Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737-800 & A320 Most Succesful Commercial Subtypes?  
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 840 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2397 times:

A320 has over 4539 orders.... don't know if that includes any military or vip deriviates. These reflects planes with either the CFM56-5B, VS2500, Leap-X & GTF engines.

Clearly a remarkable airplane.

The Boeing 737-800 has over 3722 orders... That is not counting 22 800A types for military appications or 19 BBJ2 jets.
This number reflects only CFM56-7&7E engines.

That is a substantial number of orders for 1 subtype with only 1 engine.

These two model/subtypes represent the most succesful commerical applications ever (DC-3s dont count...most were military first).

[Edited 2011-06-16 15:34:37]


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting odwyerpw (Thread starter):
These two model/subtypes represent the most succesful commerical applications ever (DC-3s dont count...most were military first).

As you say, very successful but I certainly wouldn't say correct as written as in "ever".....reason being you are not seemingly looking at them being relative to what exactly. With the explosion in air travel over the last 20 years for instance, I don't feel you can accurately compare their 'success' numerically speaking against certain aircraft of the 70's or 80's. In those two decades as just an example, there was absolutely no need to have the number of aircraft needed today......so hence how can you compare from a nurmerical perspective?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2105 times:

Yeah, and routes flown by several narrowbodies now, were flown by single widebodies back in the day (including the A300 that was made for this and that I regret deeply).


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

What are the figures if we include the Boeing 737-300/400/500/600/700/800/900/900ER (I exclude the B737-100/200 because those were planes from a different era and not really compareble. A better benchmark for them I guess is the MD-80) as well as the A318/A319/A320/A321/A32XNEO?

User currently onlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 2):
including the A300 that was made for this and that I regret deeply).

May I ask why? The A300 wasn't bad and started something greater.
Either you feel Airbus should have started with a narrowbody or a long range twin instead, or Airbus shouldn't have started at all and we would still have Sud, Fokker, Douglas and Lockheed?



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

The Most Succesful Commercial Subtype can only be one.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4):
May I ask why? The A300 wasn't bad and started something greater.

It's the first plane I flew when I was a kid, to go to Germany, and the last widebody I have flown to date (A306 from Tunisair), I meant I regret it's almost disappeared.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 3):
What are the figures if we include the Boeing 737-300/400/500/600/700/800/900/900ER (I exclude the B737-100/200 because those were planes from a different era and not really compareble. A better benchmark for them I guess is the MD-80)

The 737 Classic (-300/-400/-500) is really most comparable to the MD-80. The 737-100 and -200 are comparable to the DC-9. And the Classic and -100/-200 are more similar to each other than either is to the NG (-600/-700/-800/-900).

The straightforward comparison is really A320 series versus 737NG. And of course from these series the A320 and 738 are the volume sellers.

The DC-3 remains the most successful commercial type of all time. After that, it depends on whether you count the entire 737 family together. Personally, I don't, because I feel the 737NG was pretty much an all-new aircraft. It would be like counting the A300 and A330 in the same family. So I think the A320 is the next most successful type, followed by the 737NG.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
The DC-3 remains the most successful commercial type of all time

I don't disagree, but how are you defining "most successful"......relating to what aspect?


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1614 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
The straightforward comparison is really A320 series versus 737NG. And of course from these series the A320 and 738 are the volume sellers.

Google is your friend.

Model Total Orders Total Delivered
737-100 30 30
737-200 991 991
737-200C 104 104
737-T43A 19 19
737-300 1113 1113
737-400 486 486
737-500 389 389
737-600 69 69
737-700 1487 1021
737-700C 12 12
737-700BBJ 115 101
737-800 3033 1792
737-800BBJ 18 14
737-900 52 52
737-900ER 244 67
737-900BBJ 9 2
Total: 8337 6262

Here is what I find for Airbus:

A-318 83 74
A-319 1485 1290
A320 4539 2681
A-321 920 650
Total 7027 4696


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Numbers aren't quite right... you list 3022 for 737-800, but Boeings own site shows 3722.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
I don't disagree, but how are you defining "most successful"......relating to what aspect?

