PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) (https://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner-52/)
-   -   Could there be a 737-900? (https://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/449021-could-there-737-900-a.html)

CharlieKoczalski 17th April 2011 08:36

Could there be a 737-900?
 
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 April 2011 08:38

737 TCDS -737-900 added Nov 2006

Racing Snake 17th April 2011 08:46

PSSSST.......Top secret but take a look






http://www.x-plane.org/home/arerecich/B737-900.jpg

170to5 17th April 2011 09:00

pretty sure there are quite a lot of 737-900's flying around already...

BALLSOUT 17th April 2011 09:15

Been on my licence since early 2006

av8r76 17th April 2011 09:48

Have the ER on mine since 2007.

Fargoo 17th April 2011 10:05

Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - 737 - The Boeing 737-900ER

:uhoh:

JW411 17th April 2011 10:11

KLM have been flying 737-900s since 2001.

STBYRUD 17th April 2011 10:18

Stop rubbing it in, I bet he/she is embarrassed enough already ;)

kotakota 17th April 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 April 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 April 2011 11:46

They were probably hacked off that they couldn't certify the Scarebus as a MercureNG :rolleyes:

World of Tweed 17th April 2011 12:05

Because that would of been a great help seeing as there were so many Mercures operating out there.

dixi188 17th April 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 April 2011 18:21

Thanks
 
Ahhh Right cheers guys ... My bad i havent heard of it yet :ugh:


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:43.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.