"Queen of the Skies"...still alive.

[Astro14]

The 757, while out-performing the 737 in every respect: takeoff performance, climb rate, cruise speed, range, and landing speed burns more fuel than the newest stretch 737 which carries nearly as many passengers.

The guys at airlines that buy airplanes don't really talk to those that plan routes, or fly airplanes. So, you often end up with airplanes that aren't optimum when in service.

Boeing kept building the 737 because Southwest had steady orders. They updated it and updated it, but it still is the same airframe, with all the limitations of its original short-haul, economy design.

The 757 orders stopped when jet fuel spiked in price...subsequently Boeing rolled out the new, upgraded 737 (because it was still in production) and touted its great fuel economy. Lots of airlines bought them.

But it's like buying a Prius for the fuel economy and then bring in it home to your wife, who says, "we have four kids and a dog, what were you thinking!?"

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
No, the 320 isn't new, but it's a lot newer. It benefits from a wider fuselage (more passenger room, bigger overhead bins), fly by wire, better short field and high altitude performance, faster speed, lower fuel consumption.

The landing gear on the 737 is its Achilles heel - short to save weight and money, it can't be easily lengthened. Ever wonder why the engine nacelles on a 737 look squished and not round? They are. Because the gear was so short that turbofans, when they came out in the 70s wouldn't fit under the 737 wing wit ou squishing the intake.

Short landing gear, on the stretch version of the 737, severely limits the body angle for takeoff and landing, leading to ridiculous rotation and landing speeds, and severely degraded performance.

That's why 737s going to Hawaii take off with empty seats, the 12,000 foot runways at places like LAX don't allow the 737 to get going fast enough to carry their full weight into the air with the restricted angle of attack created by the geometry of that stubby gear. They just can't make enough lift.

So, in Mexico City, where an A 320 can take off at full gross weight, the 737 is weigh restricted and has to take off with less than a full passenger load, and only with enough gas to go short range. In Houston, where a 320 with the same number of passengers is landing at 125 knots, and can easily turn off the runway after landing, the longer 737s are landing at 165 knots, scorching their brakes, barely able to stop in 10,000 feet. That 40 knot increase in approach speed is a 70% increase in kinetic energy and stopping distance. That's a huge performance limitation.

United has had three airplanes slide off the runway/taxiway in the past two months.

Care to guess what aircraft type all three of them were?

Southwest has, famously, slid a few airplanes off the end of the runway...what airplane type do they fly?

Guys love the airplane if they never knew anything different. Take a kid that's never driven a car, and the Vega would be totally awesome...but compare it to something decades newer and the Vega (and the 737) don't compare well. Updates to the 737 are like adding Bluetooth and cool rims, it's still the same clunky, limited, economy car design underneath. Can't change the limitations of the chassis.


Ok then....fair enough. I had no idea the 737 was derided to this extent.

I guess my entire perspective on this aircraft needs some reevaluation.

 

[Astro14]

The 737 has its fans.

I am not among them.

It makes sense for its original intention: short haul economy flying. At the lower weights for those flights, the takeoff and landing speeds are reduced. In shorter versions of the airplane (-300/500 and -700), it can reach reasonable body angles for takeoff and landing, but the stretch versions are severely limited.

Simple geometry: longer airplane, same gear length = reduced body angle before the tail hits the ground. So, it has to be flown at a lower AOA on take off and landing...lower AOA = higher airspeed.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The 737 has its fans.

I am not among them.

It makes sense for its original intention: short haul economy flying. At the lower weights for those flights, the takeoff and landing speeds are reduced. In shorter versions of the airplane (-300/500 and -700), it can reach reasonable body angles for takeoff and landing, but the stretch versions are severely limited.

Simple geometry: longer airplane, same gear length = reduced body angle before the tail hits the ground. So, it has to be flown at a lower AOA on take off and landing...lower AOA = higher airspeed.



