Talk:Boeing 737/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Flight Sim Image

can we please get rid of that massive and useless flightsim image. nearly 1mb and 1149x706 pixels makes no sense what so ever.

WHATTTT we can edit this page???

Hoolie doolie! Do we really need all those images? Tannin 13:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, we don't, even though I took 7 of the 8! I've noticed that someone is copying pics from airline pages and piling them onto aircraft pages without regard for those with slow internet connections. I've started to do something about it (see Boeing 747) by mentioning in the pic caption that other pics are available and giving a list at the bottom of the article.

Adrian Pingstone 14:57, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to revisit this. Now we have a ton of links for "images." It would be easier to just say "Aircraft which use the 737," except that then we'd pretty much be listing every aircraft in the world. At some point, this is going to become superfluous. Everyone seems to want to add their pet airline. -Joseph 02:15, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

MMA Photo

I added a photo of the MMA. Since it is considerably different in appearance from a normal 737, I hope we can leave it - Joseph

No problem that I can see, it's a useful image. I can't comment on any copyright issues,
Adrian Pingstone 19:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Since it's from a press release, it's fine. -Joseph 02:46, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

no main landing gear covers

I read that 737s do not have covers (ie doors) for their main landing gears. is this true?

Yes. -Joseph (Talk) 21:44, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
But they do have hub-caps that help fair the airflow over the exposed wheels.Akradecki 22:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There are covers only for the legs (struts). The wheels and tires remain uncovered, but with hubcaps, as mentioned by Akradecki. --RRMola 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

David Allen

Doesn't David Allen Own one of these, perhaps we should put that in there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fullmetaboy (talk • contribs) 11:15, November 3, 2005.

To which David Allen are you referring? --Rogerd 17:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Triple edit

There was a problem with the "britair" photograph positioning near the 737-400 subsection which caused the "edit" links to line up three on a line overwritten by the article text. I've moved the pic slightly, but there's still a bit of overwriting. Looks a bit odd, but maybe it's my browser (Firefox)? --Jumbo 02:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god, tracking 737 orders?

There are so many of these, it will rapidly consume the entire page. If anything, that should be kept to List of Boeing 737 operators. It's not like the low-volume 787 or A350 order sheets. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I see how large it is, I agree. Maybe we could move it to Boeing 737 Orders or something like that? Callumm 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What about using a standard name scheme like Boeing 737/Orders fo all airliner articles with an orders section ? These orders are not really important within article and they require a lot of maintenance/updates. The potential customer list should be moved into this subarticle,too. --Denniss 11:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it should vary depending upon the size of the table. I know certain ones (the 787 table) gets referenced a lot, and it's smaller so it's not so bad to have it inline. But the 737 table should be combined with the List of 737 Operators that already exists. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Either way seems appropriate to me, although combining it with List of Boeing 737 operators is probably the most sensible. Callumm 18:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So is it OK to move it to List of Boeing 737 operators? Callumm 17:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any objections. Please do a nice merge with the existing data, or ask for help if you need it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I have moved it to its own page: List of Boeing 737 orders because it still cluttered up the page of operators. Feel free to move it if you object to this, though. Callumm 16:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, just link to Boeing's page on this, and discourage order tracking on this page.. --Cliffb 05:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

B737-400 Largest Fleet

The article states Qantas as having the largest fleet of 737-400. I always thought that Malaysia Airlines, with 39 737-400 on its fleet, is the largest operator of this type.

Just a thought...KAIsmail 08:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Qantas only has 21 737-400 (source: http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Qantas.htm) have now updated the article. Callumm 19:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

actually Alaska Airlines has the 40 400s in their fleet. 38 are pax, one is a fixed combi (3 palet) and one converted all freigter. also I wanted to point out that Alaska also has 90 737s in thier fleet which should rank them ahead of Delta. can this be changed?

