy boardroom hijinks. Faced with making money now v. making future money, the future lost. Hence the Max: A ‘66 Chevelle with Apple play.

so why the 737 Max? Greed. And lack of vision. And some hubris. All prosaic human failings that will become the stuff of the next MBa 101 text.

[WHBM]

The main reason the NG did so well is that the NG plus A320ceo combined market over the last 20-odd years bought, what, 12,000 or more aircraft. And the NG and 320 were the only two games in town. McDonnell Douglas products were obviously on their last legs.

The driver behind the NG development was the same as that of the Max - the 320 was really scoring in North America. Northwest started it and United followed as key drivers, but early sales also to America West and Air Canada, and even to Pan Am and Braniff before these two went under, coupled with a very obvious forthcoming expected peak in replacing 3-crew/3-engine 727s, the traditional general-purpose workhorse of US carriers which would be coming to the end of their time, made Boeing feel the market was slipping from them. Probably quite rightly.

[medod]

Why was the NG launched? To compete with the A320, which was taking sales from the 737 in both North America and Europe.

The Classic already had CFM56 engines, so fitting an updated model was no big deal. 61-inch fan on the NG compared to 60 on the Classic.

The big difference was the brand new wing, using aerodynamics from the 777. It's more efficient than the A320's. Plus, as said above, the 737 fuselage is "efficient", with a better ratio of seats to external area than the A320.

The excellent new wing allowed the launch of the -800, a 3m stretch on the -400. The resulting seat-mile costs measured up to the A320's and the rest is history.

More interesting is what was going on in the late 90s/early 2000s. Boeing was developing Project Yellowstone, consisting of the Y1, Y2, and Y3. The Y2 launched as the 787 and the Y1 was intended to replace the 737NG with a plastic jet using 787 tech. But single-aisle sales grew beyond what's possible to mass-produce in CFRP. Then Airbus just fitted next-gen engines to the A320 rather than develop a new, better airframe, knowing that Boeing couldn't do the same. Boeing tried anyway and the rest is... 🙁.

[tdracer]

Why was the NG launched? To compete with the A320, which was taking sales from the 737 in both North America and Europe.

The Classic already had CFM56 engines, so fitting an updated model was no big deal. 61-inch fan on the NG compared to 60 on the Classic.

The big difference was the brand new wing, using aerodynamics from the 777. It's more efficient than the A320's. Plus, as said above, the 737 fuselage is "efficient", with a better ratio of seats to external area than the A320.

The excellent new wing allowed the launch of the -800, a 3m stretch on the -400. The resulting seat-mile costs measured up to the A320's and the rest is history.

More interesting is what was going on in the late 90s/early 2000s. Boeing was developing Project Yellowstone, consisting of the Y1, Y2, and Y3. The Y2 launched as the 787 and the Y1 was intended to replace the 737NG with a plastic jet using 787 tech. But single-aisle sales grew beyond what's possible to mass-produce in CFRP. Then Airbus just fitted next-gen engines to the A320 rather than develop a new, better airframe, knowing that Boeing couldn't do the same. Boeing tried anyway and the rest is... 🙁.

Minor point, the NG wing is not 'new' - it was aerodynamically re-profiled (using the same structure as the classic). The new aero bought a little drag but it also bought speed - the NG critical Mach was meaningfully higher than the classic - which given the NG's longer legs was meaningful. Some that had worked on the 737-300 complained that they'd wanted to make similar changes on the -300 but were not allowed to.

The thing that really killed going to an all new 737 replacement was how long it would take to bring it on-line. Resources were still tight with the 787 and 747-8 just entering service, and not only would it have taken a couple years longer to develop than the MAX, it would have taken another few years to bring the production rate up to the 50/month ballpark. That would have meant conceding something like 3000 narrow body sales to the NEO - something that Boeing saw as untenable (although with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight doesn't look so bad).

[fdr]

Minor point, the NG wing is not 'new' - it was aerodynamically re-profiled (using the same structure as the classic). The new aero bought a little drag but it also bought speed - the NG critical Mach was meaningfully higher than the classic - which given the NG's longer legs was meaningful. Some that had worked on the 737-300 complained that they'd wanted to make similar changes on the -300 but were not allowed to.

