BLACK BOX From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 176 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
Replying to another thread got me thinking about the B737-1000. All the 737 models have three letter codes 737 733 734 735 736 73G 738 739, so what happens with the next model, will they it be coded as a 730 ???
And what happens, if the 737 has yet more derivatives in the far off, like B737-1100, B737-1200 etc, what will we code these - with letters (like some of the 747 models 74M, 74E etc), or will we call the next series of 737s - 787s ???
HLF-MD11 From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 60 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1645 times:
I had a meeting with a Boeing rep just recently and we discussed just this subject.
He doubts very much that the present 737 fuselage can be extended much more - 737-900 will be most probably the end with the extension. So the 737-1000 is not very likely to come . . . but you never know...
BLACK BOX From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
HLF-MD11 - point taken regarding the "stretch", BUT the 736 and 73G are really new versions of the 737-300 and 737-100. What I'm saying is for example, what if the -1100 and -1200 are going to be updated versions of the 737-400 and 737-500.
I have no doubt we will see further versions of the 737 but none as long as the -900.
And while we are on the subject of 737s, why is the -600 such a slow seller ???
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1613 times:
From what I've heard, the -900 is the last derivative. While the 737 is a fine jet which has served Boeing and the airlines who have used it very well, it's still a basic design that came out in 1966, and I think that they've done all they can with it. Boeing is expected to announce an all-new plane in this category in the next few years.
BLACK BOX From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Cfalk - If I was the CEO of Boeing, hell after selling well over 3,000 of the buggers I'd want to keep the tooling on the line as it is, If a customer came to me wanting to replace his 737-400s, I'd want to offer him a newer version of that model rather than tool up for an unknown.
The numbers speak for themselves - the 737 is the most popular aircraft in the market, why change it - just keep on improving the little bugger.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 1521 times:
Actually, I read in Aviation Daily yesterday that there are studies inderway on the 737-900X. European charter companies are said to be "very interested" in this aircraft. I don't understand it though, if Boeing stretches the fuselage anymore, there are getting into 757 territory. Why don't these charter companies look at the 757? Go figure.
777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
To seat more passengers on the 737, you are going to need a longer fuselage, which means a taller landing gear to reduce the risk of tailstrikes, more powerful engines, a larger wing area with bigger fuel tanks to maintain transcontinental range, more emergency exits to allow for increased passenger seating (the -800 and -900 are both certified for a maximum of 189 passengers, despite the fact that the -900 is longer), and possibly different aerodynamics to account for all the stretches and modifications made, which will result in the FAA probably demanding a complete test program for the aircraft. And all that aside, wouldn't it be one hell of an ugly plane?
If there ever is a 737-1000, which I doubt, it will only be improved (not stretched) versions of the NG fleet.
777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
AKelley728, my apologies, I am aware of that, and I guess the context of my post hints that I was not. What I was trying to put across is that to stretch the 737, you'd need a large number of modifications and such to make it certifiable. And the 737 is all about commonality, and if there were so many more additions to the 737, a parts store for the -900X would be like adding a new type to the fleet, with the need for spare engines, landing gear, emergency exits, tailskids, etc., that would not be common with the standard 737NG.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
You are correct. I read the article wrong. It indeed would NOT be a stretch, but an strengthening of the existing -900 fuselage, wing and landing gear. Then airlines would not be limited to 189 passengers which both the -800 & -900 are restricted to.