ACdreamliner From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 516 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8374 times:
i was just wondering to myself about the possibility of the 737-1K. An even smaller 736NG, but perhaps with a new wing? Being targeted at NW (DC-9 Replacement) along with any other 737 operator who wants to operate a regional service. Basically the same size as the -100, so fitting really it would be the -1000.
just throwing it out there, what your thoughts? I mean, i understand the 736's problem is weight, but it is also too big for regional carriers. So a new wing, and communality might give it the edge?
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8320 times:
There is no way that Boeing would shrink the B737-600 an further or Airbus would shrink the A318. As DLKAPA pointed out, CASM would be too high. The wings would be excessive, the frontal area would be excessive, etc. There would be no way to make such a plane economical. An EMB195 would eat its lunch.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8309 times:
And, there is little interest by mainline carriers in aircraft in the 100 seat range - that market is more and more being covered by aircraft like the E190 and CRJ900 which sometimes are flown by regional airlines at lower costs.
Its unlikely that we will see any further variants of the current 737NG family....in time, Boeing will launch a new smaller aircraft which incorporates all of the new features of the 787 family. The new smaller aircraft series will cover the 130-200 seat single aisle category (ie, everything from the 73G to 752) and most anticipate that 4 variants will be offered plus there will be variations in the wings of the different models.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1604 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8065 times:
Shrinks (as opposed to stretches) have never produced economical airliners. The aircraft ends up carrying around a lot of weight it really doesn't need. For example, the 737NG wing is sized for the GW of the -700, so the -600 is flying with a wing that is larger than it needs to be. I have a presentation from an engineer at American Airlines about the poor economics of 737-500.
For this reason, you will never see a 737NG smaller than the -600.
On the other hand, shouldn't the new 737-900ER really be the 737-1000?
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 30 Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6427 times:
I guess the only shrink that ever was a success was the A319, and maybe the 737-500. The MD87 sold OK, but it wasn't a big succes either. The 747SP failed, it seems that a A380-700 isn't even considered anymore, a 757-100 was never built, and the A340-200 was a failure as well.
So somehow the A319 is an excemption from the rule that shrinks are unsuccesful.
Cschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1180 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4580 times:
I recall reading a Boeing engineer once saying the 737 can't be stretched any further because of fuselage length vs. length of the landing gear, and potential tail strikes. The size/design of the plane prohibits longer gear, so the fuselage is at its limit with the -900. A similar issue existed with the 707, vs. the DC-8 which was able to be stretched. Of course, a -1000 could involve different wing, etc. Kind of interesting...with the 737NG, it has grown to the capacity and range of the 707 of long ago.