The thing that really killed going to an all new 737 replacement was how long it would take to bring it on-line. Resources were still tight with the 787 and 747-8 just entering service, and not only would it have taken a couple years longer to develop than the MAX, it would have taken another few years to bring the production rate up to the 50/month ballpark. That would have meant conceding something like 3000 narrow body sales to the NEO - something that Boeing saw as untenable (although with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight doesn't look so bad).

A minor point on your minor point....

the NG forward section removed the drooped cuff that was placed on the Classic wing profile of the original section. The weight increase of the Classic over the 200 resulted in a need for higher Cl/aoa, gained by the cuff. The NG extended the wing span, removed the cuff, and added a re-profiling of the aft section of the mid and inboard wing providing mild aft loading. The ailerons were increased in span, and reduced in chord which permitted removal of the outboard upper surface VGs, the shockwave remains clear of the hinge line at high speed. Flap system was simplified, and track design removed the residual tracks that the Classic carried over from the JT8 aft nacelle. The thrust gate design of the Classic flap was cleaned up, giving an improvement in flap effect, while mainly avoiding impingement on the flap and associated fatigue issues.

The Classic ran out of goodness around .745 but could be pushed higher if needed at considerable fuel burn. The NG for the same weight is running .785-.795 on lower fuel burns than the classic. To run a Classic at .79 takes a lot of extra gas... and while well within the operating boundary is associated with noticeable buffet from the aileron/shock separation. The NG has relatively high approach speeds, which is a tradeoff of the simplification of the flaps. Randolph's paper on high lift devices covers the tradeoffs well.

The Classic EFIS functioned, but the PFD/ND/EIS is supportable and upgradeable on the NG, the Classic being difficult to upgrade piecemeal. The Classic handles better IMHO, but the NG is a more effective transport aircraft,

As far as the fuselage goes, the double bubble profile precludes underfloor LD3 loading, Airbus picks up freight opportunities from any 737 operators.

[Grebe]

A minor point on your minor point....

the NG forward section removed the drooped cuff that was placed on the Classic wing profile of the original section. The weight increase of the Classic over the 200 resulted in a need for higher Cl/aoa, gained by the cuff. The NG extended the wing span, removed the cuff, and added a re-profiling of the aft section of the mid and inboard wing providing mild aft loading. The ailerons were increased in span, and reduced in chord which permitted removal of the outboard upper surface VGs, the shockwave remains clear of the hinge line at high speed. Flap system was simplified, and track design removed the residual tracks that the Classic carried over from the JT8 aft nacelle. The thrust gate design of the Classic flap was cleaned up, giving an improvement in flap effect, while mainly avoiding impingement on the flap and associated fatigue issues.

The Classic ran out of goodness around .745 but could be pushed higher if needed at considerable fuel burn. The NG for the same weight is running .785-.795 on lower fuel burns than the classic. To run a Classic at .79 takes a lot of extra gas... and while well within the operating boundary is associated with noticeable buffet from the aileron/shock separation. The NG has relatively high approach speeds, which is a tradeoff of the simplification of the flaps. Randolph's paper on high lift devices covers the tradeoffs well.

The Classic EFIS functioned, but the PFD/ND/EIS is supportable and upgradeable on the NG, the Classic being difficult to upgrade piecemeal. The Classic handles better IMHO, but the NG is a more effective transport aircraft,

As far as the fuselage goes, the double bubble profile precludes underfloor LD3 loading, Airbus picks up freight opportunities from any 737 operators.

And If I recall correctly re an interesting offsite conversation in the late 90's- after the time of the MDC buyout and salting the aero group with a few MDC types, there was a major push to incorporate the inboard trailing edge wedge supposedly used on the MD-11 to attempt to meet DC-11 range guarantees. About that time Aviationpartners suggested an early version of winglets and was met with bucu skeptisim- but eventually some test fights were done on a BBJ under the guise of making the BBJ at least look different than the old 737 ( executives like the deluxe hubcaps to show their importance ) provided the winglets did not cause problems. The test results compared to the 'wedge' showed a definite improvement such that ( as I recall ) a german airline ordered a few that way, and the fuel savings on relatively short flights along with takeoff performance was significant.. And the rest is history

[turbidus]

Great reading! Thanks!

