Talk:Boeing 737

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Note icon
This article has failed an A-Class review.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Engineering, applied sciences, and technology.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Two vs. three crew in -100 and -200[edit]

I changed the Specifications table to show only two crew for all models. While it is true to say that several airlines in the US operated 737-100s and -200s with three people sitting in the cockpit, the third crew member was not required and was in there for non-operational reasons i.e. because the pilots' union said he should be there. YSSYguy (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

They may have ridden the jump seat merely to return to their home airport. Crew ferrying is not an insignificant proportion of all passengers. The uncomfortable jump seat frees up a revenue-earning seat in the passenger cabin. Of course unions would be against the idea. Some airlines have agreements to carry each others crew free of charge. (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fuel Consumption Figures[edit]

So the sales and marketing types are at it again. For those of us who do not care what brand of beer we drink, where can you find the Specific Fuel Consumption rates for these type of Vehicles? In the US and Canada, for Automobiles, there are published fuel consumption guides , depending on the Vehicle, and a Standard Drive Pattern. For the airlines it is not so easy, but still why are there no Guides. Ie An Airbus 320 Flies at x lbs / hr @ a Certain Takeoff Weight (based on its configuration) vs a 737-xxx flies at x lbs/ hr @ a certain takeoff weight (apples to apples). Richard416282 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Dont understand the sales and marketing comment but fuel consumption rates are not notable or encyclopedic unless somehow unusual and then that would be mentioned in the narrative. MilborneOne (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Generally the fuel consumption figures are irrelevant to anyone other than a potential customer for the airliner type. These figures are usually laid out in the specialised brochures that airliner manufacturers supply to prospective customers, i.e., the airlines. Unlike a road car or other road vehicle, these figures are highly variable, depending on the number of passengers carried, and also on the amount of fuel that has to be lifted for a particular journey. Airliners usually fly with the minimum fuel necessary - plus a reserve - for any journey, as the increased weight of unneeded fuel reduces fuel economy, and hence increases cost to the airline - every pound (or rather kilogramme these days) of weight has to be lifted and so any additional fuel over and above that needed for a particular journey in turn uses additional fuel, as fuel consumption increases with increased weight, as also does induced drag.
To the orginal poster, I suspect that if you were to write to the two major western airliner manufacturer's publicity departments - Boeing and Airbus - asking nicely they may send you some of their brochures with the relevant details. You could also try the ex-Soviet ones such as Ilyushin and Tupolev, etc., as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

B737 vs A318 to A321[edit]

The deliveries section shows the A320 (318-321 I suppose) has slowly overtaken the B737 since 1988. There's no explanation for this, and one is needed. Possibilities are: 1. lower purchase price per pax, 2. lower op costs, 3. more configurations, 4. shorter delivery times, 5. better leasing and buy-back deals. 1 is lowest, and 5 is most likely. Some researcher should be able to answer this definitively. (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Really something for Competition between Airbus and Boeing to deal with. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

737-100 Purchase Price?[edit]

The 'Background' section mentions that Lufthansa ordered 21 aircraft worth $67 million in 1965 and that the purchase would be equivalent to $190.28 million in 2008. Using an online inflation calculator, I determined that the purchase would actually be equivalent to $457.95 million (in 2008 dollars). Is the $67 million number correct? Also, shouldn't the monetary equivalent be updated to 2015 US dollars? F0rteOC (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lufthansa was launch customer and - more important - driving force behind the developement of the 737, so they got a good price. (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

gear suspension[edit]

The older 737's like 707/720's and 727's had poorer gear suspension compared to for instance B 757's and later. At a B707 ony a short stairway was needed and the pilots didn't need radio altitude countdown (in good weather, at least). Has this changed through the development of the B737, or are the pilots still sitting 3-4 meter above ground (standing still). A B707/720 typically had bottom of its entry/exit doors at around 4 meter heigt. (assume on DC8 and DC9, this was the same) Boeing720 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference # 123[edit]

I erroneously stated that I citation I inserted was reference #90 in the 737-600 subsection, but after looking at that number agin, it turns out it is reference # 123. My mistake. (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing 737. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boeing 737/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 22:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement[edit]

I am grabbing this article for a GA review. As this is a sizable article with quite a few references, I expect to get this review done in 1 to 2 weeks. It will be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.

Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.

As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.


