Hi EveryoneI just came back from a two week trip in asia and i relised one thing, no one operates the 737NG. I was in Changi airport and all the major carriers (air asia , singapore airlines (silk air)) do not operate the NG. My question is this, with the A320 NEO being such as a sales sucess why not upgrade the 737. I think this aircraft will obsolete once the NEO and the new aircraft from COMAC (ryan air is choosing their aircraft over the NG) come through developement.P.S I flew on the A380 and I loved it, It is an absoulute engineering master piece, I sat near the wing and I was amazed of how big the wing span was and how quite the aircraft is.AdnanSomewhere near YMML

I've heard it's because the wings on the 737 NG is attached lower than the A320 series, and therefore it's harder for Boeing to fit new engines.

COMAC (ryan air is choosing their aircraft over the NG)

No, Ryanair (One word) is not 'choosing' the C919. They entered into a cooperation agreement with COMAC, which essentially means nothing in terms of buying anything. BA have done exactly the same. No money is exchanged and more than likely it's just a scare tactic for Boeing/Airbus to lower their prices.

Hi EveryoneI just came back from a two week trip in asia and i relised one thing, no one operates the 737NG. I was in Changi airport and all the major carriers (air asia , singapore airlines (silk air)) do not operate the NG. My question is this, with the A320 NEO being such as a sales sucess why not upgrade the 737. I think this aircraft will obsolete once the NEO and the new aircraft from COMAC (ryan air is choosing their aircraft over the NG) come through developement.P.S I flew on the A380 and I loved it, It is an absoulute engineering master piece, I sat near the wing and I was amazed of how big the wing span was and how quite the aircraft is.AdnanSomewhere near YMML

Hi Adnan. I'm not sure if there are any operators based in WSSS that operate 737NG's, but there are a large number of them operating in the Asia region (JAL, ANA, China Airlines, and Garuda for a start) and I've seen some in Singapore. Malaysia Airlines is one I recall seeing there.Last I read, Boeing are still considering their options on new engine vs new airplane with the 737. Airbus has said that they don't envisage a replacement for the A320 until well into the 2020's so whatever Boeing does, it'll no doubt be a suitably measured response to the NEO! The big issue with the 737 has already been pointed out here: with a low ground clearance the range of engines that can fit under a 737 wing is a bit limited unless you lengthen the gear, which is a bit of a nightmare from an engineering standpoint. The A320 was built a lot taller in the legs to begin with, so the constraint isn't there.

Talking about the low ground clearance....Did Boeing ever make the landing gear longer in the entire run?

http://www.avsim.com/pages/1201/732/usairreal.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royaljet_b737-bbj_a6-rjz_arp.jpg

They must have, because the engines on the Original series were a lot smaller in diameter than the engines on the NG. But Im guessing not enough to easily fit new engines, like you said above?

This is a good and relevant question. I live in Seattle and the local paper ran a series of stories around the Paris Airshow on this exact question: Can Boeing afford to wait to build a completely new version of the 737, or will it be forced to make a version with new engines (possibly not made by CFM which would be a first for this line of planes) like the re-motored Airbus. Boeing claims it will make a decision by the end of the year - it will be interesting to see if the success of the NEO's first play on the big stage affects Boeing's decision. That said, Boeing is ramping up its 737 line to deliver two planes a day...so there is strong demand for the baby boeing still...And further - this is all about fuel economy. I think Boeing would prefer to build a new plane using the technology developed (at great expense and time I might add) from the Dreamliner as another way to drive better fuel economy. So the clearance issue is a real one, but the real question is will there be a market for new, lighter 737 in 7 years if Airbus keeps selling lots of re-motored 320s....A difficult business decision for the folks in Chicago/Everett/Renton and BFI....colin ware

That said, Boeing is ramping up its 737 line to deliver two planes a day...so there is strong demand for the baby boeing still...

Hi Colin,Interesting post. You're correct, at some point in the past people ordered enough NGs for two NGs to meet demand but the orders placed at Paris have nothing to do with what's actually coming off the production line now. When those first NEOs are coming off the production line we'll have to see what's coming off the NGs production line at the same time.That said I think Boeing are too big and successful a company to drop the ball on this one. That and the fact they can't afford to.

