There have been other posts about the relative merits/shortcomings of these aircraft. My question is: If flown on the same route under identical conditions (pax#, cargo, weather), which plane would do so most efficiently/economically? Would it be the 735? Would the 736 perform better than the 732?

You've picked examples from all 3 generations of the 737 family! The 732 will perform the worst, the 735 will perform better. Fairly obviously the 736 will perform the best, it's got the older ones beat on every single facet. Aircraft go through re-designs and upgrades to improve them, not make them worse...

AeroOzzie

However, much has been posted about the shortcomings of the 736, especially regarding weight, so I don't think it's obvious that the 736 would perform the best. I'm well aware that aircraft aren't upgraded to make them worse (give me credit for not being a moron), but the 736's market failure and significantly higher weight than the 735/732 legitimize my question.

This may not be an answer to your question and I think AeroOzzie is correct, but I just visited the Boeing web site and found the delivery numbers for the 737:

Remember that just because the 737-500/600 seem "better" than the 737-200, does not mean it is a "better" aircraft, per se. The 737-200 FAR outsold the 500 and 600 combined, was in production for just over 20 years, and has flown at nearly every corner of the Earth, with almost every airline operating the 200.

In some respects, the 737-200 can be a better performer than later models. Aloha Airlines tried to replace their 200s with 300s and 400s in the early 1990s, and found that it was cheaper to operate the 200 because the engines of the newer planes could not take the pounding of rapid inter island flights. Today, 10 years later, the 200s are still powering along. Aloha competes very well with Hawaiian, and even outperforms them (remember they are not in bankruptcy), with the older airplanes.

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear 737, the version that comes to mind is the 200.

Although ironically, in terms of sales, with 732 and 735 lines closed, the 736 looks set to sell the least. The big mistake was to introduce the 732 in 1967 (and produce it till 1988), the 735 in 1990 (built for less than a decade) and the 736 in 1998 (selling on average 10 a year, although in reality has been orderd unevenly by very few customers). Of course, Boeing I'm sure would have forecast the youngest 732s to be retired by 2010, but the fact that 1967-9 build 732s are still flying in 2004 no doubt surprised them. The 732 was a victim of its won success, since its longevity killed the market for the 735 and the 736 in developing countries. And but fot 9/11, there would be at least 100-200 more 732s still flying in Europe and North America.
In my view, Boeing should keep the 736 line dormant once it's delivered its backlog, so that over the course of the next decade and maybe even next, the 736 can fulfill its potential, since it is an excellent plane, hampered by a premature launch among other things.

XV



[Edited 2004-06-04 17:43:16]

If you are flying into a gravel strip the 732 is the best performer.

 

GS

Couple of Points

The fact that the 200 far outsold the 500/600 has a lot to do with the fact that it was the only version available from about 1966 to 1983.

Some of the lower sales of the 500/600 have to do with the change in average aircraft size at the US majors. Since about 1983 they have been buying larger aircraft. More in the 125 to 150 seat range.

As far as which one is the better aircraft (more efficient). It depends on the mission. We already have the Aloha/Alaska examples. In any case the 200/500 will be more efficient for short haul flying due to the wing being optimized for that. Logically the 500 should be more efficient that the 200 due to lower Sfc of the engines. The 600 shares a wing that is optimized for the 700 and longer range, for that reason it would likely be more efficient on long thin routes, but the direct operating costs are almost identical to the 700 so why not fly the additional seats, you might be able to sell them.

GreatPooh

Isn't the 737-500 the shortest one?

Isn't the 737-500 the shortest one?

736 = 29.79m Length
735 = 29.79m Length
732 = 29.54m Length

736 ~3700 nm Max Range
735 ~2900 nm Max Range
732 Advanced ~2300 nm Max Range

[Edited 2004-06-04 23:37:08]

Dont forget the larger regional jets!

The 732 and 735, when introduced, were usually an airlines smallest jet airliner, used for short frequent routes or medium range thin routes.....those routes today are dominated by CRJs and ERJs in their various sizes, and with the larger RJ models now coming on line, airlines are chosing regional jets to fly these types of routes more and more due to lower costs. (Think union rules.) Not only has the 736 sold rather poorly in this new enviornment, the 717 has had problems finding its market and A318 sales have also not been brisk.

