Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737-200 Vs. Dc 9 Vs. Bac 1-11  
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6454 times:

Dear fellow aviation enthusiasts,
since the Vickers Viscount vs. Electra thread became such a great discussion and I got so much positive feedback of opening a discussion about historic aircraft I wanted to open another thread about legendary planes that now slowly began to disappear from regular airline service at least here in Europe.
Obviously the 737-200 is the most succesful out of these three airliners although the 737 had a slow start. Lufthansa was supposed to order either the Dc 9 or the Bac 1-11 but the LH managers were not satisfied with these two and fought very hard to get the 737.
In this thread I want to discuss the reasons why airlines choose the Bac over the Dc 9 or the 737 or two of them together like Dan Air and BA did with the 737 and the Bac 1-11. I want to speak here about "original" buyers only .
I know there are some American airlines that operated both the Dc 9 and the 737-200 but mostly they got the other type because they acquired other airlines that operated Boeing aircraft while the buyer was originally a Douglas customer or it happened the other way round.
I also want to discuss the performance of these aircraft and the pros and cons of the either aircraft with the airlines.
I hope this will be an interesting discusion and looking forward for your feedback.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6436 times:

National Airways Corporation chose the 737-200 due to it's better stretch capability, and carrying more passengers. It was bitterly opposed by many people at the time, who wanted the national domestic carrier to Buy British. NAC chose economics over political loyalties, which in some ways got it into trouble as it was government owned.


MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6426 times:

The major reason why the 737-200 succeeded was the fact the plane could seat over 100 pax in all-Economy configuration, something unheard of in this class of plane at the time. That's why when the 737-300 arrived with its efficient CFM56 engines in the early 1980's it immediately became a huge seller worldwide.  Smile

User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4036 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6347 times:

In 1976 Gulf Air operated a fleet of 4 Bac111-400.(among other aircraft). They were to be replaced. The initial choice was Bac111-500, but after a long contest they ordered 10 B737-200. The main factor in my opinion was the Jt8D-15 which was much more powerful than the Spey 512 in the Bac111 and was not limited by the Gulf temperatures.
The Bac111-400 fleet was often severly resticted when the temps rose up above 35degC, even with water injection.

BA bought the Bac111-510 in 1968 I think. It was ordered to have the same cockpit as the Trident (but 2 crew instead of 3) and is an unique type of 111. At the time the B737-200 was too large for the Internal German services for which it was destined. They bought the first B737-200 over 10 years later to replace the early Tridents, mainly for noise restrictions. Yes the B737-200 was quieter than the Trident!

[Edited 2006-06-18 18:34:48]

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6297 times:

Well BAC 1-11 was first to market, followed by DC-9, then 737-the initial unsuccessful -100 quickly being superceded by the -200.

So 1-11 clocked up some impressive US orders for one, BAC must have thought they might replace the success of their predecessor companies Viscount.

But there was a bit of a snake in BAC's Eden, lack of stretchability, not the airframe, but the engine.
At this point, it is likely that the BEA directed 'shrink' of the HS Trident, comes in to play.

Since the mooted R/R Medway engine, effectively a British counterpart to the JT-8D, was swapped for this now smaller airframe, for the Spey.
Hari-Kari for Trident sales, depriving an obvious engine for BAC -1-11, had the original Trident entered service with the Medway, it is likely that even if BAC 1-11 did not have it on early models, it would be ater-that BEA -500 order for one, for commilarity with Trident perhaps?

So BAC were constrained in offering newer, longer versions, to improve on noise and fuel burn, should they have adopted JT-8D for 1-11?
Hard to say.

Fast forward a decade-BAe as it was by then, offered a 're-fanned Spey' to BA, with a longer fuselage, the 737-200 competitive 1-11-700.
Later, this engine would be called the R/R Tay.
Sadly, almost scandalously when you consider how BA's predecessor companies had buggered up previous aircraft with 'unique' requirements, changes of mind etc, they were allowed to buy the 737-200.

737-200 was a fine aircraft for BA, engine reliability of the powerplant in the early 80's was much praised.
But while still nationalised, pressure should have been applied to buy the BAe -1-11-700.
How much taxpayers dosh had they had by then?

After privatisation, a good thing for BA, the industry and wider economy, well they could go and buy what they wanted.

What after that?
BAe proposed a longer still 1-11-800, 737-300/400 and MD-80 competitive, two CFM-56 engines.
Had BA brought that, like the -700, it is likely other sales would have followed.

BAe would also have had a big bargaining chip with A320 workshare, 'we'll stop selling BAC 1-11-800 after say 1986/7, if we get A320 final assembly'.

But this is Britain, joined up thinkers on government, often in industry too, need not apply, so the above could not have come to pass.

DC-9 had a huge home market, a well respected company building it, stretchability to die for, (maybe too much, was it really worth doing DC-9-20, or -40, to keep one or two customers happy?), a good engine.

Whilst Boeing's entry started out the runt of the litter, the poor selling, not performing as advertised -100, then the -200.
As we know, when Boeing was in dire straits with the cost and effort of getting the 747 in service then working realiably (things don't change then-a revelation to many on here I bet!), the 737 was briefly considered to be up for sale, the whole line that is, to Japan.

Instead, Boeing instituted small, but rolling improvements to the 737-200, clocking up sales, eventually becoming a best seller.
Then onwards to CFM-56 power and the rest is history.

