Back to Squawk list
  • 34

The Boeing 737: The Original, Classic, NG And MAX – What’s The Difference?

The 737 has been a great success story for Boeing. In fact, it has been the best selling commercial jet to date. In production for over 50 years, it has been continuously modified and updated through many variants – part of its success story. This article takes a look at the main differences through each 737 family – the Original, Classic, Next Generation, and MAX. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Tom Bright 13
Nice article, I was an engineering aide in 1967 and worked on the First 737 during the flight test days. I was able to fly once with the engineers doing stalls. What an experience, with the plane falling from the sky 1000 ft per stall.
John D 0
Sounds exhilarating, those 1000 ft stall drops
A proven design with small upgrades keeps flying for years. The B-52 is a classic example of such.
Great article summing up the differences between the 737 models.
Having travelled a lot on both the 737 and A320, as a passenger experience the A320 remains streets ahead - roomier, quieter, higher off the ground (so it doesn't feel like you are also about to touch your backside on the ground when landing) and noticeably smoother in flight. I have an inner ear issue which affects my balance so my observations about the smoother flight are legitimate and possibly not noticeable by many others, hence if I have the choice it's A320 for me every time.
mariofer 10
Although the A320 cabin is slightly wider than the 737, about 7 inches, which gives you the ability of having wider seats, only about 1/2", roominess has nothing to do with the aircraft type but with the seats and row pitch the carrier uses. Have you flown any of the no frills airlines A320s? I am sure it would change your opinion.
In Addition the shape of the fuselage and the positioning of the floor deck account for the Airbus roominess. However 737 doesn't feel like its going to shake apart, rattle, and present a Dixie cup flimsiness feeling like the A320. Solid
I flew only the -200 and -800 versions. While there is virtually no comparison in terms of passenger comfort, efficiency and flight pay, I preferred the -200. It was a fun "light twin" to fly as compared to the stretched and heavier later versions. Anyone who flew both the DC-9 and the MD-80s knows that bigger, more efficient doesn't necessarily equate to better flying from a pilot (autopilot off!) perspective.
Remember when the first 737' were often referred to as "flufs"?
It is truly the Model T of aircraft thank god Ford realized that the Model T had a limited life ! , too bad for Boeing that they have not come to this same conclusion and started a new clean sheet design.
Manufacturers can only afford to build what they can sell to recoup their investment. Until there is enough demand from airlines for a new clean sheet aircraft Boeing can't afford to lay out the literally billions of dollars in design costs. Right now it's far cheaper for airlines to keep flying 737s, you have parts commonality, less training demands for pilots and mechanics, etc. And since fuel prices are still relatively low there isn't a high demand for new ultra fuel efficient planes just yet.
In the case with the MAX, investing billions wasn't really the issue as evidenced by the fact that they sunk nearly 25 billion fixing the problem. Boeing g could have spent this money developing a swank new plane for that dough. The issue was timing. They needed to get a new aircraft out the door sooner than later to catch up with and compete with Airbus's latest A320neo variant....which was much further ahead in development at the time. People will put Boeing's motivation to "profit over safety"; but the reality is they had nothing to answer to Airbus... and were caught flat-footed. The MAX was a rush to production answer to compete. That said it's a solid airframe. They really screwed the pooch with the flawed MCAS design. They made really, really, really bad decisons rushing this aircraft to market.
Six years seems hardly rush. But yes, a defect to have only one sensor as designed ... and .... unlucky to have incompetent crews on the flights with sensor failure. But that is politically incorrect to say.


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..