Talk:Boeing 737/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

looking for citation

An old timer, like me, remembers the Boeing 77.33 business jet, a short lived name for the business jet version of the 737-300. Help me find a citation! Archtrain 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • What timeframe? Something well before the Boeing BBJ, right? -Fnlayson 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • citation found and added! The BBJ was made with the NG. The 77-33 was marketed in the late 1980's.Archtransit 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for citation so we can add a sentence along the lines of "the -900 didn't sell well because of limited future resale value to charter airlines. The -900 has the same pax cap as the -800)Archtransit (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

mention the rudder control issue?

In the mid 1990's, there was controversy about this problem. The UA crash at Colorado Springs and US Airways crash at Pittsburgh was thought to be possibly because of this. Some engineering changes were made even though it wasn't certain that the two crashes were caused by this potential problem.

Any opinions on including this? I have no opinion one way or the other. Archtransit 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • If it's important, sure. I think the crashes should only be mentioned if the NTSB says it was a factor. Why do you have 2 accounts: Archtrain/transit? -Fnlayson 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Archtrain one closed. I didn't like the "train" part. I submitted a name change request, which was accepted. Archtransit 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

recent notable accidents

This is a section in the article. Is this too close to being a newspaper, which WP is not? How about including all accidents? Or ones with a large number of fatalities? Or creating a new article so that the 737 article is not too long and where half of the article is a list of accidents? Archtransit 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There'd be too many if all were included. The recent notable thing was to limit them. The next step would be just notable accidents. Also, a accident is serious one like a hull loss accident. -Fnlayson 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why the list is sorted by ascending dates? Louis Waweru  Talk  20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order. And consistency with many other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But chronology from most recent would start with now, right? Louis Waweru  Talk  22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, chronological order is the order of occurrence, a vertical timeline in this case. The same way historical or biographical sections are generally written. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, thank you Louis Waweru  Talk  15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

proposed new development section

I'd like to add more information about further development beyond the -100/200. I'll think of a title. Advice welcomed. May I suggest description of the variant under variants and description of the development in a new section earlier in the article. This would allow combining the 737NG development rather than cover the -600, -700, -800, etc. separately. Archtransit (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You could probably move some of the variant info there. Like 737 Classics and Next Generation. Something like that anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that design cover the 737 original design so as not to confuse the reader. Some of the original 737 design applies to the classic and NG. Where the NG is different can be explained later. This seems the more organised approach. Archtransit (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

photo comment

The Aloha airlines incident has a picture in the accidents section. Yet it isn't listed. It is a possibly noteworthy incident. Suggestions? If not, I'll think about it in the coming weeks. Archtransit (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • True, that's a notable accident, just not a recent one. Maybe a sentence on past notable accidents above list. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider to take out one of the 737 classic photos. There's a -300, -400, -500. It is creating a big blank space. How about removing the -300. (Either that or try to eliminate the white space somehow.) Archtransit (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two interior photos, a Southwest and a Continental. The Continental one is dark and doesn't seem to add value. It does illustrate the ceiling. Is a ceiling photo needed? Perhaps not? Archtransit (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Boeing 737 now open

The peer review for Boeing 737 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The "design description" needs some references. I added a lot of references for the 747 article and could do likewise. However, I'm a bit short of time now and for a few weeks. I am interested in improving this article to FA-like quality. Getting the FA star is a lot of work, even if the article is of FA-like quality. Archtransit (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
References - let's adopt a standard format to avoid criticism. Some references just have a blue description and link. Consider adding the "Retrieved -- " (date), too. Archtransit (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to rewrite the variants section. From my experiences in the 747 article, which made FA, a standard format for each variant helps. So for this one, the outline could be a brief description of the year made or flew, how the variant is different and then some customer information. Since some information on the classic or NG variants are the same among the series, a brief description on information common to every variant in that series seems prudent. Archtransit (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit of work in that section, removing the subheaders for the individual variants. Do you think it would be better to have these headers (like the ones that still exist in the NG section), or go with the single section like the Original and Classic sections? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If consistent, both ways seem acceptable. I tend to prefer the NG way because it makes it less confusing to the reader. If you list all variants on equal terms, there are 9 or more. It might make the reader dizzy. Having only original, classic and NG subsections risk having variant information all mixed up if several editors edit. With the classic, there could be confusion since the -500 is the smallest and -400 is the longest (variant correlates with the date of launch, not the length, unlike the NG). Splitting it up AND having sub-sections for the variants (like NG overview, -600, -700, -800, -900) makes it a little more orderly so that the reader won't have to mentally sort out which is which. Archtransit (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Minor change contemplated. -700C is mentioned under variants. It's also mentioned in the military section under C-40A. Why both? I propose to consolidate it somehow. Also note the -700C was sold (2 of them) to Aaramco, if that makes a difference as far as consolidation and where to put it. Archtransit (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The DoD designation for the -700C is C-40A. Boeing can sell the -700C to other customers, where it wouldn't have the C-40A designation. The C-40A entry is short and OK, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I do think text about the two crashes (ColoSprings, Pittsburgh) due to "uncommanded" rudder deflection should be part of the article, or perhaps referenced to a separate article. Those were pretty significant events in the life story of the airplane, resulting in years of research, tests and regulatory actions to prevent repeat incidents. DonFB (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

