737 vs. 717

[2000flyer]

And the 73NG is just an upgrade of the original 1960's 737 . . . . so, what's your point?

I've flown 'em both, and they're both great airplanes. The 717 is the more technologically advanced of the two, is quieter up front, and has a lot of pilot-friendly features (although the flight deck seats are not one of them). I would rather autoland a 717 in 600 RVR any day, that's for sure.

The 737 is a nicer-flying airplane, in my opinion (it flys like a big ol' Falcon 20, but with much more thrust). It is too bad that Boeing didn't incorporate more of the 717's features into the 73NG . . .

The writer asked which came first, the 737 or 717. All I said was the 717 was an upgraded version of the venerable DC9. Understand?

2000Flyer

 

[flatspin7]

Boeing could only make the 737NG advanced to a point where the FAA would permit them to keep it a common type rating, which was a huge selling point to operators (i.e. very limited pilot training. just a day of "differences" training)
No doubt they could have made that airplane a lot more advanced and integrated but the need for a seperate type would have destroyed Boeing's market advantage with previous 737-3/4/500 operators. I would be willing to bet that Boeing went to big customers like CAL and SWA when upgrading the airplanes.

 

[PhatAJ2008]

You think Boeing will ever design another rear mounted engine aircraft?

 

[atldc9]

I have flown the 717 for 4 years, and it is a wonderful airplane. Very cheap acquisition cost, cheap to operate, and best of all - it will only go 1500 nm!!!.

Seriously, the down sides are the specific fuel consumption is worse then the 737-700, the kink in the aisle is a pain, and it only goes 1500 nm.

The airplane has very few mx issues, flys like the Douglass airplane that it is, and once again, only goes 1500 nm.

The only real issue is the engines have a propensity to crap out frequently. Rolls has been working different issues, but there is an unusually high removal rate.

 

[crosscut]

Boeing could only make the 737NG advanced to a point where the FAA would permit them to keep it a common type rating, which was a huge selling point to operators (i.e. very limited pilot training. just a day of "differences" training)
No doubt they could have made that airplane a lot more advanced and integrated but the need for a seperate type would have destroyed Boeing's market advantage with previous 737-3/4/500 operators. I would be willing to bet that Boeing went to big customers like CAL and SWA when upgrading the airplanes.

The 717 is the same type rating as the DC-9, yet there is hardly any resemblance except for the flying characteristics. So, if Douglas could advance their DC-9 to the level of 717 w/out changing the type rating, so could Boeing. So, there is your "...market advantage..." theory. If I were you, I wouldn't be "betting" if you don't know much about either airplane.

 

[STL717]

I heard the reason the 737-700 cockpit isn't as advanced as the 717 is because the launch customer, Southwest, didn't want the cockpit to be so different that it would be separate from the other 737s for training and operating.

That would be a real pain operationally.

 

[rfresh]

I have flown the 717 for 4 years, and it is a wonderful airplane. Very cheap acquisition cost, cheap to operate, and best of all - it will only go 1500 nm!!!.

Seriously, the down sides are the specific fuel consumption is worse then the 737-700, the kink in the aisle is a pain, and it only goes 1500 nm.

The airplane has very few mx issues, flys like the Douglass airplane that it is, and once again, only goes 1500 nm.

The only real issue is the engines have a propensity to crap out frequently. Rolls has been working different issues, but there is an unusually high removal rate.

I think the 717 was designed poorly. It's FMS/Flight Guidance system was taken in part from the MD-11. How much sense does that make? A long range FMS airplane model put into a short range airplane model? There are no physical knobs to tune the nav radios - must be done with a touchpad screen. Makes sense to me on the MD-11 where on long range flights the autopilot can auto-tune the nav radios along the route. Just doesn't make sense to do that on a short range airplane model. But maybe I'm just too used to short haul model of the MD-90 series where the pilots manually tuned the nav radios and had physical knobs to do it!

The tail mounted engines are extremely noisy!! I rode in back one time and never again!! I know there are thousands of DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 aircraft out there flying but I'll take wing engines anytime as a pax.

 

[HS125]

Boeing could only make the 737NG advanced to a point where the FAA would permit them to keep it a common type rating, which was a huge selling point to operators (i.e. very limited pilot training. just a day of "differences" training)
No doubt they could have made that airplane a lot more advanced and integrated but the need for a seperate type would have destroyed Boeing's market advantage with previous 737-3/4/500 operators. I would be willing to bet that Boeing went to big customers like CAL and SWA when upgrading the airplanes.

I doubt that Boeing dumbed down the cockpit to get common type certification. It's already a huge leap from the 737-100/200 to the 737-3/4/500 and an even further leap from the 100/200 to the 700/800/900 series 737, and they all fall under the same B-737 type certificate. It's the airlines that decide to operate the aircraft as different types (ie. 100/200 and 3/4/5/6/7/8/900).

As far as the DC-9 goes, the DC-9-10/20/30/40/50, MD-80/88/90/90EFD and B-717 are all one type also, and it's another huge leap from the old DC-9 to the MD-90 / B-717.

 

[rfresh]

Why do I keep reading about this "MD-90EFD"?

I was an instructor pilot on the MD-90 for McDonnell Douglas and continued for awhile after Boeing bought them. The *only* EFIS MD-90's I knew about were the 30 some airplanes built *specifically* for Saudia Airlines. They were the only ones who had an MD-90 EFIS cockpit.

I saw a school's ad recently in Flying magazine, where they showed a sim interior shot and the pic caption said "train in the MD-90EFD" - what airplane are they talking about other than those Saudia MD-90's?

 

[Midnight Flyer]

The tail mounted engines are extremely noisy!! I rode in back one time and never again!! I know there are thousands of DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 aircraft out there flying but I'll take wing engines anytime as a pax.

I'm a 727 guy and I agree, tail mounted engines are very noisy.
I've never flown an aircraft with wing mounted engines...I guess your biggest concern would be not to drag an engine if you happen to bank to steeply close to the ground.