A quick question, what made the -700 so different? I have no comparison to the -600, but not sure if there were any...
That ac was far "slicker" and was actually a bit difficult to manage the energy if you were used to the classics.

The -800 seemed much, much better handling than the -700 and other than engines, was it a different or improved wing?

[Takwis]

The -800 has the same wing as the -700. Higher weight means that the -800 has faster approach speeds. The -700 is significantly cleaner than previous versions, and more difficult to slow down, but the -800 is still worse, in that regard. All previous versions (except the original -200, pre- "advanced") moved the slats to Full Extend when the flaps go to 10 degrees. In the -800, you have to wait until flaps 25 to get them to go to Full Extend, meaning that it is even cleaner than the -700, right when it needs to slow down. As Cleavon Little said, in Fletch Lives, "I you want to stop, you have to plan ahead."

[tdracer]

Great reading! Thanks!

A quick question, what made the -700 so different? I have no comparison to the -600, but not sure if there were any...
That ac was far "slicker" and was actually a bit difficult to manage the energy if you were used to the classics.

The -800 seemed much, much better handling than the -700 and other than engines, was it a different or improved wing?

The -600 was basically the NG version of the 737-500 (which in turn was basically a re-engined -200). The 737-300 became the -700, and the longer 737-400 became the -800.

No first hand knowledge here, but educated guess is that the flap changes on the NG were probably for noise. Deployed flaps are extremely noisy - during final approach airframe noise is generally equal or greater than the engine noise - and the more complex the flaps, the more noise they end to make. That may also be why the full extend slats are delayed on the -800.

[krismiler]

The B737NG has high approach speeds because with a long fuselage and low landing gear, pitch attitude is limited so gaining lift through a higher angle of attack isn't possible, the airspeed needs to be kept up.

There is no doubt that a clean sheet design would have been a better option to replace the B737-200, reasons why this wasn't done have been stated above. The 1950s fuselage has always been the limiting factor of the B737. Airbus got it right with the A320 which was designed with higher bypass engines in mind and is able to accommodate baggage containers in the hold, passenger comfort is better and even the amount of overhead locker space is much greater which suits low cost operators with short turn around times and pax carrying more hand luggage.

Airlines such as Southwest and Ryanair are locked into the B737 just like a bad marriage where getting divorced is too hard.

[turbidus]

thank you for the replies!

Still, something different in the design between -700 and -800.

On same procedure, 2nm R to short final with the -700 were difficult, while the -800 handled no problem...any ideas?

Trust me, I didnt get any better!

Fan delta? The -700 engines were dogs.

[CargoOne]

thank you for the replies!

Still, something different in the design between -700 and -800.

On same procedure, 2nm R to short final with the -700 were difficult, while the -800 handled no problem...any ideas?

Trust me, I didnt get any better!

Fan delta? The -700 engines were dogs.

All NGs are the same engine CFM56-7B with programmed thrust rating difference depending of operator needs. For example majority of Southwest -700 have the same thrust setting as Ryanair -800s, it is same engine with same fan etc just different chip

[ford cortina]

As Cleavon Little said, in Fletch Lives, "I you want to stop, you have to plan ahead."
Good Movie, shame they only made two.

But seriously I could not agree more. Having a good few thousand hours on Classics in recent years, before switching back to NG's, I prefer the Classic to fly, yes its old and awkward and you have to work at it, but there is a certain charm to them. The NG is a bit easier, until you try to slow down. I always have found that the 800 is a bit more stable than the 700, similar to the 300 and 400 really, though for me the 700 is the best of the bunch, well the BBJ version anyway

[fdr]

And If I recall correctly re an interesting offsite conversation in the late 90's- after the time of the MDC buyout and salting the aero group with a few MDC types, there was a major push to incorporate the inboard trailing edge wedge supposedly used on the MD-11 to attempt to meet DC-11 range guarantees. About that time Aviationpartners suggested an early version of winglets and was met with bucu skeptisim- but eventually some test fights were done on a BBJ under the guise of making the BBJ at least look different than the old 737 ( executives like the deluxe hubcaps to show their importance ) provided the winglets did not cause problems. The test results compared to the 'wedge' showed a definite improvement such that ( as I recall ) a german airline ordered a few that way, and the fuel savings on relatively short flights along with takeoff performance was significant.. And the rest is history

In around 97 a B747 Classic was flown with a DTE of a design similar to Uncle Bobs work on the MD-11, at the request of the original 747 Chief Engineer, bless his soul. It was reportedly effective, and was canned, much to the annoyance of Joe S.

