Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wing Differences 737 Classic To 737NG  
User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9873 times:

Can anyone here speak to or point me in the direction on the differences between the 737 Classic wing to the 737NG wing?

In specific, I'm looking for the technical aspects of the wing, as well as what helps allow the NG to fly at higher altitudes..

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

1011yyz


Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9854 times:

For starters the span is about 18 feet longer on the NG. Since the overall planform shape is rather similar the wing area is substantially larger. As to airfoil section differences and highlift devices differences, I'll let my ignorance rule and shut up now.


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9849 times:

I cannot speak to the design of the wing, but I do know some pilots who flew the 737-700 right when it came out. They were qualified on the -300 and on the -700. They loved the -700 and said that it had better handling qualities at slow speed and at high speed. That is vague, but I know that the plane I fly does not really like to fly slow and so I sort of know what he means.

I think that computer modeling of fluid dynamics allowed Boeing to make a better all-around wing.

But like SlamClick will now say I have said enough. I just know that pilots who have flown both say that the new one is better from a pilot's perspective.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9834 times:

I believe the triple-slotted flaps of the original wing were replaced with double-slotted flaps. This reduces weight, maintenance, and flow noise. I’d imagine more powerful engines and the larger wing makes up for any loss in lift.


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineBrettdespain From United States of America, joined May 2005, 178 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9803 times:

The 737 classic wing has a leading edge "cuff" that added maneuvering at low speeds. The NG doesn't have that cuff. Also the NG has a true supercritical airfoil that is very similar in design to the 777's wing. Also, the NG wing is swept back a few more degrees and doesn't have the double swept "cranked wing" that was seen on the 737 classic design and the 727 as well.

Yes, the wing is longer, however aileron placment is the same, the added wing dimension is outboard of the aileron.

The flaps are double slotted now and extend further aft and down. Another interesting bit of trivia is that the most outboard leading edge slat panel is not anti-iced. Thus Boeing has restricted the NG from holding in icing conditions with the flaps extended.

As a side note, the NG is so aerodynamically slippery that you have to plan your descents well in advance as it does not slow down rapidly. The wing is very effecient. Last week on a flight from SLC to DCA we had a payload of 145 pax, flying at FL370 at .80 mach and our fuel flow was just over 5,600 pounds per hour. A similiar flight in a 727 at the same speed would have yielded a fuel flow of about 9,000 pounds per hour.

As to how it flies..... Smile  Smile  Smile  Smile



V1...Rotate.
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1608 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 737 Initial wing was designed for the gross weights that the 737-200 started life at. By the time the aircraft had grown to the Adv models, the wing was overloaded. At cruise, it was flying at a higher lift coefficient than it was designed for, which increased drag.

On the 737 Classic, a new leading edge was added outboard of the engine, that increased chord by 4%. The new leading edge helped abit, allowing the Classics to grow to the highest GW -400, but they were still cruising at high lift coefficients and they were slow (Mcruise=.74 on a good day).

The wing of the 737 NG is much larger (both chord and span), decreasing the wing lift coefficient, plus the airfoil has been redesigned to have a higher drag divergence Mach number. For this reason, the NG can cruise faster and climb higher.

Here is an overlay I created of the 737-200 (black), 737-300 (blue) and 737-700 (magenta) where you can see the differences. This drawing was made using the .dwg files available on the Boeing website.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/Aeroweanie/Overlay.jpg

A little comparison (info from airliners.net):

Initial model wing area: 980 feet^2
737-100 MTOW: 110,000 lbs Wing loading: 112 lbs/feet^2
737-200 MTOW: 129,500 lbs Wing loading: 132 lbs/feet^2

Classic model wing area: 1135 feet^2
737-300 MTOW: 138,500 lbs Wing loading: 122 lbs/feet^2
737-400 MTOW: 150,000 lbs Wing loading: 132 lbs/feet^2
737-500 MTOW: 133,500 lbs Wing loading: 117 lbs/feet^2

NG model wing area: 1344 feet^2
737-600 MTOW: 143,500 lbs Wing loading: 107 lbs/feet^2
737-700 MTOW: 154,500 lbs Wing loading: 115 lbs/feet^2
737-800 MTOW: 174,200 lbs Wing loading: 129 lbs/feet^2
737-900 MTOW: 174,200 lbs Wing loading: 129 lbs/feet^2

See how the wing loading on the Initial and Classic models got really high, while the NG started out lower, allowing more room for growth?

