Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
733 Vs. 73G  
User currently offlineAgnusBymaster From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 652 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

I know the 737-700 is based on the 737-700, but how similar are they? Some differences I notice include a wider wingspan/greater wing area, taller tail, and new engines. And, I know the 73G has a much greater range. However, it seems to me that the fuselage length/width is virtually identical. As far as the passenger cabin is concerned, I know CO uses the same seating configuration (same number of seats) in both the 733 and 73G, so it would seem that the interior dimensions are virtually identical.

Any additional insight?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

You're right the fuselage dimensions have remained very nearly the same, except for length, since the 707 days. The -700 is equivalent to the -300, the -800 to the -400, and the -600 is close to the -100 in size. The materials and assembly methods are better, however. For one thing the fuselage is assembled in one piece in Wichita and delivered by rail to Renton. (Looks funny to see a complete fuselage going by the windows in my favorite restaurant in Parkville MO every so often.) The -900 and -900X rival the 757 in seating capacity.
The NG is using a FADEC (Full Authority Digital Electronic Control [Fly By Wire]) engine, the CFM56-7B, where the classic used the -3 which was primarily cable controlled.
The wing is still a 25deg. sweep but with a deeper dihedral. The flaps have been completely redesigned and are more similar to those on a 757 than the old 737 flaps. The leading edges are still very much the same but the 900X will have sealed slats. All the NG's have one more slat per side than the classics.
The horizontal stabilizer and elevators are much larger and longer as is the vertical stabilizer and rudder. The vertical is also a complete redesign and because of its size the yaw damper only has 2-3deg movement needed to take care of any Dutch Roll tendencies.
The NG's do carry more fuel in basic configuration but that's due to the wing redesign and a larger center tank. The range is more a function of engine improvements and efficiency. The -400 had a range which would allow Boston to Salt Lake or Keflavik, ETOPS wasn't really a consideration. The -800 can fly Boston to Madrid/Paris/London or Los Angeles without Aux tanks. The NG's are delivered ETOPS certified for 1 or 2 hours depending on if the customer wants one or two batteries and cargo fire bottles.
The plane might look and operate, from a crew point of view, like a classic, but from the maintenance point of view they have to be taught completely separately because they aren't the same.
Looks can be deceiving



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

I know the 737-700 is based on the 737-700, but how similar are they?

You mean the 737-700 is based on the 737-300  Big grin

Either way, gotta love the 737's

fb05



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineSonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Avioniker, actually, 737-600 is equivalent of 737-500, not of 737-100

User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Okay, technicalities. (OW, OW, OW!)They both seat about the same (115 plus or minus) but there were only 30 -100's built and, unless the South Americans have bent it, one still flying. Plus the 500 has the 56's and the conformal fairings. (All this trivia and nowhere to put it...)
I did my first interview check flight on an Air Florida -100. We both did badly. (Hardest landing I've ever been involved with, not counting some seat-suckers in the military.) I had the pleasure of putting that plane to pasture in Chandler a few years ago. (That'll teach it to quit flying before I'm ready...)
Cheers, you got me Sonic.



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6294 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Chandler? I know 2 airports in Chandler and have never seen a 737 in either. Doesn't mean I doubt you, just which airport was it?


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineRydawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 864 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Just out of curiousity -- has the 737-900X been announced? Just wondering where I can find more information on it. Also Avioniker mentioned the 737-900x will have sealed slats insted of what they are now...Can you explain what these are?
Ryan
Anchorage, AK



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1656 times:

Here's a good link on the history of the 737

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

Slats, in the simplist explanation, act as an additional lifting surface forward of and separate from the wing. There is airflow between the upper surface of the wing and lower surface of the slat. Sealed slats don't have that air flow between surfaces.

The Chandler airport is what used to be Williams AFB and is now occupied by the Chandler Gilbert branch of the Chandler/Gilbert Community College School of Aviation. They have the plane.



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 733 Vs. 73G
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...
733 Vs. 73G posted Mon Jun 9 2003 12:01:14 by AgnusBymaster
Fuel/Cost Per Seat: 737 Vs. Widebodies? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 05:01:09 by DfwRevolution
74x Vs. 34x posted Wed Dec 13 2006 19:59:41 by Frequentflyer
Vzrc Vs Vso: Attn. Bellerophon posted Sun Dec 10 2006 17:45:39 by Redcordes
733 With Both Ailerons Slightly Up posted Tue Nov 28 2006 23:54:01 by RedFlyer
Aircraft Vs Race Cars: Temps, Wear And Tear, Etc posted Thu Nov 2 2006 07:34:20 by TimePilot
DC-8 Vs 707 Today posted Tue Oct 31 2006 05:49:17 by DLKAPA
Airport Design - Arrival Vs. Departure Floor posted Wed Oct 25 2006 05:08:15 by Abrelosojos
HF Vs VHF Vs UHF R/T Frequencies Useage posted Fri Oct 20 2006 08:28:34 by BOACVC10
757 Vs 767 posted Tue Oct 17 2006 23:57:59 by Freight400

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format