Talk:Boeing 737

An event in this article is a April 9 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

looking for citation

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)

• What timeframe? Something well before the Boeing BBJ, right? -Fnlayson 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• citation found and added! The BBJ was made with the NG. The 77-33 was marketed in the late 1980's.Archtransit 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for citation so we can add a sentence along the lines of "the -900 didn't sell well because of limited future resale value to charter airlines. The -900 has the same pax cap as the -800)Archtransit (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

mention the rudder control issue?

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)

• If it's important, sure. I think the crashes should only be mentioned if the NTSB says it was a factor. Why do you have 2 accounts: Archtrain/transit? -Fnlayson 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Archtrain one closed. I didn't like the "train" part. I submitted a name change request, which was accepted. Archtransit 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

recent notable accidents

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)

• There'd be too many if all were included. The recent notable thing was to limit them. The next step would be just notable accidents. Also, a accident is serious one like a hull loss accident. -Fnlayson 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why the list is sorted by ascending dates? Louis Waweru  Talk  20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order. And consistency with many other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But chronology from most recent would start with now, right? Louis Waweru  Talk  22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Ahhh, thank you Louis Waweru  Talk  15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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) Just general article improvement, that's my goal. Getting it to FA quality without necessarily getting the star. There are only 18 references so let's get them right the first time! (Trust me, it saves grief!) Archtransit (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the requirements is the introductory paragraph. Over 10,000 DC-3 were made and it was a short range single aisle airliner. So I've modified the intro. paragraph. Popularity is subjective so, with due respect to the inital author, it's been modified. Archtransit 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

proposed new development section

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)

• You could probably move some of the variant info there. Like 737 Classics and Next Generation. Something like that anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that design cover the 737 original design so as not to confuse the reader. Some of the original 737 design applies to the classic and NG. Where the NG is different can be explained later. This seems the more organised approach. Archtransit (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

photo comment

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)

• True, that's a notable accident, just not a recent one. Maybe a sentence on past notable accidents above list. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider to take out one of the 737 classic photos. There's a -300, -400, -500. It is creating a big blank space. How about removing the -300. (Either that or try to eliminate the white space somehow.) Archtransit (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two interior photos, a Southwest and a Continental. The Continental one is dark and doesn't seem to add value. It does illustrate the ceiling. Is a ceiling photo needed? Perhaps not? Archtransit (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Boeing 737 now open

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

737 variants

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)

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)

Thank you for taking on this section. I agree that it should be arranged like the Next Gen section, with a separate header for each variant. I also think that most of the information should be merged/moved over to the Development section. In the end each variant should include only the following information: Varient launch customer, variant replacing/built upon, dates (rollout, first flight, certification, service entry), number built. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many possibilities but Trevor's suggestion above looks good to me. In the 747 article, the same approach was used. Development section was used for how the series or variant was developed. The difference between Trevor's suggestion and the 747 method was that a brief description on the variant was given under each variant, perhaps the typical seating capacity. Archtransit (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I do think the Variant section is the place to cover the details on the changes made with the Development section covering them in an overview sense. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

-700IGW mention. Any references? I'll look. Archtransit (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

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)

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

Winglets

From the article:

> Blended winglets are available as retrofits and in production on newer 737 aircraft. These winglets stand approximately 8 feet tall and are installed at the wing tips. They help with reduced fuel burn (by reducing vortex drag), reduced engine wear, and less noise on takeoff.

They are not 8 feet for sure :). could someone research and correct the error? (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

8 feet 4 inches according to the page on Boeing's site. Perhaps there are different size winglets for the earlier versions? Nimbus (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the page, - they are 8 feet exactly LONG, not tall (and 4 feet wide at the base that seems to be too wide for the end of the wing). Since they extend the wingspan, at least part of the winglet is an extension of the existing wing, not just the "winglet" itself. Also, some part of it is probably overlapping with the wing to fasten it reliably (this is the lenghth for the retrofit ones, not the new plane).

I felt kind of suspicious because 8 feet is much taller than a person's height, and they do not make this impression when observing them in an airport. I thought they are no taller than a couple of feet (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)).