Over 15,000 built.


User currently offlineGingerSnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Over 15,000 built.

Most were military AFAIK.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineflyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 699 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Over 15,000 built.

Well, now you're counting already the Lisunov Li-2 into the numbers. All those Li-2s were definitely not commercial aircraft. Neither were the C47s when prouced... And if we're talking about commercial subtypes, I don't think we can group DC-3, C-47 and Li-2 into one.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1379 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8):
I don't disagree, but how are you defining "most successful"......relating to what aspect?

Over 15,000 built.

But how many of those were originally built as civil DC-3s? I believe well under 1,000.


User currently offlinescarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1360 times:

Apologies for the confusion but how can the A320 be categorized as a subtype? There is only one. The subtypes for the A320 would then be the A318/19 & 21.
The Beechcraft King Air series should be there somewhere with successful subtypes as it has been in continuous production since 1964.

Brgds



No faults found......................
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1360 times:

Quoting GingerSnap (Reply 12):
Most were military AFAIK.
Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 13):
And if we're talking about commercial subtypes, I don't think we can group DC-3, C-47 and Li-2 into one.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
But how many of those were originally built as civil DC-3s? I believe well under 1,000.

Uncle!  

I think even a military version of a type designed for civilian use counts. After all, we count E-3s and the like as 707s and KC-767s as 767s.

But it's a fair point, and if you take out military DC-3s, then the A320 is the most successful subtype ever, plain and simple, with the 738 as runner-up.

[Edited 2011-06-17 15:14:24]

User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1320 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Over 15,000 built.

Sure, and again I wouldn't disagree but you can't class those as 15,000 civil aircraft. Most were military so, by the same vein, one would have to include the Spitfire, Hurricane or Lancaster going down that road.......and a different ball game altogether.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 16):
I think even a military version of a type designed for civilian use counts. After all, we count E-3s and the like as 707s and KC-767s as 767s.

I can see your point (as in we being a.net), but the likes of a KC-767 is a totally different numerical entity from the vast numbers of DC3's built for military use. As a matter of curiosity though, was the DC3 actually a military version of a civilian aircraft, or a civilian version of a military aircraft?

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):
Google is your friend.

And what exactly were the search parameters?


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1301 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17):
As a matter of curiosity though, was the DC3 actually a military version of a civilian aircraft, or a civilian version of a military aircraft?

It was designed as a civilian aircraft in the '30s and then turned into a military craft in WWII.

But counting all the C-47s and Li-2s as exclusively military aircraft is also a bit simplistic, because many (most?) of them saw civilian service after the war. The DC-3 was *the* short-haul airliner all the way into the '60s.


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...
Are recent Boeing 737-800 incidents related? posted Mon Jan 4 2010 06:27:31 by L33roy94
Gust Of Wind Pushes Boeing 737-800 (Video) posted Sun Aug 3 2008 10:27:56 by Amritpal
Awas Orders Up To 50 Boeing 737-800 posted Fri Dec 14 2007 07:24:56 by Danny
Gulf Air Boeing 737-800? posted Fri Oct 12 2007 09:28:42 by Airevents
Boeing 737-800 Vs Dehavilland Q400 posted Tue Oct 10 2006 10:50:50 by Cumulus
First Boeing 737-800 For HLX - Future Of Hapagfly? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 19:09:29 by PlaneHunter
Jet Airways To Buy 10 Boeing 737-800 posted Fri Apr 15 2005 03:34:45 by BoeingBus
Boeing 737-800 Climbing Speed posted Thu Mar 18 2004 00:53:12 by FlightLover
Boeing 737-800's For Lease? posted Fri Aug 22 2003 11:51:57 by Cyprus-turkish
New China Southern Airlines Boeing 737-800 posted Fri Aug 23 2002 23:35:03 by Singapore_Air