Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Can An Old Plane (738) Better A New One (A320)  
User currently offlineAnandt From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17840 times:

How is this "technically" possible. The 738 being old wine in new bottle outperforming a much modern A320???  Confused

From a boeing press release - "Known for its reliability, fuel efficiency and economical performance, the 737-800 has been selected by leading carriers throughout the world. The 737-800 with Blended Winglets is 1,500 pounds lighter, can fly 260 nautical miles farther, fly 1,100 feet higher and climb to 35,000 feet 3.2 minutes faster while carrying 12 more passengers than the competing A320. "

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060111a_nr.html

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJmy007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 598 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17818 times:

Oh man, not another A vs B thread.
They're both newly built planes, and the Airbus 320 desgined is push 20 years old already.



Cookies are the Gateway pastry. They lead to Éclairs and Bear Claws.
User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2491 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17807 times:

the first A320 flew in 1988 while the 737-800 made its first flight in what? 1997/1998????

whó's old now ?  

anyway, both A320 and 737-800 had some modifications through the years, and are both great planes

[Edited 2006-01-11 17:30:43]

User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17786 times:

The B737-800 series is way newer than the A320 family.

First A320 in service- 05/1989
First B738 in service- 08/1998

Krisyyz


User currently offlineAnandt From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17770 times:

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 3):
The B737-800 series is way newer than the A320 family.

I meant the 737 series is much older than the A320 series.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17724 times:

Quoting Anandt (Thread starter):
How is this "technically" possible. The 738 being old wine in new bottle outperforming a much modern A320???

From a boeing press release - "Known for its reliability, fuel efficiency and economical performance, the 737-800 has been selected by leading carriers throughout the world. The 737-800 with Blended Winglets is 1,500 pounds lighter, can fly 260 nautical miles farther, fly 1,100 feet higher and climb to 35,000 feet 3.2 minutes faster while carrying 12 more passengers than the competing A320. "

This is just PR man, the a320 has been outselling the 738 last couple of years, so the point is moot.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17682 times:

Quoting Anandt (Reply 4):
I meant the 737 series is much older than the A320 series

The 737NG are hardly similar with the Classic 737: wing, engines, weight savings, flight controls...
It is like the first 747 being as common 747-8.


User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2491 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17673 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 5):
Quoting Anandt (Thread starter):
How is this "technically" possible. The 738 being old wine in new bottle outperforming a much modern A320???

From a boeing press release - "Known for its reliability, fuel efficiency and economical performance, the 737-800 has been selected by leading carriers throughout the world. The 737-800 with Blended Winglets is 1,500 pounds lighter, can fly 260 nautical miles farther, fly 1,100 feet higher and climb to 35,000 feet 3.2 minutes faster while carrying 12 more passengers than the competing A320. "

This is just PR man, the a320 has been outselling the 738 last couple of years, so the point is moot.

well not totally true. because the 737-700 and 800 both compete with the A320, and the 700's also competes with A319, 737-600 with A318 and 737-900/757 do/did with A321

i


User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3185 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17602 times:

Well, the basic design of the 737-800 is older, but the modifications make it newer than the A320. The 737-engines are newer for example, a very important factor with respect to fuel burn and performance. The cabin is slightly smaller, making it lighter. The wings are brand new, also very important.

It just shows that a "warmed over" design can be as good as a newer design. In my opinion, this is a good sign for the A350.

Also, the blended winglets are an even newer modification - that only became interesting after fuel prices went up so much that you save more on fuel than it costs to build the winglets. Rumours say Jetblue will be testing this kind of winglets on their A320s too soon. Does this mean Airbus was wrong? No, 20 years ago the balance with fuel costs on one side and construction costs on the other side just was different.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17470 times:

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 7):
well not totally true. because the 737-700 and 800 both compete with the A320, and the 700's also competes with A319, 737-600 with A318 and 737-900/757 do/did with A321

No it isn't. Just look at the dimensions. The -700 was a direct competitor to the a319. It's about the same size in lenght (a319 is 33.84m long and the -700 33.63m) so that makes it smaller than the a320 at 37.57m.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17417 times:

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 3):
First A320 in service- 05/1989

Make that 03/1988.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17263 times:

Quoting Anandt (Thread starter):
The 738 being old wine in new bottle outperforming a much modern A320?

Last I checked, wine gets better as it ages...  silly 

Seriously, though, the 737NG is a new airplane. You aren't saying the A350 can't compete since its fusulage is still basically the A300.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3185 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17202 times:

N766UA, I can't agree more  Smile

More interesting thing in 737/320 is, IMO, that the 737NG has not been equiped with FBW, and still competes very will, even beating the A320 in certain ways.


