737 classic v NG
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chumphon Thailand
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 classic v NG
Would just like to hear about the differences between flying both types.[737-3,4,500 v 7,8,900] Is one any better than the other? Or am I comparing apples with apples apart from the more advanced displays on the flight deck of the NG series? Any "I will never fly one of those bloody things again" factor? Any differences in the FMGC?
I await eagerly....
I await eagerly....
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NG has a totally new wing and very different flight deck and some different characteristics, and modern instrumentation. It's handling and instrumentation is just like the 747-400. I think it is better to handle and a nicer work environment. It is also more economical- the fuel flows for a 148 seat -700 are almost the same as a 120 seat -500.
For a technical comparison of the Classic Vs the NG have a look at this website: The Boeing 737 Technical Site
From a Pilots perspective the NG is a huge improvement on the classics. The APU is far more capable, it is designed to run both packs so it's always warm in the winter and cool in the summer. It also provides far quicker starts than the APUs fitted to the classics. The Flight Deck is now fitted with 6 large screens (DUs), the PFD and ND now sit side by side, and the engine and systems DUs are in the middle one above the other. The lower DU, which displays secondary engine information and some system information is customised so you will see variations in displays here. The overhead panel looks much the same, except for perhaps the pressurisation panel which is now a simpler digital system, which you may see on very late model classics as well. Other systems appear the same but there are some huge improvements in the "behind the scenes" architecture, particularly the electrics.
Flap 25 is now a take-off option on the NG, although I have never used it and I don't know anyone who has. The climb is not as "sporty" as the classic, and climb speeds are generally faster than the classic, but the rate of climb is less, (assuming similar CIs being used). The NG is certified to 41,000', whereas the classic is limited to 37,000'. The NG is faster, again assuming similar CIs the NG cruises at c.785/460kts, whereas the classic is c.745/440kts. The fuel flows are about the same, but with the higher speeds, the NG is more efficient.
The NG appears less speed stable and is prone to overspeeding in the descent if you are not careful. Boeing supposedly addressed this problem revising the PATH profile back in 2005 but it is still something to be wary of. Likewise the NG is not as speed stable on the approach either IMO. The -800/900 series have a very high approach speed, which I believe to be driven by the need to keep a lower body angle and avoid tailstrikes, rather than being a function of the stall speed. This problem is addressed with the short field performance kit.
The NG's autopilot is now cleared down to 50' (single autopilot operation), and the NG is also CAT IIIB capable (I believe). For navigation the NGs have GPS receivers, and a number of regulatory authorities will allow RNAV arrivals as well as non-precision approaches to be flown using the autopilot and LNAV & VNAV. The NGs can also be fitted with a Head Up Display. Other nice touches on the NG are the Flight Path Vector, and a metric altimeter.
IMO the NG is the nicer to fly, the thrust pitch couple is almost non-existent, but it's perhaps a little less predictable to land.
The NGs FMC benefits from a bigger memory and a faster processor over the classic's, otherwise they are generally similar but there are a number of customer options, meaning you will see differences from one operator to another.
The NG being a bit faster is also a bit noisier. Newer models now have a row of vortex generators ahead of the windshield, which is supposed to drop the noise level by 3Db IIRC.
I am led to believe that the NG was developed on a minimal budget, so whereas it is a big improvement on the classic it could have been so much better. I believe the wing is a scaled down 777 wing, but doesn't deliver 777 speeds. The flight deck should have been upgraded, but a major customer (think Southwest) dictated that it should retain commonality with -200's let alone -300's. (there may well have been certification issues too). I would also like to have seen some of the QRH checklists improved, I am thinking here of some of the flap checklists, and the one engine inop. landing checklists, with Vref (ice) and the go-around procedures. These could/should be fixed by either a design change, software change or wording change.
Overall a good reliable workhorse, and I hope that's given you some insight into the aeroplane.
From a Pilots perspective the NG is a huge improvement on the classics. The APU is far more capable, it is designed to run both packs so it's always warm in the winter and cool in the summer. It also provides far quicker starts than the APUs fitted to the classics. The Flight Deck is now fitted with 6 large screens (DUs), the PFD and ND now sit side by side, and the engine and systems DUs are in the middle one above the other. The lower DU, which displays secondary engine information and some system information is customised so you will see variations in displays here. The overhead panel looks much the same, except for perhaps the pressurisation panel which is now a simpler digital system, which you may see on very late model classics as well. Other systems appear the same but there are some huge improvements in the "behind the scenes" architecture, particularly the electrics.
Flap 25 is now a take-off option on the NG, although I have never used it and I don't know anyone who has. The climb is not as "sporty" as the classic, and climb speeds are generally faster than the classic, but the rate of climb is less, (assuming similar CIs being used). The NG is certified to 41,000', whereas the classic is limited to 37,000'. The NG is faster, again assuming similar CIs the NG cruises at c.785/460kts, whereas the classic is c.745/440kts. The fuel flows are about the same, but with the higher speeds, the NG is more efficient.
The NG appears less speed stable and is prone to overspeeding in the descent if you are not careful. Boeing supposedly addressed this problem revising the PATH profile back in 2005 but it is still something to be wary of. Likewise the NG is not as speed stable on the approach either IMO. The -800/900 series have a very high approach speed, which I believe to be driven by the need to keep a lower body angle and avoid tailstrikes, rather than being a function of the stall speed. This problem is addressed with the short field performance kit.