I've flown a B737 Classic with a DTE type device, (which was pretty mild, was looking at other items) and it was interesting, the same flow structure that exists at high AOA with a Gurney Tab is what occurs in the DTE case at low angles of attack and high Mach. The same device on a Lear was effective as one would expect. The basic aero that was applied to the MD twice was not bad, but there is more that could be done, in fact Airbus went further with their work than TBC did once they cut DAC out of the herd (or were taken over depending on your point of view) some really good work was done on an A330 by the busmen. The A320, 330, 340, 380s have always utilised blunt TE's and their wings have been effective. The bus subscribes more towards the Whitcomb notion of a SC-2 style wing section than TBC has ever done, they avoid the issues of high LE suction. The wing may not look pretty at first glance but the airbus offering is remarkably efficient IMHO. Grows on you like fungus. The most interesting thing is that none of them work as advertised, a supercritical section should have any normal shock well aft on the upper surface in transonic conditions, no one operates any of them fully subsonic, there is a shock on a 767, 747, 777, 787, 320, 330 340 380 wing in cruise, and a good one on the NG... One of the most stable shocks in cruise is off of the MD80, and it is almost where it is supposed to be for the old blender (having thirsty engines doesn't help though)

A DTE analogue was flown on my helicopter, and that was probably the most remarkable flight series I ever did. The impact of that is a subject all by its own, doing it safely takes more time and money than I had to justify on it at the time, but the stall Nr went from 82% to 68%, and the simple greatest impact was that instead of running out of pedal as the rotor stalled out, (dont try that at home) a pedal turn could be done against the torque. Do the maths to work out what the difference in applied torque is, 68^2/82^2 is the comparable Cl of the TRB, and the difference is sufficient authority to enjoy turns up to the stall. The rotor Nr was optically measured and also matched the timing N1 of the engine. If I had a fenestron, I would have taken that further, but the copter had a delicate TRB root which was not confidence inspiring. My opinion is that there is more to be done on the TE than is gained at the LE, for props, rotors, fan blades, etc. (actually, those were all tried with some fun).

[medod]

Just a note that, as we were discussing why the NG came to be yesterday, the last one was being delivered (https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2019/12/24/klm-takes-delivery-of-boeings-final-b737-800-passenger-aircraft/).

[FlightDetent]

And long may she fly! The last ever produced Classic (https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-vq-bic-utair-aviation/e9w553) is still running strong: https://www.flightradar24.com/UTA325/234c20b8., 20 years since the first flight. For 3 years the production ran in parallel.

Two admirable facts, below the skin-deep level:
- fuel capacity 21000 kgs (direct competitor 18730)
- max seating capacity 189 (direct competitor 180 until about 2 years ago), massive 5%.

Boeing 737 Detailed Technical Data (http://www.b737.org.uk/techspecsdetailed.htm), Mr. Brady's site also a legend of its own.

[Banana Joe]

The -800 has the same wing as the -700. Higher weight means that the -800 has faster approach speeds. The -700 is significantly cleaner than previous versions, and more difficult to slow down, but the -800 is still worse, in that regard. All previous versions (except the original -200, pre- "advanced") moved the slats to Full Extend when the flaps go to 10 degrees. In the -800, you have to wait until flaps 25 to get them to go to Full Extend, meaning that it is even cleaner than the -700, right when it needs to slow down. As Cleavon Little said, in Fletch Lives, "I you want to stop, you have to plan ahead."
That's only for the SFP version. Our -800's are normal ones and slats extend to FULL EXTEND with flaps to 10 degrees.

[Takwis]

That's only for the SFP version. Our -800's are normal ones and slats extend to FULL EXTEND with flaps to 10 degrees.

Tell me about this "SFP" version, and what makes it different from the "normal" version. (And why). Never heard there was a difference.

[Banana Joe]

Tell me about this "SFP" version, and what makes it different from the "normal" version. (And why). Never heard there was a difference.
Flight Controls (http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm#Short-field_Performance_Enhancement_Program)

Plenty of excellent information on this website.

