Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737-100/200 Certificated In Just 8 Months?  
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3686 times:

http://www.b737.org.uk/history.htm

From the above link:

Quote:
9 Apr 1967: First flight of 737-100.

8 August 1967: First flight of 737-200, the 5th 737 to fly.

15 Dec 1967: FAA Type certification of 737-100 and -200.

I suppose there is the commonality of the fuselage/nose with the 707/727 but it stills seems miraculous that certification just took 8 months for:

- 2 different airliner versions;
- with a novel engine installation; and
- IIRC, the latest, state of the art flight control system (later implemented on on the 747).

How was this acheived? Was it just a case of everything going right all the time?


Faro

[Edited 2012-07-17 03:50:50]


The chalice not my son
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2444 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3654 times:

Your dates looks correct, except the FAA TCDS shows 737-200's TC was granted December 21, 1967.
An amazing feat in today's certification environment. I assume that much of this is due to a lower level of FAA oversight and scrutiny, which still resulted in a very safe aircraft. Makes on wonder if today's certification requirements add much more than complexity, time and money.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

DC-9

First flight Feb 25, 1965
Certification Dec 8, 1965

One factor cited which is very different than today is that Douglas put five completed aircraft into the flight certification program. Today one, sometimes two aircraft are used. It is simply too costly for the manufacturer to 'waste' airframes on the certification process.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3157 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3556 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
Today one, sometimes two aircraft are used. It is simply too costly for the manufacturer to 'waste' airframes on the certification process.

Didn't the 787 use six airframes for certification?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3525 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
How was this acheived? Was it just a case of everything going right all the time?

Two big contributors:
1) Boeing already had the 367-80 (aka "Dash 80") in flight. They knew almost all the answers, which really cuts down the number of surprises during certification.
2) The number of FAR's to comply with was *far* lower back then.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 3):
Didn't the 787 use six airframes for certification?

Eight.

4 dedicated flight test aircraft for RR, 2 dedicated flight test aircraft for GE, plus ZA102 for RR ETOPS/F&R and ZA236 for GE ETOPS/F&R.

Tom.


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
- IIRC, the latest, state of the art flight control system (later implemented on on the 747).

Actually the B737-100/200 flight control system wasn't that complicated and was more like the one on the B727. The B747 flight control system is immensely more complicated and state-of-the-art than the B737.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
1) Boeing already had the 367-80 (aka "Dash 80") in flight. They knew almost all the answers, which really cuts down the number of surprises during certification.

Does that mean that the initial design 737 was intentionally made to resemble the 367-80 as close as possible? The 737 seems on the face of it to be quite a different beast, substantially lighter, with a new smaller, high-lift wing and new empennage.


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 6):
Does that mean that the initial design 737 was intentionally made to resemble the 367-80 as close as possible?

I don't think that was an explicit design goal, but it's basically the same nose/flight deck/fuselage and the systems are pretty close to the 727. They reused a lot of material from the Dash-80/707/727.

Quoting faro (Reply 6):
The 737 seems on the face of it to be quite a different beast, substantially lighter, with a new smaller, high-lift wing and new empennage.

That's true, but those are rarely the things that get you in flight test. It's structure (no real philosophy or material or process change from the 727), technology (no real change from the Dash-80/707/727), systems (no real change from the 727) that usually get you.

Tom.


User currently offlineaeroweanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3208 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Actually, its pretty remarkable that the 737-100 was certified so fast. I know that they had a flight test incident involving severe damage to the slats at dive conditions. They also had the thrust reverser problem, where the use of the thrust reversers actually increased stopping distances. Fortunately for Boeing, landing lengths don't take credit for thrust reversing.

User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3157 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

Quoting aeroweanie (Reply 8):
They also had the thrust reverser problem, where the use of the thrust reversers actually increased stopping distances. Fortunately for Boeing, landing lengths don't take credit for thrust reversing.

Before someone asks the obvious question "why", I think I know. The original short engine on the -100/-200 was very close to the wing. Reverse thrust blew air back over the wing which gave some lift, thus decreasing the effectiveness of the brakes. The solution was to lengthen the tail cone of the engine a bit, which pulled the reverse thrust away from the wing.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3545 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 9):
The original short engine on the -100/-200 was very close to the wing. Reverse thrust blew air back over the wing which gave some lift, thus decreasing the effectiveness of the brakes. The solution was to lengthen the tail cone of the engine a bit, which pulled the reverse thrust away from the wing.

Sort of correct. The lift came more from the high pressure area the reverse thrust created under the wing.

As you say, the solution was lengthening the cowling to put the reverser aft of the wing.

A case where using an exisiting design (727 thrust reverser) didn't work out in practice.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1638 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3125 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):
As you say, the solution was lengthening the cowling to put the reverser aft of the wing.

Didn't they also reorient the buckets from straight up and down to being more angled? I can't remember for sure.



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3545 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting N243NW (Reply 11):
Didn't they also reorient the buckets from straight up and down to being more angled? I can't remember for sure.

Yes, the extended tail pipe angled the reverser buckets. This resulted in fuselage sonic fatigue issues many years later.

I believe the initial reverser orientation was left and right rather than up and down.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3545 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

Here are pictures showing the original thrust reverser design:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufth...d=cabd947cb5cb6c1eaa54c2e042798cef

And the modified design:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufth...d=cabd947cb5cb6c1eaa54c2e042798cef

Looking at the original design, it confirms my recollection that the reverser initial reverser operation deployed the buckets left and right.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 737-100/200 Certificated In Just 8 Months?
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...
% Of Used Material In 737-100/200 Design posted Tue May 29 2001 23:38:12 by Junior
Reverse Thrust, 737-100,200? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 20:59:51 by Magoonis
727-100 Or 737-100/200, Which Has Better..... posted Tue Jul 8 2003 21:04:51 by John
737-100/200 Info Wanted posted Sun Nov 10 2002 16:06:04 by LZ-TLT
Yellow Streaks On 737-200 Engines In-flight..... posted Wed Jan 19 2005 18:42:41 by UK_Dispatcher
737-200 Pin In Cockpit posted Sun Mar 11 2001 06:02:02 by Wilcharl
737 Classic Rudder PCU In Europe posted Tue Jun 21 2011 08:21:37 by aerobus12
Saab 340 And Dash 8 100/200 Operating Costs posted Tue Aug 31 2010 11:28:37 by thegreatRDU
747-100/200 Staircase? posted Fri Jul 23 2010 06:54:17 by alitalia744
Question About The 737-100 Design posted Sat Jul 26 2008 03:11:07 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format