Anyone Flown One of these Beasts?
Apr 4, 2002 | 10:22 pm
#31
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: FLL, over-inflated EGO due to EXP status
Posts: 4,519
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anrkitec:
Yeah, but the DC-8 didn't really get going until the Super 70s with the refit of those huge (relative to previous DC-8s) CFM 56s (?). [/URL]
Yes, and as a result of the increased payload afforded by those engines, those aircraft so fitted were referred to as "Heavy" in ATC terms due to that fact even though they weren't widebodies!
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 04-03-2002).]</font>
Yeah, but the DC-8 didn't really get going until the Super 70s with the refit of those huge (relative to previous DC-8s) CFM 56s (?). [/URL]
Yes, and as a result of the increased payload afforded by those engines, those aircraft so fitted were referred to as "Heavy" in ATC terms due to that fact even though they weren't widebodies!
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 04-03-2002).]</font>
Apr 5, 2002 | 5:41 pm
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Skylink USA:
No one mentioned that the 757 and 767 have similar cockpits. They have a similar or same pilot rating. The 767 has to fit into the narrower 757 so the cockpit is one step lower than the rest of the floor of the plane.
Actually shrinking is not as common as stretching because the resulting plane has to carry all the basic weight (same wings and other stuff) as the base model. What shrinkage have we seen? (747SP, a few 707's such as for Qantas, 737-500, A319/318, A310, L1011-500)</font>
No one mentioned that the 757 and 767 have similar cockpits. They have a similar or same pilot rating. The 767 has to fit into the narrower 757 so the cockpit is one step lower than the rest of the floor of the plane.
Actually shrinking is not as common as stretching because the resulting plane has to carry all the basic weight (same wings and other stuff) as the base model. What shrinkage have we seen? (747SP, a few 707's such as for Qantas, 737-500, A319/318, A310, L1011-500)</font>
Apr 5, 2002 | 8:19 pm
#33
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: FLL
Posts: 1,679
I'm not the one to argue if you're right. You're right. From the perspective of the 737-300/400/500 being a new (not next) generation, the -500 was smaller than the -300. From a global perspective, you're absolutely correct.
On a different subject, whenever the 737 Classic is mentioned, they are referring to the 300/400/500 series. What's the -100/-200 series called? 737 Dinosaur?
On a different subject, whenever the 737 Classic is mentioned, they are referring to the 300/400/500 series. What's the -100/-200 series called? 737 Dinosaur?
Apr 5, 2002 | 8:45 pm
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Just my opinion, but I would call the -100 and -200 classic. After that, they're in varying ranges of "new".
Also, I believe there is a separate base for WN pilots who fly the -200, but nothing separate between the -300, -500 and -700. WN's 737-200 and -500 have the same number of seats, 122, whereas -300 and -700 have 137, so it's not a seat inventory thing.
[This message has been edited by JS (edited 04-05-2002).]
Also, I believe there is a separate base for WN pilots who fly the -200, but nothing separate between the -300, -500 and -700. WN's 737-200 and -500 have the same number of seats, 122, whereas -300 and -700 have 137, so it's not a seat inventory thing.
[This message has been edited by JS (edited 04-05-2002).]
Apr 5, 2002 | 10:24 pm
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Boeing calls the 737-100s and -200s the "Initial Model 737s." Shortest 737 was the -100 at 95'9" while the -200 was 100'2" in length. Only 30 737-100s were delivered, out of 3,132 Initial and Classic 737s produced.
737-500 is 101'9" and the -600 is 102'6" long. Safe to say that all are about 100 feet in length. For comparison, 737-900 is 138'2" (but looks bigger).
737-500 is 101'9" and the -600 is 102'6" long. Safe to say that all are about 100 feet in length. For comparison, 737-900 is 138'2" (but looks bigger).
Apr 6, 2002 | 1:38 pm
#36
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA 1K, AA Gold
Posts: 3,640
I think the key advantage for CO to have the 737-900 is they can sub it on routes scheduled for another 737 (300, 500, 700, 800), without messing up pilot scheduling.
I know that CO routinely swaps the 737 fleet around based on projected loads, and has a whole team of people that work on that exclusively. Example - I once flew EWR-SEA on a 737-800 although it was scheduled for a 737-700. Since this was not a day of departure swap and had been planned a week or two ahead of time, CO was able to fill the plane 100%.
I know that CO routinely swaps the 737 fleet around based on projected loads, and has a whole team of people that work on that exclusively. Example - I once flew EWR-SEA on a 737-800 although it was scheduled for a 737-700. Since this was not a day of departure swap and had been planned a week or two ahead of time, CO was able to fill the plane 100%.