  • General punctuation comment: I would add quite a few commas to clean up the punctuation of the article. I am happy to do that myself as part of this review - please just let me know if you are okay with that course of action. I will therefore not point out all instances of where commas are needed.
  • Overall reference comment: There are several broken links itemized below. In addition, there are several pages that aren't broken per se, but link to what looks like a re-designed page at, which needs to be reviewed, and the references need to be redone. I have also pointed out some unsupported material in need of good references. Lastly, a lot of references are relatively old and link to pages at the Wayback archive. This isn't an issue in itself, but appears to indicate that a thorough review of all references may be in order.


  • The following references were identified as dead links by the Checklinks tool: References 6, 109, 164.

Copyvio detector[edit]

  • I did a double-take when the copyvio results first came back: 98.4% confidence of a copyright violation with a blog called "How It Flies". However, when I checked that blog's entries on a several other aircraft, the blog's entries and Wikipedia's are nearly identical in all cases I checked - and it's clearly demonstrable that the blog is the copycat, not this article. Whew.


  • Reference request: The unit cost for the 737-600 is unreferenced. This number needs a reference, or should be removed.
  • Inflation: Please see the inflation calculator used here: For example, if the unit value for the 737-100 was from 1966, the 2016 number per this calculator looks like this: 737-100: US$32 million; US$233 million in 2016[1]. Considering the long life span of the 737, and the usage of dollar values from up to 50 years ago, a conversion into 2016 dollars appears to be appropriate and desirable. Thoughts on its use in this article?


  • Clarification request: 1st paragraph: The word "re-engined", while a perfectly legitimate term, is still awkward to use here in my opinion, especially with the casual reader in mind. Would you consider rephrasing? If a different term rather than re-engining can be found and used, I think that would be beneficial, as that term smacks of jargon and is easily misinterpreted as re-engineering mis-spelled. Maybe something like "Re-design with new engines"?
  • CE: 2nd paragraph: I'd like to suggest making the use of the full term "737-300" versus the abbreviation "-300" uniform across the article. I will therefore suggest that you add 737 before the variant designation in certain places. In this section, the listing of several variant designations calls for the full designation for the first instance, and the subsequent variants can stand on their own without the full designation. Therefore, I would suggest to make this change, shown in underline: "In the 1980s Boeing launched the 737-300, -400, and -500 models".
    • Update as I get further into the article: I have yet to find an instance where -100 is used, where I don't prefer adding the 737 in front of the variant designation. I will therefore just add small notes in my subsequent comments to point out where I find the short form, and would suggest fixing every instance for uniformity and readability.
  • CE: 3rd paragraph: As above: "The 737 Next Generation comprises the four 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 models".
  • Wikilink suggestion: 4th paragraph: Does it make sense to wikilink "laminar flow wing" to "airfoil"?
  • Addition suggestion: 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: I would add a qualifier to the end of that sentence: Possible example here: "The 737 series is the best-selling jet airliner in the history of commercial aviation."
  • Correction request: Please correct the delivered and unfulfilled numbers to read 8,920 and 4,378, per the reference provided, which is from February 2016. Also please correct the as of date to February 2016. This will then correspond to the numbers in the Inbox.
  • CE: 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence: Starting the sentence with a number appears awkward - here is a rephrasing suggestion: "Assembly of the 737 is centered at the Boeing Renton Factory in Renton, Washington.
  • Broken link: The external link for Reference 6 is broken - please review and correct.


  • Question: 1st paragraph on the 737-100: The sales price of about $3.25 million per aircraft, which is 10% of list price, is so low as to almost scream for more details. Please consider finding and using a good source - here are a couple of possibilities, except they also do not have an explanation for the low price: [1] or [2]. Also, please consider using the inflation calculator here as well.
  • CE: 2nd paragraph: I would combine the 2nd and 3rd sentences into one sentence with a comma before the "so".
  • CE: 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: Please correct the grammar as seen here: " reduce the landing gear length and to keep the engines low to the ground..."
  • Clarification request: 3rd paragraph: Please explain or rephrase the following term: "...particularly on the outboard side."
  • Wikilink request: 3rd paragraph: Please wikilink "Mach numbers".

