|
   |
Home >> Forum >> 737-600 winglets Civil aviation forum
737-600 winglets
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of YYZ man - Sent 28 Dec 4:44 |
|
| |
i was looking at pics of the 737-600 and was wondering why this model does not have winglets the 700,800, and even the new 900ER series of the 737 have winglets i know that wesjet the canadian low cost airline was looking into winglets for the 737-600 but the certification never came just wondering if anyone has any info on this
cheers
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Trevor - Sent 29 Dec 19:02 |
|
| |
Yes, it is true and there was a lot of publicity regarding same, that Westjet's 737-600's were to be fitted with winglets. The certification process was to have started earlier this year. However, certificate process is both lengthy and costly and from what I can gather, neither Boeing nor Westjet were prepared to invest the time and cost in this process. Since Westjet was the sole customer requesting winglets for the B737-600 and bearing in mind poor sales of this model, especially in comparison to the B737-700, I am sure you can understand why this was quietly scrapped. Who knows perhaps Boeing told Westjet You want it, you pay for the certification process as with no other 737-600 customers requesting with winglets it will be impossible for us to write the cost off over sales on this model that simply are not there . Besides on short-haul flights there are no benefits to be had by adding winglets to the 737-600, if anything the extra weight for the winglets on shorthaul would increase the fuel burn. Westjet were initially looking at the 737-600 not just for less dense routes within Canada but also for longer routes outside of Canada.
To the best of my knowledge there is no carrier interested in adding winglets to the 737-600 and no one is currently undergoing the certification process. So from the NG family of 737's this will most likely remain the only model not to be offered with winglets at production or kited out with winglets at a later date.
Trust this answers your question
All the best, Trevor
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of YYZ man - Sent 31 Dec 6:41 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of jetman - Sent 12 May 2:04 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 14 May 6:54 |
|
| |
Not that I'm aware of. Correct me if I'm wrong but sales of 318 or 736 are practically dead for a while and had never been remotely successful since birth.
All these thanks to the advent of larger RJs(CRJs, E-Jets, etc.) that can do 99% of the job airlines will ever need a 736/318 to do but much much cheaper to acquire+operate.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 15 May 20:10 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 16 May 10:16 |
|
| |
on a very loosely related topic, does any one else find the 318 an ugly plane?? I think it looks so dumpy and out of proportion!!! I think the 319 is the best looking out of the 320 family by far.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 19 May 2:44 |
|
| |
EI-DUB:
I'm not an aviation photographer and hv nearly no artistic sense but I think I know what U mean. The 318 does look a bit funny...almost like the airplane any young kid can draw on a piece of paper....U know, very short fuselage on very tall landing gears<Sometimes with bubble-gum wheels+tires> with outsized wings+tailfin.... I hv to say the same thing about the 736 but its shorter ride-height/landing gears make it look a bit less awkward.
Like U re the 319, I tend to find the middle-sized member of any given jetliner family has the best balance in terms of appearance. Quite often, they also happen to be the best-seller in that family:
319/320 in the 32x family
73G/738 in the 737NG family
763ER in the 767 family
333/343/345 in the 330/340 family
772ER in the 777family(Boeing originally planned a shorter 777-100x but no customer wants it)
In an industry where max efficiency easily overides everything else and form always follow function, it's surprising that <good-look> still sells, or does it???
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 19 May 17:54 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of CXsjr - Sent 22 May 11:13 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of G-NIKO - Sent 22 May 15:08 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 23 May 12:37 |
|
| |
captain bill:
I never thought about it but U may be right about 737 vs 319/320. Those taller landing gears probably allow more suspension/wheel travel @ touch-down, hence softer landing.....
CXsjr:
SAS and WestJet are probably the only 2 airlines that hv substantial 736 fleets...out of a total of zillions of 737NG customers.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 24 May 0:28 |
|
| |
You are completely right about the A318 but i also think the B736 has the same problem not that you see many of either type. In Europe i can only think of three 736 operators and 2 318 operators.
Malev, SAS and FlyGlobespan (736)
Air France and Tarom (318)
Although i think the A318-100 will do well if it gets full certification for LCY.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 26 May 13:27 |
|
| |
Highly customized, super low-density/payload(i.e. All premium seats of at least 60inch pitch) and long range 318 will do well fm LCY flying transatlantic only.
318 in std layout+range flying fm LCY to most of Europe will be economically disastrous for any airline. In terms of op costs(Fuel, mainteance, crew, airport fees, etc.) per seat, large RJs such as E-jets, CRJs, C-Series(Upcoming) will beat the sh?t out of the 318 in those routes carrying similar # of pax.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 26 May 14:54 |
|
| |
I'm predicting the future replacements(2015 or later) for 737NG and A32x families will stay well clear of large RJs territory. It means their smallest members will start fm:
1. At least 130+ seats in 2-class layout(Roughly today's 73G and 319) or even 150+ seats in 2-class layout(Roughly today's 738 and 320)
2. Min Range of 7+ hrs /7,000km(Roughly today's 752), enough to fly LHR-DXB/JFK with full payload.
3. Op cost per seat equal to today's 332 and better than 763ER(Both are the smallest widebodies in production)
No, this prediction is not based on any insight of tomorrow's aerospace tech for narrowbody mainline jets. It's based purely on the trend in airlines demand: Range performance+economics of today's smallest widebody available fm a narrow-body. Without these <leaps>, airlines won't be interested in any 737NG or 32x replacements and will simply switch to more cheaper RJs that are clearly getting bigger and flying longer ranges. I won't be surprised if the nex evolution of large RJs will be the size+range(Upto 5,000km) of today's 73G/319. It won't be difficult as the std turbofan on the C-series(P&W's GTF) will already be as powerful as today's CFM56 on some A32x yet being more economical+quiet just like any RJs. In fact, the C-series also looks like a slightly scaled-down 32x not unlike the E-jet(A mini 32x): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries#Preliminary_Data
Except for the 5-abreast seating, it'll be very difficult for the avg pax to tell the diff between a 32x and a C-series when airlines switch their mainline narrowbodies to RJs(May be no longer appropriate to call C-series a RJ).
737NG/32x replacements will hv no choice but to GO UPMARKET. We won't see anything like the 736/318(Winglets or not) fm Boeing/Airbus again in the future.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of PlanetPlanes - Sent 28 May 17:49 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of PlanetPlanes - Sent 28 May 17:56 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post a message for this thread
|
|
Messages must be written in english. Messages written in an another language will be deleted.
Post only messages related to the civil aviation, and do not insert any ad. Your IP is logged.
You can custom your text by using the following codes
[B]Your text[/B] : Text in bold
[I]Your text[/I] : Text in italic
[U]Your text[/U] : Text underline
[S]Your text[/S] : Text striketough
To include an Airfleets.net photo, use the code [P]Photo number[/P] |
|