Hi all, A while ago I was being wheelchaired onto a 737 by the co-pilot(!), and I asked him what 737 it was. I was hoping for a number, but the response was (approximately) "This is a baby glass". As the upcoming NGX has the heads-up-visor (display?), perhaps that's what he was referring to? Both my eyes were covered due to recent surgery, so I annoyed my seatmate into describing the shape of the engines. It wasn't the silver bullet (-100) or the -200 or the -300. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks in advance,dan

737 Baby Glass is the 737 Baby jets(300 400 500) with a GLASS cockpit Luiz Cunha

It wasn't the silver bullet (-100) or the -200 or the -300.

I'm not sure what is meant by "baby glass," but I can definitely say that the -300 doesn't have the bullet. It has the oops-we-forgot-about-the-ground-clearance nacelle. The -100 and -200 have the bullet.

I'm not sure what is meant by "baby glass," but I can definitely say that the -300 doesn't have the bullet. It has the oops-we-forgot-about-the-ground-clearance nacelle. The -100 and -200 have the bullet.

Surprising that you'd mention the minor engineering problem with the -300. I was seconded to Boeing in the summer of 1985 or 1986 to learn how to use Cray X-MPs for parallel computational fluid dynamics calculations. The oops-new-engine-design came about because the -300 was designed entirely on computers. No wind tunnel tests. They left the engine pylons at the same place as the -200 but the -300 engines were a *lot* bigger. The story goes that it was not until someone printed out front and side views of the -300 that they realized the "minor" error. The instructor said, approximately, "we considered asking all airports to groove their runways but decided to move the pylon position instead". One of our "problem sets" was to try to optimize the pylon position. I didn't do very well :). Those side views of the "computed" -300 were everywhere at Everett and the workshop location. I had mine until about 15 years ago. You could stare at it for a long time before noticing the relative positions of the landing gear and the engine cowlings. It was a memorable summer! dan davison

Surprising that you'd mention the minor engineering problem with the -300. I was seconded to Boeing in the summer of 1985 or 1986 to learn how to use Cray X-MPs for parallel computational fluid dynamics calculations. The oops-new-engine-design came about because the -300 was designed entirely on computers. No wind tunnel tests. They left the engine pylons at the same place as the -200 but the -300 engines were a *lot* bigger. The story goes that it was not until someone printed out front and side views of the -300 that they realized the "minor" error. The instructor said, approximately, "we considered asking all airports to groove their runways but decided to move the pylon position instead". One of our "problem sets" was to try to optimize the pylon position. I didn't do very well :). Those side views of the "computed" -300 were everywhere at Everett and the workshop location. I had mine until about 15 years ago. You could stare at it for a long time before noticing the relative positions of the landing gear and the engine cowlings. It was a memorable summer! dan davison

So the nacelles weren't designed that way from the start? That's pretty funny! I thought I read somewhere that at some point they thought about altering the landing gear to accomodate the CFMs but that it just wasn't practical without completely reengineering everything.

Modifying the gear would have made the plane look like it's up on stilts, like the 757. The engine cowlings look col in that D shape. A really distinctive feature.

Surprising that you'd mention the minor engineering problem with the -300. I was seconded to Boeing in the summer of 1985 or 1986 to learn how to use Cray X-MPs for parallel computational fluid dynamics calculations. The oops-new-engine-design came about because the -300 was designed entirely on computers. No wind tunnel tests. They left the engine pylons at the same place as the -200 but the -300 engines were a *lot* bigger. The story goes that it was not until someone printed out front and side views of the -300 that they realized the "minor" error. The instructor said, approximately, "we considered asking all airports to groove their runways but decided to move the pylon position instead". One of our "problem sets" was to try to optimize the pylon position. I didn't do very well :). Those side views of the "computed" -300 were everywhere at Everett and the workshop location. I had mine until about 15 years ago. You could stare at it for a long time before noticing the relative positions of the landing gear and the engine cowlings. It was a memorable summer! dan davison

Just curious, did that involve numerical integration (including extrapolation, interpolation, quadrature, etc.?) I had a professor who worked at Airbus doing pretty much what you said, but in a much more recent timeframe. Still, he was optimising their processes so that instead of 30 days, computation took 30 hours. And that was on a 2005 supercomputer. I find applied numerical analysis a facinating subject when applied to aerospace, of course, in and of itself it's as dry as dust. Frank