737 variants

I am in the process of fixing and rewriting this section. Changes will be slow to allow discussion.

Error? Next generation subsection says launch was in 1991. There is no citation. I found a citation which disagrees. It says 1993. Archtransit (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad for not explaining it completely. I guess it all depends on what you want to take as the "official" start of the program. My source, Endres, says that Boeing began talks with airlines in 1991, authorized the sale of the 737X on 29 June, 1993, and authorized the start of production of the 737-700 with a sale to Southwest Airlines on 18 November 1993. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this section. I agree that it should be arranged like the Next Gen section, with a separate header for each variant. I also think that most of the information should be merged/moved over to the Development section. In the end each variant should include only the following information: Varient launch customer, variant replacing/built upon, dates (rollout, first flight, certification, service entry), number built. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many possibilities but Trevor's suggestion above looks good to me. In the 747 article, the same approach was used. Development section was used for how the series or variant was developed. The difference between Trevor's suggestion and the 747 method was that a brief description on the variant was given under each variant, perhaps the typical seating capacity. Archtransit (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I do think the Variant section is the place to cover the details on the changes made with the Development section covering them in an overview sense. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the -900 (not including the -900ER) is written closest to the proposed skeleton outline(except the 1st sentence is probably better in the development section). There's obviously much work to be done! Archtransit (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

-700IGW mention. Any references? I'll look. Archtransit (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

Under the NG, this appears: On 21 August 2006, Sky News alleged that Boeing's Next Generation 737s built from 1994 to 2002 contained defective parts. The report stated that various parts of the airframe produced by Ducommun were found to be defective by Boeing employees but that Boeing refused to take action. Boeing said that the allegations were "without merit".[47]

Is this notable or just a newspaper story. It would be more notable if the allegations were proven or if it were related to a crash. I have no intention of covering up bad news or trying to make the article look like a 737 sales brochure.

Defective parts are common. Do they significantly compromise safety or significantly compromise function? If so, that should be the focus of the WP entry. As a matter of prose, I tend not to favor the style of many paragraphs starting out as "On 21 August 2006, ..... " Archtransit (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally anything that uses the word alleged is probably not notable! MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How many seats?

I would have thought that the first criteria to consider, when describing the differences between the various 737 models, would be the seating capacity. As I write this, the section about the 737-600 does not say how many seats the aircraft has. --Lester 02:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Winglets

From the article:

> Blended winglets are available as retrofits and in production on newer 737 aircraft. These winglets stand approximately 8 feet tall and are installed at the wing tips. They help with reduced fuel burn (by reducing vortex drag), reduced engine wear, and less noise on takeoff.

They are not 8 feet for sure :). could someone research and correct the error? (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

8 feet 4 inches according to the page on Boeing's site. Perhaps there are different size winglets for the earlier versions? Nimbus (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Looked at the page, - they are 8 feet exactly LONG, not tall (and 4 feet wide at the base that seems to be too wide for the end of the wing). Since they extend the wingspan, at least part of the winglet is an extension of the existing wing, not just the "winglet" itself. Also, some part of it is probably overlapping with the wing to fasten it reliably (this is the lenghth for the retrofit ones, not the new plane).
I felt kind of suspicious because 8 feet is much taller than a person's height, and they do not make this impression when observing them in an airport. I thought they are no taller than a couple of feet (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)).
  • Uh, the winglet's long dimension is its height is when mounted on the wing. Each wing is over 40 ft long. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, - I'll drop the objections even though I'm still not convinced ... (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC))
  • The retrofit blended winglets on the 737-800 are 8 ft 2 in tall and 7 ft tall on the 737-300 for whatever that's worth.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

*yah i think these winglets so huge no one bleve this.ali hasnain from pia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.9.197 (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

upgrading article: a goal? / Let's get the references correct

This article has improved past grade B. Any desire to work on a FA (featured article) status? In fact, I'll study the issue now. Archtransit 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Just general article improvement, that's my goal. Getting it to FA quality without necessarily getting the star. There are only 18 references so let's get them right the first time! (Trust me, it saves grief!) Archtransit (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the requirements is the introductory paragraph. Over 10,000 DC-3 were made and it was a short range single aisle airliner. So I've modified the intro. paragraph. Popularity is subjective so, with due respect to the inital author, it's been modified. Archtransit 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am missing mention of Lufthansa being not only the launch customer but having initially requested this type from Boeing as new developement. ( see DE WP article for info ) i.e. it was not Boeing research finding a niche opportunity but they had to be lead to that niche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.81.185 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Winglets

The section "737-600" specifies that they aren't sold with winglets, and that WestJet canceled plans to install winglets on their 737-600's. I just flew on a WestJet 737-600 that was equipped with winglets. Can someone look into this? Brad 20:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Winglets can be retrofitted on the 737. This mentioned in the Design section. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

British Airtours Flight 28M

I added this flight to the incident list of the 737 originals. It was a very important crash with many consequences for airlines, pilots and general safety. 81.154.81.242 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Safety

I think this article (and all aircraft articles) should have a section on Safety Record. A brief review of accidents, causes, and mechanical issues or problems would be useful for completeness in a review article about an airplane. The 737 has had rudder control issues, and this should be addressed.74.239.2.104 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Boeing 737#Incidents and accidents is what you are looking for? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AP is running a story that Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 has crashed with 90 people on board. They a naming the equipment as a 737-800. I am adding this to the Incidents and accidents.Plbowler (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

nevermind belongs under next Gen 737 Plbowler (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When Does "Production" Start

The infobox at the top right of the article states "Production 1968 - Present". Boeing lists several key dates at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/background.html , none of which is "Production". For the purpose of being exact where verifiable data is available, which of the dates on the Boeing 737 family web page best coincides with the concept of "start of production"? Rollout? Perhaps none of the dates listed? Please advise. Ch Th Jo (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First delivery is probably the nearest on the Boeing list to be an indication of production, some of the earlier dates could relate to prototypes and development aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
That's good feedback and it goes to the heart of my confusion on the matter. My thinking is that if the first 737 delivery was Feb 10 1968 then production clearly started at some time prior to that. You have to start production on date "X" to deliver the goods on future date "Y". New cars go into "pre-production" while the mfr. gets the production line up to speed and works out kinks in the manufacturing process, but those cars go to customers eventually. Perhaps aircraft that are built for use in the test program that will never go to customers are "prototypes", units that are used in the test program and will eventually go to customers are best classed as "pre-production" units and units that roll off the line and go straight to a customer represent "regular production" units?. Is anyone able to comment on the internal classifications assigned by Boeing or other aircraft manufacturers as far as prototype vs. pre-production vs. regular production? Ch Th Jo (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right that production obviously started before the first aircraft was delivered but is unlikely that you would find a reliable source to establish when production started, hence the only reliable referenced point is the first delivery. The infobox field is just to give an indication of when and how long the type was produced. The prototype/pre-production issue is not clear cut and different manufacturers and even different types from the same company can be treated differently. If we are talking airliners Prototypes generally are just test vehicles and are not fully equiped, they just prove the aircraft can fly, most would require a lot of rework before they get delivered to a customer so most are retained by the companies as test beds for modifications and other developments. Pre-production aircraft could be in a number of build states depending on what the various certification testing is needed. A lot of aircraft just go straight into production after a couple of prototypes and pre-production is not usual in civil aircraft apart from the more complex and unusual like the 787 and A380. It is quite normal to modifify pre-production airliners and deliver them to airlines. So production starts when you are confident that you have a product you can sell. Some aircraft types have gone on sales tours and found no interest and never put into production. With a design like the 737 they would have been a design freeze and production authorised at an early stage possible before the first flight. It is a risk business, if you find something wrong in testing you have to rework all the built aircraft (like the 787) but I suspect it is not possible to find a reliable source in most cases for when production starts. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and the expanded info about prototypes/pre-production aircraft - it is helpful. I do not agree that because it may be difficult to find a verifiable source, we should just pick a date we know to be wrong an publish it. According to the Boeing page I referenced in my original post, the 737-100 was rolled out, first flew, certified then delivered to Lufthansa all in 1967. Based on that, I argue that the 1968 currently listed is wrong. You are probably right that it is going to be really hard to find verifiable sources for exact production start dates of older aircraft types. Luckily for the 787 Boeing is making it easy to know exactly when production started - press release at http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=717 . Now if we can just convince Boeing to scan all the archived press releases from 1967 and put them on the web...Ch Th Jo (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont think anybody would have an issue with the start of production changing to 1967. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this inserted in the introduction:

"The 737 series is the most-ordered and most-produced jet airliner in history as of April 2009[update],[5] although since 2001 the Airbus A320 is the best- and fastest-selling jet airliner family of all times[7][8][9] and has more outstanding orders.[10]"

Its obvious someone with an axe to grind and an agenda slipped that in there.

1. What does any of this Airbus cheerleading have to do with an article about a Boeing plane? 2. Even from the links "sourced" to that quote, and also the relevant wiki page, the part about the A320 being the "best...selling jet airliner family of all times" is absolutely not true. Airbus A 320 models produced barely equal 60% of 737 production. 3. The "has more outstanding orders" part is particularly ham-fisted and hilarious fanboyism. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed so far in the article in any way.

The worst part of wikipedia is when a "contributor" with an agenda goes on a "contributing" spree. It's obvious, annoying, and defeats the purpose of wikipedia. You see it all the time, and something should be done about it. Its obviously a passive-aggressive form of "vandalism" and more strict administrators would be a good start to fixing it.

I enjoy reading articles on wikipedia, but have run across a good dozen or so that show bias and odd "contributions", and most of those you can read the "discussion" and see exactly who the person is with an axe to grind. I didn't format this correctly I'm sure, and probably put it in the wrong place, but hopefully an administrator out there will run across it and do something. -kurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.153.248 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Examination of edit history shows the insertions here: [5] (unreferenced), [6] (wikipedia duplicate site), [7] (hellocompany.org, etc.), [8] (primary source). Reliable 3rd party refs about the topic, whereas there are controversies over primary press refs, e.g. [9]. SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
"Ham-fisted and hilarious fanboyism" by Kurt from Phoenix himself. And of course his statements are particulary "absolutely not true" himself. One-sided "buy american" advertisement campaigns are not appropriate. The comparison is already made: Delete ALL "most ordered", "most produced", "best selling" or accept that Wikipedia presents up-to-date information and the A320 is since many years the "most ordered", "most produced" and "best selling". And the "most widely flown" seems a bit POV, too. Does anybody have a definition about what this means? Wispanow (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Information on the A320 does not belong in the introduction section of an article on the 737. Inclusion later in the article is appropriate. --N419BH (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Concur. The A320's current sales performance does nothing to invalidate the 737's historical performance, or make it in error. - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Any valuation like: "most ordered", "most produced", "best selling" is an outdated and one-sided "Boeing-POV". Anywhere. If you want to bring "historical performance", you have to VERY CLEARLY state that this info is historical and outdated, as the readers expect actual info. Wispanow (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Bold text is not necessary. I have rewritten the introduction to remove some of the puffery. Stating the 737 is the most popular airplane is correct as it is the best selling aircraft of all time. Stating the A320 is the best selling in recent years is also appropriate. Wikipedia:Lead section does mention that "controversy" is appropriate for a lead section. Hence, I have included the Airbus references and statement. --N419BH (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
That the A320 has had better sales performance in the last decade is fact, not controversial. The 737 is still ahead in all totals over its entire existence, and that is what has been listed. That's not "out-of-date info". The Airbus info ought to be covered in the article, but not in the lead. Again, the aritlce is about the 737, not the A320. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was thinking, but I noticed the 737 is mentioned in the A320 article's introduction as well. To be fair the information on competitors should be removed from both articles or remain in both articles. We should look at other Airbus/Boeing article pairs and see how they are written and try and keep the process standard. 757/767 vs. A330, 747 vs. A380/A340, and 787 vs. A350 are the article pairs we should examine. --N419BH (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Better version by N419. As an European, i felt some need to write it bold in this topic. "As of 2009" removed, as readers may think in a first look this is actual info. And its not needed in the introduction. And no definition found for "most widely flown". Not sure enough what this means for everybody.
Strong support for N419BH, that if comparisons or valuations are made, the concurrent pair should be recognized. Wispanow (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Just finished checking the articles of all currently produced Boeing and Airbus products, as well as the 787 and A350 articles. It's a stalemate. The articles that mention competitors in the introduction are 737, A320, 777, A380, and A350. The articles that do not include competitor information are 747, 757, 767, A330, and A340. Note I did not search older airplanes, namely A300, A310, 707, 717, or 727. This discussion might be more appropriate in Wikiproject Aircraft. --N419BH (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The sales comparison sentence has been moved from the Lead to the body of the article. The Lead is not supposed to introduce new content. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like article has been fixed, thanks for your work Fnlayson Bilcat SynergyStar 

and N419BH!

Hatnotes

I see a lot of edits get reverted in this article because they relate to the Boeing 737 Next Generation variants, would it be useful to add clarifying hatnotes to both articles? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, one couldn't hurt. The note at the bottom of the Incidents and accidents section is getting ignored a lot already it seems. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Your version was much better than what I was going to add:
This article is about the Boeing 737 (mainly 737-100 and -200). For the Boeing 737 Next Generation (737-600/-700/-800/-900), see Boeing 737 Next Generation. For Boeing 737 Classic (737-300/-400/-500), see Boeing 737 Classic.
Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
{EC) I've added one, hopefully not too intrusive. The infobox image is a -700 so should be in the other article? Perhaps the lead could be made a little clearer to define the scope of this article. Have not added a hatnote to the NG article as the problem only seems to be with this one. Are the older ones commonly known as '737 Classic'? When we get engines with the same name we use a suffix (Rolls-Royce Trent, Rolls-Royce Trent (turboprop) for instance). I expect when readers search for Boeing 737 they come here even though it is the later version they might be looking for. Could make Boeing 737 a DAB page listing both articles or move this one to Boeing 737 Classic or Boeing 737 (classic), just some possibilities. Last spot, are there three 737 articles?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Might need to revise the hatnote to something nearer yours!! So early ones are 737s, middle variants 737 Classic and latest ones 737 NG? Is that right? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's the way the articles are set-up now at least. I don't think Boeing ever named the original (-100 and -200) variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Your tweak to the note has fixed it, will see if the problems reduce now, probably not! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the accident note to the top of the section. In Royal Air Force cinemas they often played the national anthem before the film so that we had to stand to attention rather than running out when they played it at the end!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why no fuel dump system?

There is an (apparent) inconsistency: this article says to save weight, the (linked) article on fuel dumping to save cost. —141.153.215.130 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What inconsistency exactly? Fuel dumping is only mentioned in the Design section. The text in this article only mentions a weight penalty, not cost. The text there seems fairly clear. -fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Variants chart at the end

I think the chart should split the 737NGs into, at the very least, four different sections. In reality, the NG represents a really wide variety of different airplanes, from the -600 to the -900ER, not to mention the -700 ER. That's four different passenger numbers and at least that many different range/payload numbers. Anyone want to tackle this? Anyone oppose this? Bonus Onus (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dont think it is needed as they are all detailed at Boeing 737 Next Generation, this page doesnt have to have every variant just some examples. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wheel doors

There seems to be an effort being made by BilCat to suggest that the primary wheel doors were omitted as a weight savings measure. He has even attempted to link a reference to this statement that doesn't support his claim. The wheel doors were omitted because the main tires increased in size during development, and it became impossible to use wheel doors without interfering with airflow. On an aircraft of this size the weight of the two doors and actuators is negligible. I have not been able to find a reference explaining this yet, but that is the correct explanation. In general, there is no advantage to deleting the doors, which is why they reappeared on the 757. Boeing does not delete important safety features for the savings of a few pounds. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Section changed, so this may be a moot point. Other civil airliners also delete the main gear doors, including the Bombardier series of airliners. What I read was that Boeing (and others) saw the advantages of a simplified system, especially considering the role envisioned for the 737, up-and-down many times. A solid but simple system often results in easier maintenance as well. FWiW, the wheels remain in a low-drag state via the use of a streamlined "hubcap". This is the comment at an airliner forum: The 737 was designed in the 60s, and was initially intended for relatively short flights. At the time, whatever aerodynamic penalties for a door-less MLG were outweighed by the weight and added complexity MLG doors added to the overall design. Over the years, Boeing has had the opportunity to add MLG doors. But because even the relatively long-range newest 737s haven't incorporated this added complexity, it's safe to say that it doesn't buy operators enough efficiency to be worth while in cost, maintenance, or efficiency. Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Changing to hub-less doors would most likely require a larger wheel well area or some other change to fully enclose the gear wheels. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
On the Bombarier and Embraier series of regional jets it is omitted for cost and weight savings, but that seems to be the exception to the rule. The main issue here is that they were a part of the original design for the 737. Boeing hasn't added them the the long-range 737 series simply because no one has asked for them (at least, that was the explanation I got). The airlines usually follow a "if it isn't broke don't fix it" philosophy until something happens, and compatability of parts on the 737 series has been one of its main selling points. In general though, most manufacturers don't follow Bombarier and Embraier on this design element. They are almost always present on small buisness jets, though that is most likely for astetics (Cessna being one exception). - Ken keisel (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ken, I'm not the bogie-man here, as I'm not even involved in editing the section! I have edited the page three times since Jun 12, one to revert vandalism and 2 involving the new -7/-8/-9 series. Please strike out your opening comments about me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I can't cite it but I was told long ago, possibly in trade training, that the 737 had no doors to improve brake pack cooling on very short haul routes. Brakes do get extremely hot after landing and the heat takes a long time to dissipate, this would make complete sense to me. The HS Trident I believe had fans fitted to its wheels for the same purpose. I was involved in recovering a VC10 which had suffered an in-flight tyre blow out, it blew the door off, damaged fuel lines running through the bay and also lifted the passenger cabin floor blow out panels (designed to do this), with no door it can't be blown off and the cabin floor should remain intact. It's worth researching in this area. Later variants of the F-4 and F-104 had bulged doors to cover enlarged main wheels (needed for higher operating weights), the F-4 even had a bulge in the top wing skin, it can be done if the designer really wants to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Nimbus that make a lot of sense. There's no question that the 737 was designed to be a short haul regional jet. I was told by a designer on the 737 program (and one of the chief designers of the YC-14) that the 737 started out with full wheel doors, and that increased tire size was a primairy reason for the wheel door being deleted, but in a program that complex I'm sure there were other factors involved as well. Once they looked into eliminating the door there may have been other advantages that appeared. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
BilCat, you modified and re-posted information on this exact subject that was highly speculative, without any supporting references. This is not the first time you have been warned about that. I added a warning tag, then deleted your claim after an appropriate delay when you failed to add a reference. You then re-posted this false claim, adding a reference that did not support it. You are forcing me to take time away from what little time I have on this site to double check all your postings for bogus information and false references. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Provide some diffs or at least some dates for when these additions, etc. took place. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see the diffs too, as I haven't a clue what Ken is talking about. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologizes to BilCat, it appears that it was you Fnlayson who re-added the claim on 21 August that weight savings was the reason for the doors being omitted. A few hours later you deleted my "cite reference" tag and added the reference Dekkers, Daniel, et al. (Project 2A2H). [home.deds.nl/~hink07/Report.pdf "Analysis Landing Gear 737-500."] Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Aviation Sudies. October 2008. Retrieved: August 20, 2011. I've reviewed that reference and can find no mention of weight savings as the reason for the deletion of the wheel doors on the 737. This is interesting, as in a discussion on your talk page you informed me that my grip was with BilCat for this revision. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You must have misread or missed my edit summary then. I readded the text since your removal was premature. And you're the one that's been blaming Bill for adding the text in question. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it vas me dat added the cite, as a general one for the passage about landing gear. As you can see from the above discussion, there were lots of reasons for Boeing to discard the doors, and simplicity and ease of service being paramount. Undoubtedly, minor savings in weight, and production costs would result. Now is that sufficient to end this contentious debate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for the apology, Ken. I appreciate that the whole situation was a bit confusing, and that you genuinely thought I was involved. I consider the issue of my involvement settled at this point. - BilCat (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting the apology. I feel bad about having accused you of something that someone else did (who also put the blaim on you). To clear the matter up, here is the timeline for the edits.

1. After citing the statement for removal I deleted it in my revision as of 18:24, 20 August 2011. 2. Fnlayson restored the statement in his revision of 18:30, 20 August 2011. 3. He added a reference to the statement in his revision of 00:40, 24 August 2011. That reference did not agree with the statement. 4. When I pointed out the problem to Fnlayson on his talk page I was under the belief that it was BilCat who had restored the statement and added the reference. Fnlayson agreed, and told me my gripe was with BilCat. Apparently the problem was actually Fnlayson all along, first re-posting this statement without supporting references after I had deleted it as false, then adding a reference that didn't support the claim. I'm very dissapointed in Fnlayson's lack of integrity. He re-posted a statement to a major article that was dubious at best, then added a false reference to try to back it up. Finally he tried to divert attention away from himself by pinning the blaim on another editor. Is this the sort of behaviour that should be tolerated? - Ken keisel (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys this is all a misunderstanding by Ken of the edit sequence and those involved, can we consider this closed before we stray further into the WP:PA area. I have asked Ken to apologise and move on can I ask restraint for other editors and close this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, I reverted Ken's removal once. My edits from Aug. 20 are [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. I shouldn't get the blame or credit for others' edits. Bzuk added the references for the text in question on Aug. 20 see diff. Thanks BillZ. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fnlayson I think that is clearly understood by anybody who has looked at the edit sequence that nobody is to blame it is clear that Ken misunderstood who did what a number of times. As I have suggested it would be best if he apologised and we all moved on. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
MilborneOne, please identify where the statement I made above is incorrect. I have cited specific edits made by Fnlayson that are clearly on record. Don't think there's anything vague here. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Besides being WP:Lame, this is basically a "tempest in a teapot" issue that should end here and now. Everyone retreat to their corners and let's go after the real work of building an encyclopedia. To the ramparts, vandals on the horizon!! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"Fnlayson agreed [that BilCat had restored the reference]" is incorrect. So is your assertion that Fnlayson added a reference to support the statement. If you continue attacking other editors, you may be blocked for it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Bzuk, I would be glad to do as you say, but unfortunately SarekOfVulcan has challenged the validity of the claims I have made against Fnlayson's edits, and is threatening to have me blocked for making the claim (backed by documented edits). SarekOfVulcan has done this after your request that the matter be dropped. It is my understanding that SarekOfVulcan is a site administrator, so apparently we must proceed with his claim, and explore the edits by Fnlayson that I have challenged. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Or, you can drop it and not attack other editors groundlessly. Your choice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
See my earlier comments above; obviously errors in "misidentification" took place, now the sequence should be better understood. I added a general reference source about the B737 landing gear, never intending to stir up any controversy and re-edited the passage slightly, removing the cite tag. The back story of the Boeing decision to eliminate main landing gear doors is probably related to creating a less complex system, and later developments have not re-introduced the doors even though they may have been present in the original design. Some minor savings in weight, and production costs would result in the elimination of the doors but that was not the primary reason which stems back to the need for a sturdy, reliable and uncomplicated design. FWiW, let's get back to work, these are not the droids you are looking for... Bzuk (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
"I'm a Tandorian! Jedi mind-tricks don't wrok on me!: :) - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither does spellcheck, apparently – "wrok"???? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
"Move along. Move along." - Ken keisel (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My spell chacker hasn;t worked since Anakin left with Obo-wan. He was th only one who could fix it. Never enough 9-year-old jedis around when you need them :) - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Off subject, is there any way to post a photo of an airplane here that needs identified? I've got a wierd one, and even the AAHS is stumped. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Post the query not the photo to WP:Aviation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft first. One of the ways to post a photo that can appear briefly in talk is to use a Commons photo (convert your image to a WP:Commons type) and then, ask the vast multitude of av-geeks to help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

I'm having a lot of trouble trying to post the image to the commons site. Bzuk, if you can give me your email address on my talk page I will forward to image to you, if you would be willing to post it to commons. I'd like to get this odd plane identified. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, Milb1 just pointed out via his page that I had added the original fact tag to the tire/hubcap section that got this all started, per this diff. I had fogotten that I had added several Citation needed tags in the edit where I had restored the 737 reenging info, and I didn't recognize it in the edit summary, and I hadn't checked the diff until now. So I did edit that section, but only that one time to tag it. Hence the confusion. My apologies for missing that, or I would have understood this whole issue just a bit better. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested in the wheel door question I checked the Flight archive today, there is a good diagram lower right and an explanation in the text. I'm struggling to get the link to work but it's 3 February 1966 p. 184-185. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
737 article starts at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200302.html MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_737/Archive_1&oldid=592033684"