737 Magic!
 

I'm curious...

We've talked about why the 727 was great in its day, but what about the 737?

We often hear people get poetical about airliners of the past, first generation airliners most of us won't fly or fly again. The 737's the world's most popular airliner...it has lasted...it has, like a well known sci-fi series, gone boldly into the Next Generation. Is it really just a cynical matter of economics? Or is there something deeper that Boeing really got right, like they didn't with other models?

Many of us fly it and have first hand experience of it. What quirks does this aircraft have that you as an engineer or pilot (or anyone else) find endearing, what makes this airplane unique, what qualities as a flying machine does it have (or lack!) for you that no other airplane has had in your career? It's interesting that it's the only airliner to my knowledge that has several independent guidebooks to it on the market. Would you go back to it if presented with the opportunity, would you leave it, and why?

The only unique thing with this plane is it's taxing like a crab.

Yes it is. At the same time it as been many years now since more A320 family airplanes are sold per year than the B737 family...
So this airplane has lasted for sure, but in the world that is not the airplane the airlines like the most nowadays.

At the same time comparing the B737 100 (or even 200) with the nowadays popular B737 800 is ridiculous.
Not the same engine, not the same technology, not the same instruments, not the same size... It is not the same airplane. Only the name, and the shape.
There is more difference between the B737-100 and B737-800 than between the Airbus 320 and the Sukhoi 100 superjet.

Anyway I like the B737, I think pilots like it more than the airlines, airbus being more cost efficient, more convenient to carry cargo, more convenient to train crew on the other airbus family aircraft...
It is still a simple and standard airplane with conventional control commands, systems, twin engine, no fly by wire like the bigger boeing or airbus, and flying it really isn' t much different than flying a much smaller airplane, and I like it.

Not all of the shape is the "same" - the NG has a completely different wing from the Classic.

Actually, the open orders are not all that much different between airbus and boeing, boeing has 2101 open orders for the 737 family and airbus has 2318 open orders for the a320 family.

We operate both fleets and found that boeings are quite cost effective and still can compete on many profiles against the a320 family.

I just wish the 737 had the same spacious cockpit as the airbus, it is getting too small in there (or i'm growing too fat, damn company food).

The NG 737 only has the original 737 fuslage most things have changeg . That is the similar debate happening about the 747 NG if that should have a new TR as so many things are changing

The -200 was a fun airplane to fly but when they created the -300/400, not so much. Too much fuel and too slow for the long legs. Droning across America headed for the west coast at 0.74M? In that small cockpit? Not fun.

Didn't fly the NGs but when Herb got Boeing to build him some baby-757s with a new wing, more thrust, higher ceiling, more speed, it was a stroke of genius. same type rating but not the same airplane.

Also, speed brakes not very effective and combined with the typically slow extending flaps/slats, it is not an easy machine to get slow or down.

Reliable? Yes. Easy to fly? Yes. Comfortable cockpit? Not really. Suffice it to say, not my favorite although I flew it for more than 15yrs.

From SLF point of view, at least SLF who pays attention, the 737 is a lot of fun to fly in.

Not the best seat pitch, not the quietest, but a very "reassuring" feel - especially here in the Denver area, where the air is often less than smooth.

But, not apt to break very often, and perfect for short hops ala Southwest.

This old lady is often maligned for no good reason really.
 

Not the prettiest girl on the dance floor, nor the sexiest one to tango with...

Still a fine aircraft and you can pretty much count on her to get you where you are going time after time after time etc. When things do go sour, the 37 still flies like, well, an airplane and degradations are almost always graceful.

I like to think of them as good solid Buicks*. Old yes, but solid and reliable that brings to mind the cliche: "they don't make 'em like that anymore"

* to my UK/Aussie/EU compatriots: please consider this asterisk an open invitation to substitute a domestically produced vehicle of your choice here. :}

How is realy fuel burn per seat kilometer on the NG series compared to the A320 series.When the Ng arrived in the late 1990,s the wing was bang up to date,but the old nose design was still there with it,s sharp edge cockpit window.If I am not mistaken,the nose is identical with the 707(at least from radome tip and up,while the lower part is a little diifferent)This was designed in the fiftees.Seems to remember that Boeing could not modify the nose without having a new type approval.So my question is if this old tech aerodynamic nose realy is a big drag penalty with today,s fuel prices,or that nose design realy isn,t that important compared to wing design?

