|
   |
Home >> Forum >> 737NG vs 707? Civil aviation forum
737NG vs 707?
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 27 Feb 9:02 |
|
| |
This mth is the 40th birthday of the 737 family. I was thinking about how large it has grown since the original 737-100 1st flew with LH in Feb68. Developed as the 'baby' version of the 'big brother' 707 family, it's striking to see how similar today's biggest 737NG(737-900ER) is to the smallest 707(720) 1st flew in 1959:
Nose section shape: Identical
Fuselage width: 739ER=3.76m /720=3.76m
Length: 739ER=42.1m /720=41.25m
Wingspan: 739ER=35.7m /720=39.9m
Empty weight: 739ER=44,676kg /720=46,785kg
MTOW: 739ER=85,130kg /720=100,800kg
Seats in 1-class: 739ER=204+ /720=Upto 140
Max thurst-all engines: 739ER=54,600lb /720=48,000lb
Max range fully loaded: 739ER=5,925km /720=6,800km
Cruise speed: 739ER=823kmh /720=999kmh(Grandpa is a rocket!)
MTOW take-off run: 739ER=2,450m /720=2,515m(Yeah I know, we thought all 707s need long runways.....)
Of course, in terms of fuel burn+emissions, these 2 jets look like they're fm diff planets......
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 27 Feb 21:14 |
|
| |
I remember back in August 1963 (am I old or what) as a young teenager flying for the first time in a B.O.A.C. 707-436 YYZ to PIK and how wonderful it was. I must admit there was not a lot of difference between The Bomber as we affectionately called it back then to the DC-8-43 of Air Canada I had gone to YYZ in in July of that year. The air vents on the DC-8 were on the seat back in front of you but the 707 had them where all aircraft now have them , on the overhead rack for that was what it was in these days an open rack above your head and bags and coats and jackets and all sorts kept falling down on passengers.
But yes your right FLX the similarities today are remarkable but when you think of the developments in the cockpit for example and the fact that both engines on the 737NG burn approximately 5 times less fuel than one of the four on the 707/DC-8 did. The RR Conway was a good engine but greedy and dirty and I know this for a fact having worked on both them and Avons from Comets and Caravelles.
We'v come a long long way in commercial aviation even in my time and I pay tribute to designers and developers of today and to this generation of engineers and flyers who have adapted to modern technology in a manner that boggles my tiny mind.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 28 Feb 7:47 |
|
| |
2 things struck me most:
1st, many key elements of 737 are clearly shared with the 707 platform. The eye-brow windows just above the cockpit windshield, nose-secton shape, the fuselage width/cross-section layout, etc. After 50yrs, we can still see these 707 DNAs used directly on the latest 737NGs today. But why? Either A) These elements were engineered so perfectly right back in the 50s that after half a century, they're still good enough for use in 1 of the most advanced jet design today or
B) Corp R&D guidelines demand Boeing to be the ultimate cheapskates in aerospace. e.g., Boeing must be squeezing the best ever return-on-investment in history fm those 707 production toolings(Must hv been 100% depreciated on the books decades ago).....
2nd, 707 began life basically as a mid-sized(1950 std), medium-to-transatlantic range(Again, 1950 std) jet while the 737 was scaled-down(Indirectly via the 727) fm the 707 to specifically serve small short-range/regional mkts with short rwys. Functionally & size-wise, today's 739ER is generally scaled-up back to where the 707 has started.....I can't seem to get this picture off my mind where 739ER engineers went through those ancient 707 design blueprints+specs(Probably drawn-up by their Grandpas) searching for the best way to extend a 737NG fuselage without breaking it...
Your comments and these 2 points led me to a theory: The most important/significant tech advances, by far, in commercial aviation have been made in engines and avionics which are NOT exactly Boeing's domains but rather their main contractors'(GE,RR,Honeywell,Allied Signals, etc.). Earliest 707 houses a crew of 4(Capt+F/O+Engineer+Nav/Radio) to fly over-water while the 737NG(With a cockpit of the same shape+size) needs only 2 and most importantly, is technically capable to fly itself fm terminal gate-to-terminal gate. Each CFM56 on 737NG, like U said, burns only 10% of the fuel needed to run a single 707 engine. These are leaps. In contrast, airframe weight(Boeing's domain) hv not changed much for aircrafts of similar size but 50yrs apart in design. Sure, there're also improvements in airfoil efficiency but the gains made over 50yrs are moderate @ best relative to the gains made in engines & avionics during the same period.
May be Boeing has been concentrating more on the integration of the whole system and project managment and hv made better progress in those areas........though the 787 program status is not exactly supporting that view either.....
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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] |
|