MD were not so lucky, despite the major success of the MD-80 series, other parts of the commercial division were not performing as well, then the sprial of upgrade over new aircraft, no money for new aircraft, fewer customers meaning less prospect of new aircraft.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31692 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6282 times:

Undoubtly the B732 was one of the Easy Accessable,Mx Friendly Aircraft of the Time.
 bigthumbsup 
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6169 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
.......

Excellent post, I really enjoyed reading it. Thank you very much for the time writing it and the great information you provided.

Greetings
Columba



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6122 times:

Perhaps we should also discus the Dassault Mercure here. It seems very similar to the 737-100 and I never understood why it was such a poor seller.

cheers

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 3):
BA bought the Bac111-510 in 1968 I think. It was ordered to have the same cockpit as the Trident (but 2 crew instead of 3) and is an unique type of 111. At the time the B737-200 was too large for the Internal German services for which it was destined. They bought the first B737-200 over 10 years later to replace the early Tridents, mainly for noise restrictions. Yes the B737-200 was quieter than the Trident!

I though that the 1-11 and the Trident had different manufacturers, the 1-11 was bac and the Trident was Hawker Siddely, although they were amalgamated into bae -this was after the demise of both types


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6087 times:

Just to add my 2 cents to this, UP had two B 1-11 at one time, they only carried 79 or 80 pax.
On a Nas-Mia run, no way the B737 compared, the raw power and speed of the Bac left the 737 grasping. That however, was a huge problem for the a/c, it was a gas guzzler of the highest order, but the pilots sure loved them.
Best route they operated for UP was Nas-Atl, an overnight, went full almost every time.
Fond memories of that a/c.


User currently offlineVegasplanes From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6087 times:

Quoting A350 (Reply 7):
Perhaps we should also discus the Dassault Mercure here.

Seems like it was severly limited on range IIRC. Air Inter is the only operater I can think of.


User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6065 times:

Quoting Vegasplanes (Reply 10):
Seems like it was severly limited on range IIRC. Air Inter is the only operater I can think of.

But doesn't this apply to the 737-100, too? LH bought the 737 mainly for domestic flights, the Mercure should have been able to fly them.

Cheers

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineVegasplanes From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6051 times:

Quoting A350 (Reply 11):
But doesn't this apply to the 737-100, too?

737-100 had a range with max fuel of 1540 nautical miles.

Mercure had a range of up to 1000 nm.

I would say that the 737-100 had a much greater range than the Mercure.

[Edited 2006-06-19 01:08:46]

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5982 times:

I think the biggest things in favor of the 737 initially were:

1. The pax capacity was quite good given the size of the plane.

2. It came with the JT8D engine, which was far more powerful than any competing commercial engine of the same category. That's why the 737-200 worked surprisingly well even in hot and high conditions.

Boeing's decision around 1980 to offer the CFM56 engine on the 737--it was actually built to Southwest Airlines requirements!--was the big reason why the 737 really took off in sales to overtake the 727. And that decision was fortunate, since when Boeing needed a competitor against the A320 Family all it needed was aerodynamic upgrades and more powerful CFM56 variants to create the very successful Next-Generation 737.  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

Mercure was of a later generation, entering service in the mid 1970's.
Only used by Air Inter, plans for a potentially much more attractive CFM-56 powered version, were not realised.
Had it been built, would we have later seen the A320?


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5840 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
Had it been built, would we have later seen the A320?

Is Dassault part of EADS ?



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 478 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5760 times:

Having flown extensively on all three over the years, I preferred the DC-9 over the 737-200 or the 1-11s. Inside, the Nines were a bit roomier and generally quieter than their competitors.

The 1-11 was a neat plane and very innovative. It is too bad it did not last long enough to get a better RR engine such as the Tay.

The 737s became enormously popular due to their general commonality to the ubiquitous 727, their longer range and the ability to squeeze up to 130 seats in it. However, I was never a big fan of the plane, since it was noisy and usually had cramped seating arrangements.


User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5660 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 16):
preferred the DC-9 over the 737-200 or the 1-11s. Inside, the Nines were a bit roomier and generally quieter than their competitors

I enjoyed the 3 x 2 seating on the DC-9. Altthough, the 737-200 ADV with the JT8D-17 was/is a hot rod. Boeing definitely thought outside of the box with the 737 given its range.

The BAC-111 is the loudest plane I've ever been on. I had the opportunity to fly on Florida Express years ago MCO-ATL.


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...
737-200 Vs. Dc 9 Vs. Bac 1-11 posted Sun Jun 18 2006 16:32:00 by Columba
Match Up...737-900ER VS 757-200 posted Tue Aug 29 2006 14:52:15 by Socal
Trident Vs. FR 737-200 posted Wed Dec 3 2003 20:23:33 by Applepie81
757-200 Vs. 737-800 posted Tue Jul 2 2002 21:07:32 by Rick
MD-11 VS DC-10 posted Thu Aug 31 2006 19:26:03 by Eastern023
737-400 Vs. 737-800 posted Fri Apr 29 2005 14:29:21 by NASCARAirforce
737-300 VS MD87 posted Mon Dec 13 2004 21:23:24 by Sbe727
Boeing 737-500 Vs. 737-600 posted Thu Apr 22 2004 00:55:55 by TradewindL1011
Delta 737-800 Vs MD-90 posted Sun Jan 25 2004 02:33:18 by ZONA8
737-800 Vs. A320 posted Tue Dec 2 2003 12:21:28 by Applepie81