[Takwis]

Thanks Joe, interesting information.

[Denti]

The -800 is relatively fast on approach, the -700 pretty sedate. I have used approach speeds as low as 108kts on that one, and Vr below 100 on departure (good thing we used an 80 call, the airbus 100 would not have worked...). However, in thermals the -700 behaves with those slow speeds kinda like a glider plane and yaws around a lot, making it kinda uncomfortable especially in the rear of the cabin or even the aft galley. That said, i simply loved the climb performance. My record with a full pax load was 16 minutes to FL410, albeit on a short sector, therefore low fuel load.

I kinda liked the fact that the EFIS was able to grow over the production run of the plane, from the compatibility view to the classic, over the classic 777 style system to the more advanced version with navigation performance scales, vertical situation display and IAN capability, as well as GLS capability out of the box. And of course the fact that it can do CAT IIIb to no DH and 75m RVR, but with an alert height of 200ft instead of the airbus 100ft, with a 25kt crosswind capability as well during autoland, not to mention flap 30 OEI autoland which is quite convenient.

[AviatorDave]

Great reading! Thanks!

A quick question, what made the -700 so different? I have no comparison to the -600, but not sure if there were any...
That ac was far "slicker" and was actually a bit difficult to manage the energy if you were used to the classics.

The -800 seemed much, much better handling than the -700 and other than engines, was it a different or improved wing?

Better handling of the -800? I personally don't think so. The -700 was a joy to fly, powerful, reasonable approach speeds, and, albeit "slippery", still well manageable in descents.
The -800: high approach speeds, increased tailstrike risk, excessive floating tendency in the flare, and quite a handful to properly manage speed in descents.
The -800 may be more appreciable from the pax side due to less of a yaw tendency in the approach speed regime, but that's about it.

[Fat Dog]

Better handling of the -800? I personally don't think so. The -700 was a joy to fly, powerful, reasonable approach speeds, and, albeit "slippery", still well manageable in descents.
The -800: high approach speeds, increased tailstrike risk, excessive floating tendency in the flare, and quite a handful to properly manage speed in descents.
The -800 may be more appreciable from the pax side due to less of a yaw tendency in the approach speed regime, but that's about it.

I agree. I have plenty of time in both and from a pilots POV the -700 is miles better. Frankly the -800 is a bit of a dog.

[tdracer]

I agree. I have plenty of time in both and from a pilots POV the -700 is miles better. Frankly the -800 is a bit of a dog.

Not sure I understand the 'a bit of a dog' comment. IF your operator selected the max available rating for the model, the -800 has a slightly better thrust/weight ratio than the -700 (the max thrust is limited on the -700 due to the ability of the tail to counteract the thrust induced pitch-up - it's also limited on the -800 for the same reason, but not as much due to the longer fuselage). However a lower thrust rating means lower costs to the operator, so some operators will select a lower thrust rating than what's available.
That's not the fault of the aircraft or the engine - blame the bean counters at your operator.

[Fat Dog]

Not sure I understand the 'a bit of a dog' comment. IF your operator selected the max available rating for the model, the -800 has a slightly better thrust/weight ratio than the -700 (the max thrust is limited on the -700 due to the ability of the tail to counteract the thrust induced pitch-up - it's also limited on the -800 for the same reason, but not as much due to the longer fuselage). However a lower thrust rating means lower costs to the operator, so some operators will select a lower thrust rating than what's available.
That's not the fault of the aircraft or the engine - blame the bean counters at your operator.

I’m not talking about thrust/weight. I’m talking about the fact it doesn’t have ridiculously high approach speeds and tail strike issues on rotation due to the fact it’s too long. The -700 is the aircraft the NG should have been; the bean counters turned it into the -800.

[AviatorDave]

Not sure I understand the 'a bit of a dog' comment. IF your operator selected the max available rating for the model, the -800 has a slightly better thrust/weight ratio than the -700 (the max thrust is limited on the -700 due to the ability of the tail to counteract the thrust induced pitch-up - it's also limited on the -800 for the same reason, but not as much due to the longer fuselage). However a lower thrust rating means lower costs to the operator, so some operators will select a lower thrust rating than what's available.
That's not the fault of the aircraft or the engine - blame the bean counters at your operator.