Makes perfect sense that a lower angle of attack is required due to the shorter gear....even more so when aircraft length is increased.
It must be a challenge when winds are knocking the plane about during a landing....you would have a much smaller envelope I would guess, before a tail strike could occur.

First flight today of Max:
https://youtu.be/LuT7bUXZtxs

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
I had no idea the 737 was derided to this extent.

I guess my entire perspective on this aircraft needs some reevaluation.


Don't believe everything you read. An airframe type is properly evaluated based on the whole operational experience, not just a pilot's perspective. From that standpoint the 737 performs exceptionally well for the job it was intended.

 

[CT8]

Pilots opinion is a valid one as to what is nice to "drive". My neighbor is a retired airline pilot and we chat about airplane stuff . He started as a naval aviator and has flown many planes .The likes and dislikes of each plane is always interesting.Years ago I would for extra $$$ drive truck out of the line drivers local from the San Francisco Bay area all around california and the west coast. All the trucks got the job dome though there were some that were nicer and more comfortable to drive.

 

[cjcride]

Ex Navy Pilot is about as good as it gets for pilots.
The longer runway requirements for the stretched 737's is a step backwards.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: kschachn

Don't believe everything you read. An airframe type is properly evaluated based on the whole operational experience, not just a pilot's perspective. From that standpoint the 737 performs exceptionally well for the job it was intended.


I was giving you the operational experience. Takes a pilot to understand that.

Marketing can be "sold" on the basis of unit cost per seat-mile...but when the airplane has to take off with 40 empty seats from LAX-HNL, that's when you realize that seat-mile cost isn't everything.

Airlines will buy airplanes that underperform other airplanes available because of the cost savings with a single supply chain, crew training, mechanic certification, etc. They know they're getting an underperformer, but in the aggregate, it'll be cheaper to operate.

SWA can't exactly replace their entire fleet, right? Not at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, so it's cheaper to jam the square peg into the round hole.

Doesn't make that peg any less square...

 

[Eddie]

I thought you were referring to Dale Arden from the Sky King days.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I was giving you the operational experience. Takes a pilot to understand that.

SWA can't exactly replace their entire fleet, right? Not at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, so it's cheaper to jam the square peg into the round hole.


That is exactly what I thought you would say.

SWA has no intention of replacing their fleet. Do you have any corporate statements, any articles, anything at all that says they are even interested in doing so?

 

[MNgopher]

Not to continue to stray too far from the original topic -

A combination of several factors lead to the demise of the 757. While its capabilities allowed for long range, great short field performance, etc, it also hurt it in that it was way overbuilt for many shorter flights - meaning it weighed more than a 737 or A320 series aircraft, which at most airports increases landing fees, and it burned a lot more fuel to achieve the same flight.

Remember also that airlines were moving to the more frequency based flying rather than a few larger flights a day (remember when the regional jets were all the rage? Smaller plane, lower fuel cost, lower crew costs, and higher frequency...).

Then throw all of those things on top of the poor financial position most airlines were under at the time, and then September 11 happened.

More or less the order book vanished, and that was that. It did create a hole in Boeings offerings around the 200 seat area. Boeings solution to that issue was to offer the 737-900, which started flying in 2001. The last 757 rolled off the lines in 2005.

The higher landing speed of the longer 737 variants is noticeable if you are paying attention.

All that being said, I too hope the 747 can keep cranking along into the future. Will always be the queen of the sky - such a distinctive look!

