B 737 variants

[Tweaker]

As one new to the 737, please enlighten me...

In learning the 737-300 tailstrike is a concern on TO, and less so on landing. The 400 it is even more of a concern. How is this addressed on the subsequent models?

I assume that the 5,7,8,900s are even longer with even less clearance. Is the main landing gear longer?


What are the changes in regards to seating capacity , engines, avionics in the 737-500?

What are the changes in regards to seating capacity , engines, avionics in the 737-600? does this exist?

What are the changes in regards to seating capacity , engines, avionics in the 737-700?

What are the changes in regards to seating capacity , engines, avionics in the 737-800?

What are the changes in regards to seating capacity , engines, avionics in the 737-900?

Thanks. Blow me away with your intellect.

 

[Metro752]

dumbest thread ever

 

[johnsonrod]

dumbest thread ever

Dumbest response ever. I'm curious about tail strike issues too.

 

[Quimby]

http://www.b737.org.uk/

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/background.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

the internet.....it's a great thing.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

RE: Tailstrike - on the -800s and -900s at Alaska we're required to use the HUD to give a tailstrike warn.

 

[thunderworm]

not too much of a concern but something to be aware of. the 800 is more prone due to its longer fuesalage than the 400 but as long as you don't rotate past 12 degree on takeoff not a problem. you really need to pull it off to get 12 degrees and you should notice something dosen't feel right. on landing you would need to be an idiot to hit the tail. not to say there aren't any idiots out there. just remember that it is a transport catergoy aircraft and treat it as such and you shouldn't ever hit the tail.

 

[firstthird]

737 - 300, 400, 500 = classic

737 - 700, 800, 900 = next gen

500 is smallest
300=700 in length/pax capacity
400 is bigger than 300/700
800 is bigger than that
900 is the largest

tail strike isn't that much of a concern on 300/700 or 500. Apparently it can happen but I don't remember it being talked about for long or often in training.

the 800/900's have a 'tail skid' if you look closely. My suspicion is that planes which are prone to tail strikes get 'tail skids.' I've never flown a plane with a 'skid' but presumably it is a 'tattletale' to alert the crew that a tail strike has occurred and then they can do the proper procedures.

I don't think that we even have a tailstrike procedure in our QRH's at SWA.

I think that airlines that fly tailstrike prone aircraft use a two stage rotate. They initially rotate to 7 or 10 degrees, pause, then complete to the full takeoff attitude but someone flying a 800/900 will have to chime in.

At SWA we just use the standard 737 2-3 degrees per second rule and apparently we don't have a problem with tailstrikes, knock on wood.

 

[wscrj]

Even the-400's have a skid.; With the increased TO speeds on the 900, you'd have to REALLY try to drag the tail. Biggest strike threat would be trying to salvage a bad flare in the 900.

 

[atrdriver]

the 800/900's have a 'tail skid' if you look closely. My suspicion is that planes which are prone to tail strikes get 'tail skids.' I've never flown a plane with a 'skid' but presumably it is a 'tattletale' to alert the crew that a tail strike has occurred and then they can do the proper procedures.

Yeah, the skid has paint on the sides that show if it hits. About the only chance of a strike on an 8 or 900 is trying to recover from a bounce, or as someone else said, a really bad flare. I don't think you could hit one on takeoff.

 

[firstthird]

do you use a two stage rotate in the 800/900 or just the standard 2-3 degrees per second rule?