The other issue with the 736 (and A318 for that matter) is that these airliners have "too much" capability and too much range, making them heavy and not as economical as the airlines would like them to be. The 736 can fly US transcon without a problem, something that the 732 could never do, but the price is rather average economics on a short-haul run. The 736 is a super aircraft for longer thin routes, like Hartford to Los Angeles or Philadelphia to Portland or New Orleans to Seattle, but in our world of mega-hubs, these routes have simply not developed. Thus, the 736 remains an unpopular member of the successful 737NG family.

This is really a comparison comparing apples with oranges with pineapples. These variants are all from different generations, and if you want to judge which is "best" based on sales figures, well, you have to factor in that during the 732's time, the only competitor was the DC-9, and that the 732 sold as the sole 737 variant for almost 30 years. The 736 now has the EMB195, A318, B717 not to mention a host of larger variants within its own family, the A320 family competing with it, and has only been on the market for about 6 years!

AeroOzzie

Guess there´s more than me that notice the tailfin on 737-200 is diffrent from the rest of 737´s! Some useless info.....

Mike//SE

In my view, Boeing should keep the 736 line dormant once it's delivered its backlog, so that over the course of the next decade and maybe even next, the 736 can fulfill its potential, since it is an excellent plane, hampered by a premature launch among other things.

It is produced on the exact same line as the 73G, 738, and 739. You cannot close the 736 line, you would have to close the entire 737 line. The 736 is just a few frames shorter than the 73G.

The 735 would perform best on a similar stage length as the other two, with the 732 last but the 736 probably not too terribly much better.

N

It is indeed a bit hard to compare the 3 models because they were designed at different times and for different purposes. The 737-200 was introduced as a simple stretch of the 737-100 following a variety of airline orders - and proved to be a stretch in the right direction with over 1000 delivered as against just 30 -100s. The success of the 732 was enhanced by the development of the Advanced model which came out in 1972. It is unfair to say that the 732 had only the DC9 as competition - the marketplace for small jets was actually quite crowded with BAC 1-11, the last Caravelles and the most unfortunate of them all, the Dassault Mercure. To consider the success of the 732 against the monumental failure of the Mercure, one just needs to contrast the design philosophies of the two planes. The 732 was being made more flexible (greater range) in the Advanced model while the Mercure was made purely for internal French ops, albeit with a greater passenger load. An effective range of only 750 miles is certainly not viable for an aircraft as large and expensive as Mercure was, hence production ended at 12 frames.

When Boeing launched the 733 in the early 80s this new model was meant to complement the 732. Nonetheless the line was developed to include the stretched 734 and finally the chopped 735, Boeing seeing a potential market for airlines wanting a direct 732 replacement. The trouble was that the 735 was built as a direct derivative of the 733 and is as such structurally heavier than the 732 - something that made it less efficient than if it were purpose-built. It has however seen some success in Eastern Europe as some airlines have bought them to replace Russian types and launch new services to the West. Boeing in fact intended the 735 to be bought by existing 733 and 734 customers and indeed the majority did go to customers of the other types. The type first flew in 1989 and production ended in 1999. Sales were weaker than the 733 and 734, largely because a large number of used 732s were available at much lower cost and, later, the rise of the A320 family.

The 737NG series was Boeing's answer to the Airbus challenge and includes the 4 models 600, 700, 800 and 900. The 600 has sold weakly, again in part a result of the same structural issues faced by the 735. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the rise of RJs from Canadair, Embraer, Avro and Dornier have made the market far more difficult than ever before for smaller versions of larger airliners. All the same, on a direct comparison, the 736 would be more efficient than 735, itself more so than 732. The reduction of noise output along the series is certainly noticeable.

TrintoCan.

In this order.....
1) 737-600 - Its A 737NG....quieter engines, good fuel efficiency
2) 737-500 - Refurbished 737-200 with the newer engines in the late 80s
3) 737-200 - Old, LOUD!!!, bad fuel efficiency....and pollutes like hell!!.....................................................though dont get me wrong I LOVE THE 200 series!!!! What a little beast!

GreatPooh makes a GreatPoint, the lack of success of the 737-600 has more to do with the greater success of the 737-700 with which it shares the same operating cost (the same could be said of the A318 versus the A319). I doubt that the largest operators of the 737-500, Continental and United, will ever purchase the equivalent sized 736 or A318. They will most likely replace them with more 73Gs and A319s.

Dutchjet is absolutely right about regional jets dominating the short frequent routes. CO Express RJs are taking over mainline CO routes usually flown by 737s.

Airlines choosing RJs over "the real thing", so to speak, has no doubt contributed to fewer sales of the 736 and the smaller A320 family members.