Is it really appropriate to track who has the largest fleet of whatever on the main 737 article? Ryanmac06 06 December 2006

737 crash !

one of these planes has just crashed at birmingham airport. i believe it is a commercial version, probably the -300 by the look of it. Ann O'Rack

I beleive it is the 300 version. It has the high-bypass CFM56 series engines. 136.8.152.14 10:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Kevin.

You could be right kevin , it definately didnt sound like the older Pratt & Whitney engines as it flew overhead ( as fitted to the earlier versions ) , and didnt look quite as long as the 400 series ( 1.83m longer than a 300 ) 136.8.152.13 10:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Ann O'Rack

I can confirm it is the 737-300. It is a TNT airways flight and if memory serves me correctly they have a total of 6 of these currently in their fleet. The only other planes they have are Bae 146s and Airbus A300s off the top of my head, so it must be the good old 300 series (my personal favourite). 136.8.152.14 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Kevin

Thanks for that nigel , do you know why it crashed ? , i couldnt help but notice it only had one wheel lowered as it flew over my spotting post - was this the reason for it's crash landing at Birmingham Airport (UK) this morning ? . I was also quite excited to notice that the wheel ( that was lowered ) was equipped with a dunlop 390x10.0x 200 Z series tyre - is this the normal fitment ? 136.8.152.13 10:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Ann O'Rack

Apparantley the reason for the E landing was the landing gear failure.

I think the standard fitment for the tyres on the nose were Dunlop 27 x 7.75 - 15 or 27 x 7.75 - R15 and the main wheels were H43.5 x 16.0 - 21 or H44.5 x 16.5 - 21 but dont quote me on that i am not with my spotting notes at the moment. If it was fitted with the dunlop 390x10.0x 200 Z series tyre then it is most unusal. Did you manage to see anything else of interest at your spotting post Ann? Do you have a favourite 737 series. Mine is defiantely the 300 series....i love them. Nearly as good as the Airbus A321-200. 136.8.152.14 10:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Kevin

Yes - my favorite 737 series is definately the NG ( new generation ) 600 series - they had lovely upholstery on the crew seats, and a bigger toilet for those 'mile high club' moments ;-) . Nothing else of note from my spotting post today , except for a rare Lockheed Electra Junior which i beleive is only one of 10 left ( operational) in existence. You've got me intruiged about that tyre that i spotted now - i'm going to have to go and do some research on that - thanks !!!! 136.8.152.13 11:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Ann

I wouldnt know about mile high club moments Ann, i have never engaged or will enage in such activities myself! To be perfectly honest im disgusted that anyone could bring themselves to do that on such a beautiful aircraft. Goodbye!!! 136.8.152.14 11:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Kevin

I deleted the Octoer 29, 2006 crash since this involved a Boeing 727 not a 737. I already updated the info on the Boeing 727 page

WestJet in infobox

I added WestJet into the aircraft info box. Although the number of 737s they possess is less compared to other airlines, their fleet is made up entierly of 737s

The infobox is not there to fill in each and every company using B737! The airlines listed there should not exceed 5 unless there are more with a similar high number of planes. It is also only used to reflect planes actuallay flying and not flying + orders. --Denniss 04:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Range

We need range figures for each model of 737. I think this is one of the few major airliners that is missing it. - MSTCrow 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I assume it would be best in the specifications rather then in the text describing each model? skyskraper 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Boeing 737-300]] is changed to [[Boeing 737#737-300 |Boeing 737-300]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 14 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Is Southwest buying 737-800s?

Southwest has only been buying new 737-700s; are they now purchasing the 737-800? The two variants are very similar, with the major difference being passenger capacity, and the accompanying structural changes. As they both have the same type rating (I think), adding -800s would make sense on Southwest's larger-capacity routes. Anyway, unless we can confirm this soon, we need to delete it. -BillCJ 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's unsourced vandalism. Remove it. A 737-800 would require a fourth flight attendant, which would throw off Southwest's operations simplicity. Not happening. FCYTravis 10:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Gol Flight 1907

I added information about the victims of Gol Flight 1907 to keep coherence with the other accident reports in this article... Although it is already certain that it was indeed a collision, I kept the "aparent" because there isn't a conclusive and final report yet...The Legacy's pilot blame for the accident is subject of investigation. DFV10 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Related content

Fnnlayson, sorry about changing the link. I was under the assumption that we were listing aricles, not aircraft. - BillCJ 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Closer on the name. I would have changed Boeing T-43 to T-43 but that was already taken. Some aircraft articles have the manufacturer's name linked but not bolded with the aircraft name/designation. -Fnlayson 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Boeing T-43 is the correct name for the article; T-43 only would be incorrect. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft): US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt. Where there is no name, or where the name is not in general use, use the manufacturer and number instead (bold added): Lockheed U-2, Convair B-36, General Dynamics F-111. Where there are many names, none of them clearly the most common, use manufacturer and number: Curtiss P-40, Douglas DC-3.

As to a name for the T-43, I seem to vaguely recall the name Navigator, but it's not in any of my sources, so I may be mistaken. - BillCJ 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

T-43 Navigator is correct per this Boeing source [1]. The name comes from the fact that these were used to train navigators, back in the good ol' days before 2-man cockpits! Akradecki 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Because the above article only refs the name in the title (and it could be read one of two ways), here's an additional source: [2]. However, it must be noted that this is a "popular" name, not an official Air Force name. As far as the DoD is concerned, the aircraft has no name, per [3] Akradecki 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I had missed the second part about no name with the designation. Thanks. I couldn't find the T-43's name on the USAF's site. -Fnlayson 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

737 Userbox

For 737 fans, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.

{{Template:User boeing 737}}
This user is a Boeing 737 fan.

Note that this is not attached to any category, and so it just places this userbox on your page.--PremKudvaTalk 04:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please update the Specifications table

Can someone please add the technical details of the 737-900/ER into the Specifications table. There is this page on BCA's pages http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_900ERtech.html. I tried but couldn't do it. Thanks. xeryus 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

the 900 would complicate matters. It has not been a popular variant (i know, i know, there have been recent orders for this plane but still not as popular as 700 or 800). Also there are two versions of 900, which one do we put? Also there are two versions of 900ER with Auxilary tanks and without. Which do we put? I say keep it the way it is. Its nice and simple. 1 from classic, 2 from second generation, and 2 from current generation. Thats my two cents.--70.71.23.132 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I would actually suggest that we split it up; one subtable for each generation of 737. I don't see a good reason not to add the additional info, though I do agree that one single table with them all would be too clumsy. Georgewilliamherbert 07:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to split it that way, then do it roughly by role...eg. one table for the 737-100/-200/-500/-600, etc... —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Splitting in two tables would be great, one table for the discontinued models and another one for the current models. xeryus 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... Ok. I was thinking that each generation was the most logical breakpoint, (100, 200), (300, 400, 500), (600, 700, 800, 900). They have similar engine, systems, and in general wing major revisions. That would also keep a chronologically consistent order in the tables.
Joseph's idea for the split by role (presumably to keep like-capacity planes together) also makes some sense. That would show the technical progression in each size category, but break the overall chronology flow. Sort of a "Light" "Medium" "Heavy" subcategory breakdown as it were, I guess.
Xeryus, I guess you'd suggest just two tables, one for the 100-500s, and one for 600-900s? Do you have a strong reason to prefer just two, and not three tables, one per generation? What do you think of Joseph's one-per-size-class category idea?
More input sought! Georgewilliamherbert 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think splitting in two tables would give us a better overview of the 737 family, one table for the discontinued models and the other for the still in production models including the NG-models. 100-500 series discontinued, 600-900, the NGs, series only in production. Splitting in two tables makes therefore more sense, in providing the data of these in two seperate tables. And I didn't know that were three generations of the 737s. So, it was just a suggestion to add the 900 into the table and then came the idea to split up the tables. Or we could only update the table with the current 737s. xeryus 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It used to be more apparent that there were three generations. However, someone reformatted the text so that it is not as obvious. We need to take steps to clarify this to at least some degree. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the specification table, I can make one if you guys want for all the variants. Its december and I have exams for my masters degree, but I can do the table this week.--Bangabalunga 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Drastic changes