User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17149 times:

[quote=Joost,reply=12]More interesting thing in 737/320 is, IMO, that the 737NG has not been equiped with FBW, and still competes very will, even beating the A320 in certain ways.

I spoke with mx personel witch work on these 737's and they explain the reason for no FBW on the 737NG's is the re certification of the 737 and that
it would mean the pilots would need a new rating on these birds, as they
mentioned it the 737 basic ac is over 30 years old so changes made over the years are little, compare to a brand new concept.

Maybe someone here has a deeper inside in regard of "Why no FBW on 737's"

Cheers,


User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17039 times:

A320 doesn't not outsell A320. That was discussed a million times

User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17038 times:

Quoting Swissy (Reply 13):
I spoke with mx personel witch work on these 737's and they explain the reason for no FBW on the 737NG's is the re certification of the 737 and that
it would mean the pilots would need a new rating on these birds, as they
mentioned it the 737 basic ac is over 30 years old so changes made over the years are little, compare to a brand new concept.

When Boeing created the 737NG they did a very detailed cost/benefit and NPV analysis to determine what changes to make. Remember one of the driving customers was WN who had/has some very specific ideas of what they want. It was determined that minimizing certification cost was important. That and keeping the same basic systems approach, e.g. no FBW was a good option. However, the new wing was required to truely compete with the A320 family. The 738 is larger then the 734 so that it could act as a true 727 replacement.

As for FBW requiring a new type rating for the flight crews, there is nothing requiring that. Boeing could have demonstrated that the same knowledge was required, that the plane still handled sufficiently like an old 737, etc, and the FAA would have included the new a/c in the same type rating.

One interesting note, if the 738 had come under a new type certificate the max passenger capacity would equal that of the A320 and not be greater.


User currently offlineSeanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17036 times:

New engines, a new wing, and new avionics can do tons. It is fairly irrelevant that the fuselage is 40 years old, as the A320 is still made out of aluminum, so there are only small aerodynamic advantages to the newer A32x fuselage.

I would not say the argument for the 737NG really works for the A350, however, as the 787 has a drastically different fuselage, which may offer many advantages over AlLi, as well as there are different requirements for short haul, opposed to long haul.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16946 times:

Quoting Joost (Reply 8):
It just shows that a "warmed over" design can be as good as a newer design. In my opinion, this is a good sign for the A350.

That all depends on what the nature and degree of the difference is between the two types to begin with. The A320 was superior to the B737 Classics primarily because of aerodynamic efficiency (wing) and better engines.

The principle advantage of the B787, however, is the weight savings that results from composite construction. The preliminary numbers suggest that the A350 will be much heavier than the B787, and that disadvantage is impossible to remedy unless Airbus builds a composite fuselage.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16931 times:

Quoting Anandt (Reply 4):
I meant the 737 series is much older than the A320 series.



Quoting Kappel (Reply 5):
the a320 has been outselling the 738 last couple of years

Check again.

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 7):
because the 737-700 and 800 both compete with the A320, and the 700's also competes with A319,

The 73G and A319 are direct competitors, the A320 and 738 are direct competitors (with the 738 being bigger).

Quoting Joost (Reply 12):
that the 737NG has not been equiped with FBW, and still competes very will, even beating the A320 in certain ways.

Read below.

Quoting Swissy (Reply 13):
Maybe someone here has a deeper inside in regard of "Why no FBW on 737's"

The thing you said about the type certificate was correct. Another major reason for not using FBW is the fact that one of the main reasons for using FBW over direct hydrolic controls is weight savings, which the 737 doesn't need given that it already is noticably lighter than the A320. Another reason is the dispatch reliability gains that FBW is supposed to add, but since the 737 already has a better DR than the A320 family, that also wasn't a concern

Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 16):
One interesting note, if the 738 had come under a new type certificate the max passenger capacity would equal that of the A320 and not be greater.

Not especially. The 738 is physically longer than the A320, which allows more seat rows. Actually, the 738 could potentially fit more than 189 if it had the 739ER's exit configuration.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16883 times:

As people have said, if FBW would have been incorporated, the NG would have needed to be certified as new and not under the "Grandfather rules" which it was.
A reason the 737-900 wasn't selling too well was that the authorities wouldn't allow for the greater passenger numbers with the same exits as the -800, as I guess it wouldn't have managed the 90 second evacuation time. That's why the 900ER has got the new doors.

What I wonder is will the 747-8 be allowed to be certified under grandfather rules or not. But I think that isn't allowed anymore. But this is for another discussion!


User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16797 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 11):
Seriously, though, the 737NG is a new airplane. You aren't saying the A350 can't compete since its fusulage is still basically the A300.