[Edited 2005-12-13 07:06:25]

User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9753 times:

Nice overlay and data AeroWeanie!

The flap system on the 737NG is a great improvement, it was copied from the 757 flap system.

Quoting Brettdespain (Reply 4):
The wing is very effecient. Last week on a flight from SLC to DCA we had a payload of 145 pax, flying at FL370 at .80 mach and our fuel flow was just over 5,600 pounds per hour. A similiar flight in a 727 at the same speed would have yielded a fuel flow of about 9,000 pounds per hour.

Brett, those engines I love on the NG, beside all the ancient clutter and stuff Boeing left on that plane. They're quiet and state of the art (although you still have to manually turn the igniters on all the time, aargh!). But I was amazed even more when riding the jumpseat with some colleages on a 772ER. At FL370 with a GW of 230T (kilos, almost full load) it was burning just 2800 kilos of fuel per hour per engine. Later, checking this on an NG with our full load and 60T gross weight, we we're burning 1200 kg/hr per engine. So the 777 weighed almost 4 times as much and used barely 2.5 times as much fuel. Excellent! So I see it's just a tad more than that 727!

Grbld


User currently offlineBrettdespain From United States of America, joined May 2005, 178 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9732 times:

Hey Grbld,
That 772ER you rode jumpseat on - what engines were those: Pratt, GE or Rolls? It's an amazing aircraft! I have yet to fly on one. The effeciencies offered in the 787 should be even more amazing.

Regards,
Brett



V1...Rotate.
User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9723 times:

It's a KLM 772ER so I think they're GE90s? I don't keep track of all the other engines  Smile

Grbld


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9649 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 5):

Nice Effort Aeroweanie.
The Exterior NG Wing to Fuselage Taper is very streamline compared to that of the Classics.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9542 times:

Thanks everyone for your information..
Aeroweanie, what a fantastic response.. Thanks!

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9499 times:

Quoting Brettdespain (Reply 4):
A similiar flight in a 727 at the same speed would have yielded a fuel flow of about 9,000 pounds per hour.

LoL. You do realize that the 727 has three engines designed in the 60's that may eat a bit more fuel. And that the 727's wing was one of marvel, and is still considered an advanced design.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9419 times:

The triple-slotted flaps of the wing were indeed replaced by double-slotted flaps. In addition, the new wing is considerably greater in span than the old one. To go even further, the engines of the NG are quieter, more fuel efficient, yet produce more thrust than the engines of the 737 classic.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineNonfirm From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9340 times:

Some other changes were the addition of the frangible fitting just under the lip of the wheel wells to prevent gear retraction due to and inbd tire blow out the air cond sys is all different closer to the 200 series also the acm's require no oil also the apu compartment has no more bath tub covering the apu the hole above the apu exhaust provides cooling air for the compartment the brake of the a/c are no longer held on with 10 bolts they are a floating brake like the MD-80 also the Eng cowl are made of sheetmetal again instead of comp's.these are just a few of the other changes.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Wing Differences 737 Classic To 737NG
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
737 Classic Vs. 737NG Flight posted Thu Jan 26 2006 22:34:37 by MrPhoo
Ice Cream Scoop On 737 Classic Wing Pylons? posted Sat Nov 10 2001 01:23:50 by SFOintern
737 SFP To LCY? Why Not Yet? posted Wed Nov 12 2008 09:45:34 by OyKIE
737 Classic Overhead Passenger Controls Question posted Sun Sep 7 2008 15:19:27 by USAirALB
737 Classic Engine Pylon Question posted Fri Feb 29 2008 16:39:28 by UAL747
Do 737 Classic & BAe 146 Have Any Composite? posted Thu Apr 26 2007 05:31:50 by 747400sp
BAe 146/ RJ Vs 737 Classic Which Burn More Fuel? posted Tue Jan 2 2007 00:04:00 by 747400sp
737-700NG To posted Tue Jan 10 2006 15:15:18 by Markyp
L1011/B747-737 Classic Question posted Sun Apr 13 2003 03:34:17 by KFRG
737NG Vs Classic Wing Sweep posted Wed Jun 5 2002 20:30:17 by Barney captain

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format