AgnusBymaster
Topic Author
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 8:11 am

733 Vs. 73G

Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:01 pm

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?
 
avioniker
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 5:38 am

RE: 733 Vs. 73G

Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:33 am

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
 
flyingbronco05
Posts: 3484
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 11:43 am

RE: 733 Vs. 73G

Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:45 am

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
 
Sonic
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 3:10 am

RE: 733 Vs. 73G

Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:08 am

Avioniker, actually, 737-600 is equivalent of 737-500, not of 737-100
 
avioniker
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 5:38 am

RE: 733 Vs. 73G

Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:30 am

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
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: 733 Vs. 73G

Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:12 pm

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?
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
RyDawg82
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:30 am

RE: 733 Vs. 73G

Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:39 pm

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.
 
avioniker
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 5:38 am

RE: 733 Vs. 73G

Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:32 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests