Boeing may stop making the 737?

n57flyguy said:
Wasn't the intent, I just hate seeing it wrong as well.

Lucky guy I would say, seems like everyone can make it out to SEA but I. Love that freakn' place.
Click to expand...

I'm mixed on the place. Love the person that is out there. Now all i need is a Part91 job out of BFI and I'd be set.
 
The true rumor is they are dropping the 737 and building a 90-100 seat bird to sell to the hot regionals.
 
Kestrel452 said:
Geez Boeing, just bring back the 722 already.
Click to expand...

ASpilot2be said:
Any plane that makes me stop what ever conversation I am having is a winner in my book.:clap:
Working the ramp on the -200s is awesome. Ear plugs+ear muffs are still not enough.:bandit:
Click to expand...

Would love to see a re-engineered and modern 727-200 series. Probably wouldn't be as fun to fly though. It is fun pulling onto ramps and watch people run for cover from all the noise. Heck the APU is louder than most business jets

fly22 said:
The true rumor is they are dropping the 737 and building a 90-100 seat bird to sell to the hot regionals.
Click to expand...

Not sure what Boeing would call it though. If they build something that small it doesn't seem deserving of a 797 designation.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Could the 727 taxi on the #2 engine alone? Was just curious - would save a butt ton of fuel.
Click to expand...

clayfenderstrat said:
I'm pretty sure that they can.....the one here at Purdue used to taxi around the ramp, and I'm pretty sure they would just fire up #2....
Click to expand...

You could taxi on #1 or #2 alone but it isn't advisable as it would require a lot of thrust and you could easily damage objects behind you. Typically we taxi in on 1 & 2 and out on all 3 unless we are expecting a long delay then we will taxi out on 1 & 2 also. The reason we use 1 & 2 is that is where the System A hydraulic pumps are located. Engine 3 only has electrics and therefore optional.

A 15-20 minute taxi will only burn 1000 lbs total with all three running. You can save 300-400 lbs by taxing in/out on two engines.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
You could taxi on #1 or #2 alone but it isn't advisable as it would require a lot of thrust and you could easily damage objects behind you. Typically we taxi in on 1 & 2 and out on all 3 unless we are expecting a long delay then we will taxi out on 1 & 2 also. The reason we use 1 & 2 is that is where the System A hydraulic pumps are located. Engine 3 only has electrics and therefore optional.

A 15-20 minute taxi will only burn 1000 lbs total with all three running. You can save 300-400 lbs by taxing in/out on two engines.
Click to expand...

Sounds correct, but I'll have to check the flight sim message boards to confirm ...

:D

Seriously, that's good info - thanks!
 
JEP said:
oooh, listen to Mr. Widebody.... ;)
Click to expand...

Hey now! The man doesn't just fly the Crown Victoria of the air, it's the "L-T-D" Crown Vic. A fine specimen of early-eighties technology that is. :D
 
I thought they were just going to slap on some fancy new GTF's under the wings for the Next NG 737:dunno:
 
I miss seeing Delta's 737-200's. That was a fun airplane to watch take off and land. The classic "fluff" or "football".
 
The -100 was one short fat machine. Only a few made for Lufthansa before Boeing went to the -200. I got to see the machine at Boeing that created my left seat bid. We flew with -7, -9 and -15 engines. The -200 with -15s was a fun machine.

Never understood the -500. No doubt a little rocket but an odd duck. The -300/400 was too much fuel and too little performance. 0.74 transcon and not above FL370. And with a jumpseater it was just too little cockpit for the distance/time.

It is going to be interesting to see what happens if Bombardier, Embraer jumps in with Boeing and Airbus. Embraer has made amazing strides from this
emb110-87.jpg
to this..
1312295.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top