VA pilot, the Aussie motor vehicle equivalent that I often used to describe the B732 was the HQ Holden of the skies. Simple, reliable and go-anywhere. Could not kill it with a stick and you needed to be able to drive a manual gear shift properly to get anything out of it.
Later B737 versions like the 300/400 made far more sense to the beancounters, because suddenly there was serious payload/range capability whereas the 200 in its various iterations still suffered from takeoff performance and fuel burn. But the later ones were not such 'pilot's airplanes' due to the huge leap forward in automation. Suddenly this became so smooth that it was almost seductive and everyone obsessed with mastering it to the detriment of basic skills. I have seen a few very experienced B737 pilots who had only flown the later series really struggle with the basic 200 which had no auto-throttle, nothing but pitch mode for climb and descent and some even had no automatic altitude capture and not much in the way of navigation coupling.

Just did my first few flights on a 732 after flying a 727. Flies well enough but much more busy for the PNF and during ground stops. Plus you have to pull back a bit in the flare insted of pushing a bit. How strange.

Lower aircraft weights, higher takeoff speeds(what do you expect when you can use a flap setting of only 1°) and its weird being able to actually hear the engines. Somehow the 72 still seems more like a real airplane.

OK.....gotta jump in here even though it's been over 20 years since I flew the 737-200/300. When I first got on the -200, we had three pilots so the workload for the PNF wasn't that bad. But, you're right; with only two it can become busy at times, but it's no different than any other two-man aircraft.

Flaps OTHER than 1 degree were used for takeoff on both the -200 and -300.

As to "pull back a bit in the flare".....well, that's the way REAL airplanes are flown. The major 'flaw' with your 7-TWO-7 is the engines are in the WRONG place !!

Those wrongly-placed engines make it go at Mach 0.84 instead of 0.74. Or is it the amazing wing. The 732 seems to be pretty twitchy as well on the ailerons and it seems to yaw a lot in cruise(most noticable in the back). It has 4 flight spoilers instead of 10 and you can't even extend them fully in flight. What if ATC keeps you high and tight?

However, I am told that it handles a crosswind better. Having fun comparing though.

.84 vs .74.....so what.....what's the rush. The 737-200 started out as a short haul a/c. As I recall, we flew the -300 faster, but can't remember; I retired off the DC-8.

As to "twitchy".....not sure about that. And as to yaw.....dunno.....never flew it from the back !!

It's up to you to NOT let ATC fly your airplane for you. As far as I'm concerned those spoilers are for landing. Any other use is poor planning.
Never flew an airplane that was uncontrollable in a crosswind. But, my transport catagory airplanes only consisted ot the Lodestar, Connie, DC-6/7, 737 and DC-8. Lodestar wasn't too much fun in a crosswind, however.

OK.....I'll go to bed now.:*

Never flew them but they're the reason I become a pilot. The 737-200 sounded like magic everytime it departed Wellington with the echo off the surrounding hills. I understand a very hands on machine as well? If only...

I agree with the sight and sound of a 737 arriving/departing Wellington. I've watched from the top of the Hill where that Byrd Memorial is when I was there on a containership a few years ago. Beautify city and site.

No real affection here from a Engineer, I've worked on -100, -200 and the 3,4 and 5s. Not the NGs though.
Anyone who has been involved with Flap rigging a 737 knows what a time consuming rigmarole that is:ugh:........... and don't start me on the door rigging ! ( especially D1L):eek:
Plenty of sticky out bits low to the ground to hit your head on. Everything in the u/c bay covered in dirty crap...Windscreeen change which involves dismantling the cockpit.Fuel tanks that only a midget can access......
Only redeeming feature is that an Engine change is pretty easy.

B737 = Maintenance Friendly & eaisly accessable Aircraft Maintenancewise.

Not many of either around any more.