The NG's autopilot is now cleared down to 50' (single autopilot operation), and the NG is also CAT IIIB capable (I believe). For navigation the NGs have GPS receivers, and a number of regulatory authorities will allow RNAV arrivals as well as non-precision approaches to be flown using the autopilot and LNAV & VNAV. The NGs can also be fitted with a Head Up Display. Other nice touches on the NG are the Flight Path Vector, and a metric altimeter.
IMO the NG is the nicer to fly, the thrust pitch couple is almost non-existent, but it's perhaps a little less predictable to land.
The NGs FMC benefits from a bigger memory and a faster processor over the classic's, otherwise they are generally similar but there are a number of customer options, meaning you will see differences from one operator to another.
The NG being a bit faster is also a bit noisier. Newer models now have a row of vortex generators ahead of the windshield, which is supposed to drop the noise level by 3Db IIRC.
I am led to believe that the NG was developed on a minimal budget, so whereas it is a big improvement on the classic it could have been so much better. I believe the wing is a scaled down 777 wing, but doesn't deliver 777 speeds. The flight deck should have been upgraded, but a major customer (think Southwest) dictated that it should retain commonality with -200's let alone -300's. (there may well have been certification issues too). I would also like to have seen some of the QRH checklists improved, I am thinking here of some of the flap checklists, and the one engine inop. landing checklists, with Vref (ice) and the go-around procedures. These could/should be fixed by either a design change, software change or wording change.
Overall a good reliable workhorse, and I hope that's given you some insight into the aeroplane.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line ....
I have some 6000 plus hours on 737’s, flown the 200, 300, 400, and the 800 , presently flying both the 400 and the 800 ....
Bottom line ........ the 200 was an awesome aircraft, the ‘Ferrari’ ...... from there on things got worse, 400 is a truck but a great aircraft , and in the words from an esteemed colleague , to which I agree ..... Boeing has never built a ‘crappy’ aircraft .... but they did come close with the 800
Bottom line ........ the 200 was an awesome aircraft, the ‘Ferrari’ ...... from there on things got worse, 400 is a truck but a great aircraft , and in the words from an esteemed colleague , to which I agree ..... Boeing has never built a ‘crappy’ aircraft .... but they did come close with the 800
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have many colleagues that fly both the 300 and 800. But from a technical level, to add. The NG has a larger wing. Slightly more chord but an extra (un de-iced) slat and simpler flaps that seal together rather than separated by the pylon. The -300 is really a re engined 100/200 wing, with deeper leading edges to up the chord and the triple slotted flaps and slats are 727 items. The engine pylon is a kind of adapter from the -200s underneath engines to the CFM hanging off the front. With the NG it has a cleaner more traditional pylon.
The problems IMHO opinion of the NG are that the Aileron system was unchanged, so you've effectively got semi inboard ailerons, that simply do not have the power to hold against full rudder and compromise cross wind performance as a result. They are CRAP.
Flightdeck, overhead is more or less the same. The -700 uses a -300 type air con panel but the -800 uses the -400 system with both packs operating to cool to the coldest of the three settings and trim air used to warm the other two sectors. I've flown the -700, and the -800 and the trim air system works far better.
EFIS Screens are obviously different, there are more covers to the window frames and a drip tray at the top of the windscreens to stop condensation dripping down. Better Electric gauge panel up top is the other improvement.
It's still a1967 arrangement of 1955 parts up front mostly, just as uncomfortable and noisy. But I'd take it over an airbus for the feel and awareness of what's going on.
The problems IMHO opinion of the NG are that the Aileron system was unchanged, so you've effectively got semi inboard ailerons, that simply do not have the power to hold against full rudder and compromise cross wind performance as a result. They are CRAP.
Flightdeck, overhead is more or less the same. The -700 uses a -300 type air con panel but the -800 uses the -400 system with both packs operating to cool to the coldest of the three settings and trim air used to warm the other two sectors. I've flown the -700, and the -800 and the trim air system works far better.
EFIS Screens are obviously different, there are more covers to the window frames and a drip tray at the top of the windscreens to stop condensation dripping down. Better Electric gauge panel up top is the other improvement.
It's still a1967 arrangement of 1955 parts up front mostly, just as uncomfortable and noisy. But I'd take it over an airbus for the feel and awareness of what's going on.
Rainboe
last met him when he flew me home on the Palmair 735 G-PJPJ (lsd from Astraeus)
MAH-BOH late summer 2009 - where is the nice chap now???
Anyone know?
last met him when he flew me home on the Palmair 735 G-PJPJ (lsd from Astraeus)
MAH-BOH late summer 2009 - where is the nice chap now???
Anyone know?
Last edited by rog747; 29th Sep 2018 at 17:00.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: in this world
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-200 Pilot
Dear All,
we are currently looking for a pilot and FO to fly our N registered 737-200, we are planning to start operations in Africa, if any one interested or know someone who is please let me know.
Best Regards.
Ali
we are currently looking for a pilot and FO to fly our N registered 737-200, we are planning to start operations in Africa, if any one interested or know someone who is please let me know.
Best Regards.
Ali