Why is there so much drastic changes happening here at 737? What was wrong with the variants from 100-900? --Bangabalunga 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have re-added sub-headings for each major number (100, 200, etc.), and separated out the sub-variants also. I have also made adjustments to the placements of the pics to pravent lage blank spaces in the text. I like the cockpit pics being side by side, but to prevent text from getting caught between the text, have placed them above a heading. I also intend to check the old versions of the text, and restore some deleted sections if necessary. In the future, please avoid making such drastic changes without discussing it first, as most editors here appear to have been satisfied with the article as it was. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If article length was the primary reason for deleting much of the text, then perhaps it is time to consider splitting off some of the variants into a separate article. The Next-Gen models wwould probably be the best for this, as there content is continually growing, while as the others are out of production, and not likely to change much. The 747 currently has separate articles for the SP, -400, LCF, and -8. While 4 may be too many, two would be fine for the 737. I am not proposing a split at this time, though I would probably support one. - BillCJ 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I will indeed start a discussion before making such changes. I do agree that indivudal pages for certain aspects of this page are worthwhile. There's a lot of interesting history with each variant that can't be put on a single page without creating an absolute mess. Ryanmac06
Your editing and rewriting skills are great! I envy you; all I can manage is minor tweaking of what's already there. But I like tweaking, it's fun for me. If you want to try rewording while keeping the content whole, have at it. - BillCJ 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, we already have five other 737 articles. I disagree with splitting it off. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the only article on the major airliner variants. In addition, this article is probably longer than all 5 variant articles put together. However, there are a lot of other articles a lot longer than this one, so I'm fine leving it as it is. - BillCJ 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have the weakest Boeing 737 article on the internet. There are fan articles made by people that are better. Look at www.B737.org.uk for example. There is no reason why we cant do this. I know a great deal about the 737. I even flew from San Francisco to Chicago midway in the cockpit in the jump seat once (6 years ago). This is what I propose: Lets all get together and split the section in 9 pieces for the 9 variants. Each one us us choose 1 variant, research it for a week, then place a nice big fat 2-4 paragraphs of info here. Then our 9 variants would fill up with good info. Look at 737-300. Its sad. A model with a 1000 sales has 2 lines written on it. We can do better. However we have to work as a team and help each other.--Bangabalunga 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Area 51

Relocated from User talk:BillCJ:

You reverted the edits by that fellow about the 737s and Area 51. Actually, that is fact. There is a fleet based at some airport, I forget. Check out Area 51 commuters on Area 51. Of course you won't find mention of "Janet Airways" on CNN though. :P

Moved by - BillCJ 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the most produced commercial airliner?

The Douglas DC-3's production is nearly double. 10,655 DC-3s were built at Santa Monica, California and Long Beach, California in both civil and military versions. 2000 or so were built in Russia, under license, as the Lisunov Li-2 (NATO reporting name: Cab). 485 were built in Japan, as the L2D Type 0 transport. {{unsigned|141.157.157.100]]

The key word there was "commercial": Of the 10,000 DC-3s built, a large majority (over 9000, IIRC) were built for military use. Nonetheless, it is the most ordered and produced commercial jet airliner of all time. This discrepancy certainly did not warrant a "dispute" tag. You could have added "jet" (as has now been done, for the time being), or simply mentioned it here. Any way, once we have the numbers and sources on DC-3 military production, I see no problem taking "jet" out off there, and rewording it just a bit for clarity. - BillCJ 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

