Talk:Boeing 737/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  no main landing gear covers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  David Allen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Triple edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oh my god, tracking 737 orders? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  B737-400 Largest Fleet 

message: 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)
thread_title:  737 crash ! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WestJet in infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Range 

message: 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 737-300.
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:
* 737-100 : Braathens
* 737-800 : KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Qantas, Air India, El Al, South African Airways, Kenya Airways, ATA Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, Futura International Airways, Ryanair, Alaska Airlines, Lauda Air, Virgin Blue, Braniff International Airways, Skymark Airlines, Air Algérie, Jet Airways, Hilo International Airport, Ryanair Flight 296, Thomsonfly, PrivatAir, Shenzhen Airlines, Britannia Airways, Sun Country Airlines, Transavia.com, Excel Airways, Oman Air, Wuhan Airlines, Pegasus Airlines, Shandong Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, China Southwest Airlines, Air Sofia, Sky Airlines, Flyglobespan, Yemenia, Enschede Airport Twente, Helios Airways Flight 522, Nexus Airways, Polynesian Blue, Sunwing Airlines, Air transports of Heads of State
* 737-400 : KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Qantas, Braathens, Malaysia Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, Futura International Airways, US Airways, Thai Airways International, Asiana Airlines, Luxair, Air Nauru, Japan Transocean Air, Nok Air, Transaero, Olympic Airlines, Aviogenex, Jet Airways, Skynet Airlines, Jet2.com, Aircraft safety card, JAL Express, Lion Air, Angel Airlines (Thailand), Norfolk Jet Express, Excel Airways, Aviacsa, Axis Airways, MNG Airlines, Pegasus Airlines, Kulula.com, Ryan International Airlines, Blue Panorama Airlines, Panair, Binter Canarias, Sky Airlines, US Airways Group, Enschede Airport Twente, BRA Transportes Aéreos, Corendon Airlines, Blu-express, Jet4you, Piedmont Virtual Airlines, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
* 737-900ER: Continental Airlines, Lion Air
* 737-300 : KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, America West Airlines, Lufthansa, PLUNA, ATA Airlines, Sabena, Tarom, Garuda Indonesia, Pakistan International Airlines, Maersk Air, Biman Bangladesh Airlines, AirAsia, US Airways, Flybe, SkyEurope, Jat Airways, Canadian Pacific Airlines, Pacific Airlines, CanJet, SilkAir, Transaero, Herpa Wings, Olympic Airlines, Precision Air, Bmibaby, Turkmenistan Airlines, Aviogenex, Jet2.com, Thomsonfly, Bulgaria Air, MAT Macedonian Airlines, Shenzhen Airlines, Britannia Airways, Lion Air, USAir Flight 1493, Xiamen Airlines, Thai AirAsia, Transavia.com, Astraeus (airline), Indonesia AirAsia, Aviacsa, KD Avia, Axis Airways, Wuhan Airlines, Samara Airlines, Bellview Airlines (Nigeria), Karthago Airlines, Shandong Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, China Yunnan Airlines, China Southwest Airlines, Western Pacific Airlines, TNT Airways, Aero Costa Rica, SkyEurope Airlines Hungary, Bluebird Cargo, Aurela, Panair, Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, Slovak Airlines, Titan Airways, US Airways Group, Jordan Aviation, Nordeste Linhas Aereas Regionais, Rio Sul Serviços Aéreos Regionais, Ion Ţiriac Air, Avolar, Vanguard Airlines, BRA Transportes Aéreos, Magnicharters, JetConnect, RJ500, Corendon Airlines, List of military equipment of Republic of Korea, AB Airlines, Piedmont Virtual Airlines, Jat Airways destinations, Tuzla International Airport, Herpa, Color Air, Toumaï Air Tchad, Southwest Airlines, EasyJet, Birmingham International Airport (England), Legazpi Airport, Buzz (airline), Air Maxi, Pakistan International Airlines destinations, Japanese Aero Engines Corporation
* 737-500 : Lufthansa, Braathens, Sabena, Tarom, AirBaltic, Garuda Indonesia, Air Vanuatu, FlyLal, Balkan Bulgarian Airlines, SkyEurope, Adria Airways, EgyptAir, Asiana Airlines, Luxair, Tunisair, Bmibaby, Thomsonfly, Bulgaria Air, Britannia Airways, Angel Airlines (Thailand), Xiamen Airlines, Aeroflot Don, Pegasus Airlines, Aeroflot-Nord, Nordeste Linhas Aereas Regionais, Rio Sul Serviços Aéreos Regionais, Avolar
* 737-700/-700ER : El Al, Braathens, Tarom, Maersk Air, Aloha Airlines, SkyEurope, AirTran Airways, Lauda Air, Virgin Blue, Luxair, LAPA, Ethiopian Airlines, Royal Air Maroc, Air Berlin, Transaero, Jet Airways, Air Seychelles, PrivatAir, Shenzhen Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, Transavia.com, Astraeus (airline), Oman Air, Shandong Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Shanxi Airlines, Western Pacific Airlines, Alpi Eagles, Rio Sul Serviços Aéreos Regionais, Midway Airlines (JI), Eastwind Airlines, AB Airlines
* 737-600 : Lauda Air, Tunisair, Air Algérie, China Southwest Airlines
* 737-200 : Aerolíneas Argentinas, PLUNA, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Air New Zealand, Royal Brunei, Braathens, WestJet, Sabena, Bahamasair, Iran Air, Ryanair, Canadian Airlines, Aloha Airlines, US Airways, Thai Airways, Canadian Pacific Airlines, Avensa, Palmair, Luxair, Sudan Airways, Cayman Airways, Air Namibia, Air Algérie Flight 6289, Olympic Aviation, Aloha Airlines Flight 243, Transaero, Olympic Airlines, Air Sahara, Hush kit, Alliance Air, Thomsonfly, MAT Macedonian Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, Nicaraguenses de Aviacion (NICA), Kam Air, Airfast Indonesia, Earth Airlines, Safair, Comair (South Africa), Air Express, Blue Dart Aviation, Phuket Air, Kulula.com, Ryan International Airlines, Jordan Aviation, Avior Airlines, Rutaca, Servivensa, TANS Peru, Icaro Air, TAF Linhas Aereas, Ameristar Jet Charter, AMC Airlines, Airwork, Tarom Cargo, Vanguard Airlines, Bellview Airlines Flight 210, Magnicharters, Kartika Airlines, Piedmont Virtual Airlines
~~ N-Bot (t/c) 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Is Southwest buying 737-800s?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gol Flight 1907 