 

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

The PSBJ article has a touch of hometown boosterism in it, I think. I disagree with Dennis Muilenberg of Boeing on the need to replace all of those large freighters at 20 years of age. According to the planespotters.net FedEx page, FedEx is still flying more than 20 MD-10 (updated DC-10) that are over 40 years old. As of 1/28/16, they show FedEx N365FE as 45.0 years old. Although '10s are not '47s, they are being replaced by the 767F at FedEx. Additionally, FedEx has been converting some of their 777F order to more 767F.
Sorry to see the 747 go, but the USAF needs to get that AF One order booked soon.
(Some cool 747-8 testing scenes in the link below.)
www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/fli...aa47f8377b41e3b

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
The PSBJ article has a touch of hometown boosterism in it, I think. I disagree with Dennis Muilenberg of Boeing on the need to replace all of those large freighters at 20 years of age. According to the planespotters.net FedEx page, FedEx is still flying more than 20 MD-10 (updated DC-10) that are over 40 years old. As of 1/28/16, they show FedEx N365FE as 45.0 years old. Although '10s are not '47s, they are being replaced by the 767F at FedEx. Additionally, FedEx has been converting some of their 777F order to more 767F.
Sorry to see the 747 go, but the USAF needs to get that AF One order booked soon.
(Some cool 747-8 testing scenes in the link below.)
www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/fli...aa47f8377b41e3b


Yes...the article is a hometown creation. They are often pro-Boeing, but tend to be a fairly factual business journal.

All I can say is that it will be a very sad day when the 747 lines shut down for good. After that, it will only be a matter of a decade or two and then we can expect to see them only as a museum display.

She's had a great run though.

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: andrewg


Per the article, the 747-8 freighter is the only large capacity cargo jet that can load from the hinged front that opens up.


The C-5 does this, but obviously that's only in military use. There's also the Antonov 124, used by the Russian military and for commercial cargo, but not used nearly as widely as the 747. Then there's the Antonov 225, the world's largest operational aircraft, but there's only one.

The 747 was actually primarily designed to be a freighter from the beginning, including the hinged nose. This required the cockpit to be placed up high, giving it the distinctive hump. Back in the 60s when the 747 was being developed, you also had the Concorde being built and Boeing was working on a supersonic passenger jet. The thinking back then was that passengers would all be flying on the supersonic jets and that the 747 would end up being strictly a freighter.

 

[Jetronic]

I wonder how the antonov 124 flies....

they're also an impressive sight, that's for sure.

 

[fdcg27]

You'll find many pilots who hold exactly the opposite view, like the ex-CAL guys who fly at UA.
The performance limitations Astro alludes to apply to the -900, which probably is a stretch too far, although Astro's employer has taken delivery of quite a few -900s. The A321 is the superior aircraft as compared to the 737-900.
The -800 and -700 aircraft don't seem to have any performance problems and a number of operators have both the 737 and the single aisle Airbus (for example, UA, DL and AA) in their fleets and continue to take deliveries of both.
Aircraft get slid off the ends of runways fairly often, usually because a crew tries to save an approach when they really should have gone around and taxiway excursions are pretty common. This is nothing unique to the 737.
Finally, Southwest represents about 10% of the total 737 build.
Clearly, other operators must find the aircraft suitable, since someone has had to take delivery of the other 90% of the type built.
Plenty of airlines have converted from one manufacturer to the other and perhaps no airline has greater financial ability to do so than Southwest, so if the Airbus really were all that and a bag of potato chips as compared to the Boeing, we'd be seeing Southwest A319s and A320s instead of 737-700s and 737-800s. Imagine the deal Airbus would give Southwest to pry them away from Boeing.
That we don't says a lot about the enduring development potential of the 737, although the Max is probably the end of this venerable line, just as the NEO is probably the last development of the A319/320/321.
Neither maker can be anxious to undertake the enormous risks and costs involved in developing an entirely new frame for this space.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You'll find many pilots who hold exactly the opposite view, like the ex-CAL guys who fly at UA.
The performance limitations Astro alludes to apply to the -900, which probably is a stretch too far, although Astro's employer has taken delivery of quite a few -900s. The A321 is the superior aircraft as compared to the 737-900.
The -800 and -700 aircraft don't seem to have any performance problems and a number of operators have both the 737 and the single aisle Airbus (for example, UA, DL and AA) in their fleets and continue to take deliveries of both.
Aircraft get slid off the ends of runways fairly often, usually because a crew tries to save an approach when they really should have gone around and taxiway excursions are pretty common. This is nothing unique to the 737.
Finally, Southwest represents about 10% of the total 737 build.
Clearly, other operators must find the aircraft suitable, since someone has had to take delivery of the other 90% of the type built.
Plenty of airlines have converted from one manufacturer to the other and perhaps no airline has greater financial ability to do so than Southwest, so if the Airbus really were all that and a bag of potato chips as compared to the Boeing, we'd be seeing Southwest A319s and A320s instead of 737-700s and 737-800s. Imagine the deal Airbus would give Southwest to pry them away from Boeing.
That we don't says a lot about the enduring development potential of the 737, although the Max is probably the end of this venerable line, just as the NEO is probably the last development of the A319/320/321.
Neither maker can be anxious to undertake the enormous risks and costs involved in developing an entirely new frame for this space.

