Wilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1182 posts, RR: 3 Posted (14 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 983 times:
I had my first experience around a NG 737 this weekend and was very disapointed with the aircrafts ground noise. The APU sounded just as loud as the "classics" and hanging around under the wing was also just as loud. I guess I have been spoiled around the 717, and event he DC-9. The Hamilton Sundstrand APU on the 717 is beautifuly quiet. Not to start an A vs B vs M war again, but technicly what makes the 737 such a loud aircraft, you don't have that horrible whine under the wings of a DC-9 MD-80 or a 717 that you get off of a Boeing. I can understand the 727s ground noise due to the location of its APU, but my impression of the NG 737 at least from a ground handeling standpoint was low. I know B wants to keep commonality with the Classics every where they can, and I like the Honeywell VIA 2000 avionics, but still my overall impression of the aircraft was it was still a 737 where the 717 also having the VIA 2000 avionics had alot of improvments over the DC-9.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 950 times:
Hmmm, I find the 737, even the -300/-400/-500s to be quiet. Sure you did not put in your grandmothers hearing aid my mistake? Technically, the NG is one of the most advanced birds out there, and many of our fellow users here who work with the beauty can back that up. Even ground handling, and the many systems have been improved over the classics. Alot of the technologies used on the 777 were integrated into the NG. And if im not mistaken, the NG is in fact more "advanced" if you will, than the 717.
JT-8D From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 423 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (14 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 933 times:
I dont know where to begin with this one. First, an airplanes noise level on the gate is so totally unimportant, its not worthy of noting. To judge an entire aircraft type as "outdated" because its loud on the gate is incorrect. The only reason the dc-9 series is a bit less noisey, is because the apu exhaust is above the right engine. This causes problems from a maintainance point of view. This slight "advantage" is also offset by the fact that the inlet is on the bottom of the plane, and is prone to picking up all manner of junk from the ramp. It also is not required to deliver nearly as much air to start the engines as the apu on the 737(at least the cfm equiped ones). Not trying to be rude, but what is a Hamilton Sunstrand apu? As I stated earlier in another post, I have problems with the NG avionics systems too. Although some test procedures have been "streamlined", the overall product is more maintainance intensive than the -300 series. Again, Im not trying to be rude, but Im not sure I understand the real purpose of the original post?..JT
Wilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1182 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (14 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 934 times:
Hamilton Sunstrand makes the APU for the 717 along with alot of the airbus and Avro RJs. I guess my question was trying to see what others thought of it, this was only the first time I was around one, and it just didnt impress me as being such a great aircraft.
My First Impression (from a poor college studnet working as a bag smahser's standpoint)
* The longer landing gear for the newer CFM-56 engines makes it harder to access the cargo bins
* The noise in the aft cargo and surrounding the wing is loud
* A good part of bin 4 (aft cargo bin) is occupied with the vaccum toilet system
*The floor of the cargo bin is sheet metal (fiberglass floors in the MDC products wear out and are easily damagedI know but when they are new and fresh bags sure slide nice)
*Ground service connections seem haphazardly placed (pneumatic start HVAC Lavs etc) I never was a fan of the Ground power connector being on the starboard side, but I see the point if you are using a GPU
*Fire Detection equipment looks fragile and inadequatly protected from a bag smasher
on the good side, I like
* Towbar is easy to attach/detach
* Cargo bins are roomy
* CFM-56 engines take far less time to start then BR-715s on the 717, I dont know if the FADEC for the 717 is checking more paramaters, but the engines spooled up lit off and stabalized much faster then the 717s .
From an airline standpoint, I love the 737. The commonality that makes me see it as a dinosaur, is the same commonality that saves carriers money. I know southest was very happy with the EFIS on their NG's displaying analog gagues on the PFDs.
Just curious, the loud whine that you get under the wing of a 737 from the hydrylics. Why is that not present on the MDC products. Hanging around the wing of a MDC product all I nroamyl will hear is the rush of the air into the intacts, and if i am on the port side, and i go forward the avionics cooling fan.