message: 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)
replies: text: T-43 Navigator is correct per this Boeing source . 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)
replies: text: 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: . 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  Akradecki 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related content

message: For 737 fans, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.
	
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)
thread_title: 737 Userbox

message: 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)
thread_title: Area 51

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not the most produced commercial airliner? 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  -200 Advanaced image placement 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not worth keeping without a source. Thanks for deleting it. - BillCJ 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sure.  I wanted to put something in Talk in case it gets added again. -Fnlayson 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister ship 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. - BillCJ 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: * 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Specification table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Range - Not Long Range 

message: 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,  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)
thread_title:  Recent Incidents section 

message: 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)
thread_title: deliveries list

message: 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)
thread_title: the eyelids

message: 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)
thread_title: looking for citation

message: 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)
thread_title: mention the rudder control issue?

message: 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)
replies: text: Chronological order.  And consistency with many other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But chronology from most recent would start with now, right? Louis Waweru  Talk  22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: * 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)
replies: text:  Ahhh, thank you Louis Waweru  Talk  15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: recent notable accidents

message: 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)
thread_title: proposed new development section

message: 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)
thread_title: photo comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Boeing 737]] now open 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 737 variants

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  How many seats? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  British Airtours Flight 28M 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I dont think anybody would have an issue with the start of production changing to 1967. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Does "Production" Start 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why no fuel dump system? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Variants chart at the end 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: * Provide some diffs or at least some dates for when these additions, etc. took place. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Uh, I reverted Ken's removal once. My edits from Aug. 20 are , , , , , and .  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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Or, you can drop it and not attack other editors groundlessly. Your choice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "I'm a Tandorian! Jedi mind-tricks don't wrok on me!: :) - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither does spellcheck, apparently – "wrok"???? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Move along. Move along." - Ken keisel (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 737 article starts at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200302.html MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheel doors