Very good point. Boeing have kept the name of their types even when they do significant updates to them, for example the 737 and 747. This can give the impression to some people that the new versions are 'old' because it still has the original type name even though there are new series names such as --800(B737) or -400 and -800 (B747). Airbus have changed the name of a type when they have done sigificant changes or updates such as the A310 and A330 which originated from versions of A300 concepts. The A300B10 became the A310 and the A300B9 became the A330.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16758 times:

Quoting Anandt (Thread starter):
How is this "technically" possible. The 738 being old wine in new bottle outperforming a much modern A320???

Oh dear! One of those extragalactic farts that were mentioned before.

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 17):
I would not say the argument for the 737NG really works for the A350, however, as the 787 has a drastically different fuselage, which may offer many advantages over AlLi, as well as there are different requirements for short haul, opposed to long haul.

The key question is, could the 737NG have been as effective against the A320 if it hadn't had the benefits of ten years of advancement? The A350 is being developed at the same time as the 787.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16729 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 20):
What I wonder is will the 747-8 be allowed to be certified under grandfather rules or not. But I think that isn't allowed anymore.

It is not a matter of grandfather rules. If the type is an evolution of a design.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12281 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16705 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 15):
A320 doesn't not outsell A320. That was discussed a million times

Yeah, my guess is that they both sell the exact same amount  Silly



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16696 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
It is not a matter of grandfather rules. If the type is an evolution of a design.

If the type is an evolution of a design, then it will be certified under the so-called "Grandfather rules" (à la 737NG) but I think now the FAA has has changed those rules.
See the 747-8 thread.


25 N1120A : The term grandfathering would relate to more significant changes than evolution. Remember, the 737NG can be made to read just like a 737Classic
26 Post contains links A319XFW : Yes the 737NG can be made to read as the 737 Classic as it was certified under the grandfather rules. But I was wondering how much this applies to th
27 VEEREF : If it ain't broke..............
28 Max Q : The 73NG is a good ship, could have been a lot better if Boeing had not decided that Southwest would have such an influence on the design. A quick loo
29 Atmx2000 : Boeing would likely have made more changes to the 737NG. On the otherhand if the A320 wasn't available 10 years before the 737NG, the A320 would have
30 Post contains links Prebennorholm : Wrong. At least when we talk CFM engined planes. CFM powered 320s got a new engine around 1995, the CFM56-5B replacing the CFM56-5A. A very substanti
31 EMBQA : Ditto...!!
32 AR1300 : The 738/NG are completely new designs, based on roughly the same good ol' structure with proven excellent results, plus modifications to make it even
33 Jush : Oh jesus yet another rubbish thread. They both perform well and any airline has to decide which one they want. But they're both great. Regds jush
34 N754PR : The standards on A.net have fallen over the years but now its getting silly. MODERATORS, Care to delete the MANY, MANY pointless topics??
35 Kappel : Doesn't the a320 CFM (5B) also have a higher bypass ratio due to the larger diameter, making them a bit more efficient than the 737 CFM (7B)?
36 Pilot kaz : Have you suggested Deletion of the Many Many pointless Topics?
37 Swissy : AR1300, I have to agree with you, I think we can compare the 320 family with the 737 but we should look at sales numbers since 1989 as the 320's were
38 GARPD : I don't think anyone is trying to suggest otherwise. However, now that you mention it, it is interesting to note that the 737 is currently head to he
39 Swissy : GARPD you are absolutely right, I would say the 737 and 320 are the cash cows for B & A and I hope they continue that way once they are bringing on th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Can An A/C Get This Funky? posted Tue Apr 26 2005 02:08:48 by Nsfguy
How Can An Airline Qualify For An Alliance posted Fri Sep 17 2004 23:15:08 by A300AA
Oh My God, How Can An Airplane Be So U-G-L-Y! posted Thu Jan 1 2004 03:43:48 by Jgore
How Can An Aircraft Like This Be Allowed To Fly? posted Wed Jul 3 2002 07:44:51 by TR
How Can An Airplane Being Fixed After This...? posted Fri Oct 20 2000 14:52:44 by Boeing727
How Can I Get In Contact With An Old Pilot? posted Sun Jun 19 2005 05:31:07 by SkyWestFan
How Far Can An A320 Go How Far Can JetBlue Expand? posted Thu Mar 8 2001 00:18:17 by TWA902fly
How Old Plane Can Make Transatlantic Route? posted Mon Nov 13 2000 23:08:29 by Sonic
737, How Can You Tell Old From New? posted Mon Jan 24 2000 16:37:38 by LHmark
How Can I Buy An Airliner? - BBC-article posted Sun Jul 23 2006 18:15:44 by JHSfan