Thanks for that bit of information. That was interesting. So the -900's are the 737's that are somewhat less than perfect. Got it.
I would like to see a real comparison of the 737Max vs. the Neo sometime in the future. As this is the latest and probably last incarnation of either aircraft, it would be interesting to see how this story ends before the all new replacements come into service.

 

[fdcg27]

Plenty of time to compare the service experience of the MAX and the NEO, since both will likely be in production for the next couple of decades and neither Boeing nor Airbus will even start fishing the operators about what they want in a new small airplane until maybe 2025.
Boeing may go first at the upper end with the MOM, which would probably kill off the A321 as well as the A330 NEO program.
Any way you look at, though, today's iterations of the 737 and the single aisle Airbus will be in service for a long time.
Heck, the last 757 was delivered a decade ago and look at how many of them remain in service with first tier carriers.
Properly maintained aircraft can lead very long lives, Douglas designs the longest, followed by Boeings and then Airbus.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
No, the 320 isn't new, but it's a lot newer. It benefits from a wider fuselage (more passenger room, bigger overhead bins), fly by wire, better short field and high altitude performance, faster speed, lower fuel consumption.

The landing gear on the 737 is its Achilles heel - short to save weight and money, it can't be easily lengthened. Ever wonder why the engine nacelles on a 737 look squished and not round? They are. Because the gear was so short that turbofans, when they came out in the 70s wouldn't fit under the 737 wing wit ou squishing the intake.

Short landing gear, on the stretch version of the 737, severely limits the body angle for takeoff and landing, leading to ridiculous rotation and landing speeds, and severely degraded performance.

That's why 737s going to Hawaii take off with empty seats, the 12,000 foot runways at places like LAX don't allow the 737 to get going fast enough to carry their full weight into the air with the restricted angle of attack created by the geometry of that stubby gear. They just can't make enough lift.

So, in Mexico City, where an A 320 can take off at full gross weight, the 737 is weigh restricted and has to take off with less than a full passenger load, and only with enough gas to go short range. In Houston, where a 320 with the same number of passengers is landing at 125 knots, and can easily turn off the runway after landing, the longer 737s are landing at 165 knots, scorching their brakes, barely able to stop in 10,000 feet. That 40 knot increase in approach speed is a 70% increase in kinetic energy and stopping distance. That's a huge performance limitation.

United has had three airplanes slide off the runway/taxiway in the past two months.

Care to guess what aircraft type all three of them were?

Southwest has, famously, slid a few airplanes off the end of the runway...what airplane type do they fly?

Guys love the airplane if they never knew anything different. Take a kid that's never driven a car, and the Vega would be totally awesome...but compare it to something decades newer and the Vega (and the 737) don't compare well. Updates to the 737 are like adding Bluetooth and cool rims, it's still the same clunky, limited, economy car design underneath. Can't change the limitations of the chassis.

Well there is another plane I will try to avoid...

 

[Astro14]

737 is a good, reliable airplane. I fly on it all the time.

But it was designed and built for the short haul...

When you take an economy car and make it a long distance cruiser...you run into..."issues"...