On the paper. Flying the -800 with a full Y189 load of typical fat tourists and and all their luggage on 26K engines was much less fun than driving the -700 with somewhat average loads and 24K engines.
Individual experiences may vary, of course.

[cxorcist]

Without reading all the above, the 737-800 has been kicking the tail off the 320ceo forever. It has more range and better seat economics. The 320 will always be more spacious than the 737 internally, but the economics haven’t been better than the NG until the NEO came onto the scene.

The higher height under the wing of the 320 was better situated for the new generation of big fan engines. Even with those, the 320neo isn’t great, although the 321NEO clearly is. Boeing, in response, went cheap and is stuffing big fans under the 737 wings, which required a major slung forward pylon change (trailing link gear for the -10) and this ridiculous MCAS system which was obviously under engineered.

Cost cutting obviously has caught up with Boeing. It’s sad because all the signs were there during the 787 and 747-8 programs. It’s sad that greed has now cost lives. Perhaps they will learn for 777X, NMA, NSA...

[krismiler]

Airbus and Boeing both wanted to put off the expense of developing a brand new aircraft for as long as possible. Who ever got the new type on the market first would have a winner on their hands but the cost would have been astronomical and sales of the current type would have been affected as buyers held off and waited for the latest offering.

Incremental improvements were made to the present types but the difference was that Airbus had a much more modern basic platform which was able to accept modifications and Boeing had a 60 year old design which wasn't.

[CargoOne]

Without reading all the above, the 737-800 has been kicking the tail off the 320ceo forever. It has more range and better seat economics. The 320 will always be more spacious than the 737 internally, but the economics haven’t been better than the NG until the NEO came onto the scene.

Your statement is simply not true. There was 5150 x 737-800 produced vs 5750 x A320 (just 320 excluding 319/321). If -800 would have a better economics it will for sure sell in a much larger numbers compared to A320. In reality both types have advantages and disadvantages against each other but all in all they are just about the same the cost wise. For example you are correct regarding better payload/range of -800 but then just as a wild guess only 0.1% of -800 departures are calling for the range/payload which A320 cannot do.

[cxorcist]

-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.

[Chris2303]

-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.

But not as high as they once were!

[AviatorDave]

Your statement is simply not true. There was 5150 x 737-800 produced vs 5750 x A320 (just 320 excluding 319/321). If -800 would have a better economics it will for sure sell in a much larger numbers compared to A320. In reality both types have advantages and disadvantages against each other but all in all they are just about the same the cost wise. For example you are correct regarding better payload/range of -800 but then just as a wild guess only 0.1% of -800 departures are calling for the range/payload which A320 cannot do.

To add to this: apart from the numbers game which might slightly favor the -800, the A320 appears to be more popular with pax (and pilots, but that doesn't matter for business).

[Torquelink]

-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.

And one engine option rather than two: airlines like the choice on the A320 but most investors / lessors like the fact that all 738s are broadly similar: great help in remarketing.

[cxorcist]

And one engine option rather than two: airlines like the choice on the A320 but most investors / lessors like the fact that all 738s are broadly similar: great help in remarketing.
Loving how y’all equivocate about why and how 738 kicks the tail off 320ceo. Big picture... it’s a slightly bigger plane (from a seating perspective) with better economics and more range. To compete, the 320ceo was sold very cheaply, although the opposite is true of the maintenance and parts which are quite expensive. To add insult to injury, the 737NG is produced at less cost than 320, so the margins are much higher from sales.

This is why Airbus jumped at launching NEO, arguably prematurely because production started so much later. Airbus forced a response from Boeing, which we now know as the MAX disaster. Perhaps Boeing would have been better off going straight to NSA, but that’s 20/20 hindsight. We would be singing a different tune had the MCAS nightmare not occurred. Cost cutting caught up with Boeing, and now the advantage is to Airbus, at least in the narrowbody market.

The MAX will fly again and the sales will occur. The problem is the lost market share, especially to A321. If it were up to me, Boeing would launch NMA ASAP to counter A321NEO and NSA shortly thereafter. It’s going to cost a lot of money, but Boeing has painted itself into a corner with its corporate greed. Shame on Boeing!!!

[Nil by mouth]

The Mods have shelved 737 MAX comments for now for 'hamster wheel' reasons.