Hi EveryoneI just came back from a two week trip in asia and i relised one thing, no one operates the 737NG. I was in Changi airport and all the major carriers (air asia , singapore airlines (silk air)) do not operate the NG.AdnanSomewhere near YMML

Hi Adnan,Quite a few airlines operate the NG in Asia.As per Wikipedia, if you take the following 11 airlines : Air China, China Southern, China Airlines, China Eastern, Dragonair, Korean Airlines, Asiana, Qantas, Air Asia, Malaysia, Garuda), they have (in service or firm orders) : - 773 Airbus A318/319/320/321 (including NEOs)- 688 Boeing 737 NGs (NGs only, classics excluded)if you only take in account a/c in service, the numbers are (more or less since the table is not updated in real time) :- 504 small Airbusses- 372 NGs(I would gladly have included my great "Wikipedia/fencer Word airliner table" but somehow I can't manage to properly import from Excel to Avsim...) :( Rgds,Bruno

I'll bet almost anything Boeing makes a new airplane instead of upgrading the 737 again - the basic airframe dates back to the 1960s. It's time to do something new... I'll bet they essentially make a narrow body (or 2-2-2 half-widebody) derivative of the 787 that has type rating commonality with the 787.

Talking about the low ground clearance....Did Boeing ever make the landing gear longer in the entire run?

http://www.avsim.com/pages/1201/732/usairreal.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royaljet_b737-bbj_a6-rjz_arp.jpg

They must have, because the engines on the Original series were a lot smaller in diameter than the engines on the NG. But Im guessing not enough to easily fit new engines, like you said above?

No changes to landing gear length were made. That would have meant longer landing gear wells and moving the gear attachment point, affecting the wing design. The JT9D engines were hung under the 737 wing. The larger diameter CFM56 engines are accommodated by mounting them higher, forward of the wings and the engine accessories are mounted to the side of the nacelle allowing the underside of the pod to be flattened somewhat, increasing ground clearance.Kevin Hall

Wouldnt those retrofits significantly change the way the air flows around the wing, reducing the lift:drag ratio?

No changes to landing gear length were made. That would have meant longer landing gear wells and moving the gear attachment point, affecting the wing design. The JT9D engines were hung under the 737 wing. The larger diameter CFM56 engines are accommodated by mounting them higher, forward of the wings and the engine accessories are mounted to the side of the nacelle allowing the underside of the pod to be flattened somewhat, increasing ground clearance.Kevin Hall

This is incorrect, the 737 NG's nose gear is three and a half inches longer than on a Classic 737, the nose gear wheel well was shifted forward about three inches too. The NG also has a longer main landing gear which has different size tires fitted (its design borrows heavily from the 757/767's landing gear).The lengthened nose gear was to increase the amount of dynamic load the NG could absorb upon touchdown, the main landing gear length increase was ostensibly to reduce the possibility of a tail strike on the 800 and 900 models, which Boeing thought might be a big risk on the 900, although it's not actually turned out that way and it doesn't present a very significantly different risk of a tail strike over other NGs, although the 900 does have a beefed-up tailskid, and the 900ER and the 800SFP both have a tailskid which lowers an additional five inches during landing.So the landing gear length is not vastly different in length on an NG, but it is nevertheless a bit longer than it is on a Classic 737.With regard to being able to fit engines on aeroplanes, what you have to remember is that CFM, along with every other engine maker, design engines in order to suit customers, by making them of a size suitable to fit on the products an aeroplane manufacturer makes. So they would not design an engine that Boeing and the airlines which bought the 737 could not feasibly use on what is, after all, the best selling and most numerous airliner of all time, because that would be economically suicidal. Boeing may stop making the 737 at some point of course, but they won't stop making it for a good few years because they have a massive backlog on orders for it, and even when they stop making the thing, the extant ones will still be flying for at least thirty years after the production lines have closed down, so there will still be a big market for engines.Al

I'll bet almost anything Boeing makes a new airplane instead of upgrading the 737 again - the basic airframe dates back to the 1960s. It's time to do something new... I'll bet they essentially make a narrow body (or 2-2-2 half-widebody) derivative of the 787 that has type rating commonality with the 787.

1- Boeing said they would announce their decision (re-engine or new airplane) before the end of this year (McNerney's inteview to AW&ST)2- I wonder how a twin-aisle "half-widebody" could be competitive but only time will tell.Bruno

there are lots of 737s here, not much at WSSS though