-200 Advanaced image placement

  • Earlier I moved -200 Advanced image to that section, but that move was reverted. For my browser and settings, the look did not change at all. Things are different with IE it seems. -Fnlayson 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I do use IE7, and it does seem to act wierd sometimes. Whenever there's a pic, then a short paragraph, then another pic, the pics will stack up on the right, but there will be a text gap on the left until the text begins in the next paragraph after the second pic. - BillCJ 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sister ship

An IP editer has added It is considered sister ship to the Boeing 777 in its next generation variants. twice today. The 737 is not a 'ship' and is not a sister ship of the 777 either. A sister ships are ships of the same class, i.e. same type. -Fnlayson 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth keeping without a source. Thanks for deleting it. - BillCJ 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. I wanted to put something in Talk in case it gets added again. -Fnlayson 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I think what the user means is that the 737 next-gens share alot of features/technology with the 777. However, the user does not seem proficient in English, and the wording is badly written. Anyway, without a source of any kind, it is OR, and weasel-wordy also ("is considered"). - BillCJ 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Specification table

The Spec table has many more rows than most Airliner articles I see. Can we cut this down to a more basic set, like the 767 or 747 have? Doing that will allow room for 2 tables to cover more variants. -Fnlayson 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - BillCJ 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, Why are we limiting information for people? Isn't the more info the better? After all this is an encyclopedia. I think rather than cutting back on the 737 specifications, we should expand the specs on other planes. Most of the specification on the 737 were added by me. I can do so for other planes as well when I get more time. Do you not agree? Marcus --Bangabalunga 03:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What are sources you use for extra data? I can't readily find anything to check the info say if someone changes it. -Fnlayson 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
All the specs come from Boeing "detailed technical charecteristics". The only one that I had to dig hard was the weight of the PW engine. I had to ask an old PW employee to get it for me. All other specs are available online. If you dig on Boeing.com you can get a lot of specs, blueprints, designs, and info on their models. You can also always e-mail Boeing.--Bangabalunga 05:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gravelkitted B737-200

Anyone have any info about these aircrafts, which where able to land on gravel-strips, how many of the 991 B732s where built this way? Alaska Airlines had 9, retired their last recently. RGDS Alexmcfire

Range - Not Long Range

A number of edits have been made to the lead text trying to describe the aircraft as 'long range'. This is not true. The 737 is best described as short to medium range. Yes it has longer range than say the A321, or the E Jets, but that does not mean it is a long range aeroplane. To quote Boeing's site given as the first external link: "The 737 - a short-to-medium-range airplane". The longest range aircraft in the family (737-700ER) has a maximum range of 5,510nm, while the 737-700 comes in at 3,365nm and the 737-900ER at 3,200nm with two auxilliary tanks. This compares with 7,700nm for the 777-200ER, and 7,260nm for the 747-400. These are long range aircraft. The 737 is not. Please do not make keep changing the introduction to try and say that it is. Nick Moss 08:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it range is a general sense. It compares to all airliners, not just narrow bodies. What is long range changes as longer range planes are introduced. -Fnlayson 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Incidents section

The "Recent Incidents" section seems like a useful place for incidents which have happened since the last updating of the "Accidents Summary" statistics, currently Jan 1, 2007. The section isn't labeled to only be about recent "major" incidents so the fact that the crash "only" killed 6 people died and caused a hull lose, [4] seems to me to qualify for this section. If not, I would suggest the section is mis-titled.

Done. - BillCJ 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

deliveries list

How about deleting 1966, where it lists "0" deliveries. In 1965, there were also none and so forth.Archtrain 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

the eyelids

the 4 small windows above the copit window is no longer made, is that on the main page? Jerrycobra 04:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "Eyebrow windows" are mnetioned in the description section. -Fnlayson 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

eyebrows, yes, were did i come up with eyelids? lol Jerrycobra 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)