Production and testing[edit]

  • Reference question: 1st paragraph: It does not appear that the 271 aircraft built fact is supported by either reference 13 or 19 - please review and correct.
  • Clarification request: 1st paragraph: After mentioning that production moved to Renton in the late 1970s, it is worth noting that it remains there today - otherwise the switch from past tense to present tense in the next sentence is rather confusing.
  • CE: 1st paragraph: This part of this sentence is very choppy - here is a correction suggestion, plus an addition suggestion at the end of the sentence: "...,which was previously done by Boeing itself, but is now assembled by Spirit AeroSystems, which purchased some of Boeing's assets in Wichita in 2005."
  • Clarification request: 2nd paragraph: It's not clear that we are still in Wichita, (at least I think we are), which needs to be clarified - here is my suggestion: "At the assembly plant in Wichita, the fuselage is joined with the wings and landing gear...".
  • Wikilink request: 2nd paragraph: Please wikilink "avionics".
  • CE: 3rd paragraph: It's the first reference to the variant in a while, so it should be fully stated: "The first of six 737-100 prototypes...".
  • CE: 3rd paragraph: Even though it's just been stated, the -100 looks lonely in this sentence, and I would add the 737: "On December 15, 1967, the Federal Aviation Administration certified the 737-100 for commercial flight...".
  • CE: 4th paragraph: "The lengthened 737-200 was widely preferred over the 737-100 by airlines."

Initial derivatives[edit]

  • Reference standardization: Please correct the appearance of Reference 30 for Sharpe & Shaw to look the same as the references to that same work above and below, instead of having it fully spelled out here.
  • Wikilink request: 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: Please change "target-style" to "target-type" and wikilink target-type.
  • Reference link correction: For Reference 31, please use this link instead to direct the reader to the appropriate sub-section of the linked page: [3].
  • Clarification request: Please add 737 before aircraft in the following sentence, as it could be misconstrued to mean ALL aircraft: "The improvement became standard on all 737 aircraft after March 1969..."
  • Wikilink request: 1st paragraph: Please wikilink fairing.
  • Wikilink request: 1st paragraph: Please wikilink short-field.
  • Reference clarification request: Reference 32 does not appear to support the June 1971 fact in the article at the end of the 1st paragraph. Please review and correct.
  • CE: 2nd paragraph: Please remove the hyphen in "production-line" - this should be 2 separate words.
  • CE: 2nd paragraph: 2 options to fix this sentence: Either "After the cancellation of the Boeing Supersonic Transport, and the scaling back of 747 production..." or "After the cancellation of the Boeing Supersonic Transport, and scaling back the 747 production...".
  • CE: 2nd paragraph: Add 737 in front of -100, and later to 737-200 in 2 instances.
  • Reference request: The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph is unreferenced. Please review and correct. "Northern Canadian operators Air Inuit, Air North, Canadian North, First Air and Nolinor Aviation still operate the gravel kit aircraft in Northern Canada, where gravel runways are common."
  • Reference clarification question: It's unclear to me how Reference 39 at the very end of the section supports any of the referenced sentence before it. Please review and advise.

Improved variants[edit]

  • Clarification request: 2nd paragraph: What do you mean by "viable aircraft" - it appears to be viable as it stands, so how is the 737-300 viable compared to previous variants? Please clarify: "that would make the 737-300 into a viable aircraft"
  • CE: 2nd paragraph: Please change "over" to "compared to", as shown: "and the larger diameter of the engine compared to the original Pratt & Whitney engines".
  • CE: 2nd paragraph, last sentence: Please add "engine": "Earlier customers for the CFM56 engine included...".
  • CE: 3rd paragraph: Please add 737 in front of -300.
  • CE: 4th paragraph: Please add 737 in front of -400.
  • CE: 5th paragraph: Please add 737 in front of -500 in two instances, and once in front of -200.
  • CE: 5th paragraph: I would reverse the first 2 sentence fragments: "Due to customer demand, the -500 series was offered...".
  • CE: 5th paragraph, last sentence: Replace "gave" with "provided": "Using the CFM56-3 engine also provided a 25% increase in fuel efficiency over the older -200s P&W engines."
  • CE: 6th paragraph: Please add "it": "and it flew for the first time on June 30, 1989."
  • CE: 7th paragraph: Add 737 as shown: "After the introduction of the 737-600/700/800/900 series, the 737-300/400/500 series was called the 737 Classic series."
  • Reference clarification question: 7th paragraph: It's unclear to me how Reference 53 at the very end of the paragraph supports any of the referenced sentence before it. Please review and advise.
  • CE: Last paragraph, last sentence: Please replace "has" with "had": "which had been shut down."

Next-Generation models[edit]

Clarification request: 1st paragraph: I would rephrase the opening sentence, as shown: "Prompted by competition from the modern Airbus A320, Boeing...".

  • CE: 1st paragraph: Please add 737 in from of -600.
  • CE: 1st paragraph: I would switch "to date" to the end of that sentence, as shown: "and is the most significant upgrade of the airframe to date."
  • Reference clarification question: 1st paragraph: It's unclear to me how Reference 61 at the very end of the paragraph supports any of the referenced sentence before it. It appears that further linking to sub-pages on the currently linked page is necessary. Please review and advise.
  • CE: 2nd paragraph: Please rephrase, as the current use of "combined" is awkward: Possible example: "The combination of wing, engine, and fuel capacity improvements increase the 737's range by 900 nautical miles".
  • Reference clarification question: 2nd paragraph: It's unclear to me how Reference 63 supports any of the referenced sentence before it. It appears that further linking to sub-pages on the currently linked page is necessary. Please review and advise.
  • CE: 3rd paragraph: Please add 737 in front of NG, as well as in front of the various variant designations.
  • CE: 5th paragraph: In each sentence fragment about the delivery of 737s, please add the word "built", as otherwise it reads as though 5,000 737s have been delivered to Southwest Airlines: "Boeing delivered the 5,000th 737 built to Southwest Airlines...".
  • Reference request: 5th paragraph: Reference 69 only supports the 8,000th delivery, and references for 5,000 and 6,000 are needed.
  • Reference question: 5th paragraph: What value does Reference 71 add?
  • Broken link: 5th paragraph: Reference 72 appears to have a broken link - please review and correct.
  • Broken link: 5th paragraph: Reference 6 appears to have a broken link - please review and correct.
  • CE: Please remove "also", as you are not adding additional facts, but are actually contradicting the previous line: "The 737NG has also outsold the A320 on an annual basis...".
  • Broken link: 5th paragraph: References 76 and 77 appear to have broken links - please review and correct.
  • Reference question: Reference 79 requires a login, which should either be stated in the reference, or a different reference should be used. The same is partially true for the Wall Street Journal references, but since a little part of the article is visible when checking, I have not commended on it so far.
  • CE: 6th paragraph: Please make the verb past tense: "Boeing produced 42 of the type per month in 2015..."
  • CE: 6th paragraph: Replace the semi-colon by a comma, otherwise the last sentence fragment has to be rephrased.
  • Reference clarification question: 2nd paragraph: It's unclear to me how Reference 89 supports any of the referenced sentence before it. It appears that further linking to sub-pages on the currently linked page is necessary. Please review and advise.

Replacement or re-engining[edit]

  • Section title clarification: If a different term rather than re-engining can be found and used, I think that would be beneficial, as that term smacks of jargon and is easily misinterpreted as re-engineering mis-spelled. Maybe something like "Re-design with new engines"? Please see above in the lead as well.
  • CE: 1st paragraph: Please rephrase the following sentence, as suggested: "The airplane is to have a similar fuselage, but would probably be made from composite materials...".
  • CE: 1st paragraph: Please change the tense here, as shown: "Boeing also considered a parallel development...".
  • CE: 1st paragraph: Since you are using plural in this sentence, 757 and 767 should be split apart, as shown: "...similar to when the 757 and 767 were developed in the 1970s."
  • Broken link: 2nd paragraph: Reference 96 appears to have a broken link - please review and correct.
  • Reference clean-up request: The description in the Reference section for Reference 100 is incomplete, and should be updated.


  • Broken link: 1st paragraph: Reference 101 appears to have a broken link - please review and correct.
  • Reference clarification: 2nd paragraph: References 102 and 103 only reference small parts of that paragraph - namely the 1st and just parts of the 3rd sentence. Please review and correct.

Current end of comments[edit]


I am halting this review at this time, and will put the review on hold. It is my opinion that the comments and defects above add up to what appears to be a fail for GA at this point. If someone will be willing to take on the large task of correcting these issues in the near future, and would like this review to continue, I am happy to carry on, but having made it less than 1/3 through the article, there are glaring holes, which would need to be addressed for GA status. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: