737 vs. 717

[PhatAJ2008]

Why is the 737 considered so much better? Did the 717 have that many problems?

 

[Foxcow]

Any specific 737 you have in mind?

 

[PhatAJ2008]

Ok, I guess I should be more spacific. What are the Pro's and Con's of tail mounted engines as opposed to wing mounted? Seems wings are dominating by far...

 

[Say Again Over]

Spoke with some TWA cabin crew's, they hated it, noisy in the back (717), a kink in the aisle.

 

[mar]

Noisy in the back, for sure.

What are the Pro's and Con's of tail mounted engines as opposed to wing mounted? Seems wings are dominating by far...

I've never ridden on a 717, but it's a pretty sweet ride in the front of an MD80. Nice and quiet.

Rear mounted engines have to cope with a lot of stuff gettin' thrown at them from the main gear and even the wings (ice).

Not only that, but rear mounted engines require a T-tail. Not all designers like the T-tail because of the loads imparted to the Vertical Stab.

And then ya got fuel lines running back under the cabin...

It's all give and take.

 

[urflyingme?!]

The 717 was put out much much later than the 737... right?

 

[2000flyer]

The 717 was put out much much later than the 737... right?

The 717 is just an upgrade of the original circa 1960's DC9.

 

[pilotyip]

717 (DC-9-95) has a short range and a low number of seats when compared to the 737NG. That and the new EMB's spelled the end of the line for the DC-9. Douglas elected to put the engines on the tail to allow a lower ground clearance so the belly baggage pits could be accessed without handling equipment.

 

[AA717driver]

The 717 is a great airplane. It is cheaper to acquire than the 737 but so many people have 737's that few bit on it. It's too close in size to the RJ's that a lot of airlines figured they didn't need a 100-115 seat plane (at the time) and they would rather fly two RJ's on a route than one 717. Throw in 9/11 and that's it.

It has the cockpit of the MD11 and the simplicity of the DC9. It's very fuel effecient and the engines are virtually indestructable.

It's quiet up front and has air conditioning that could freeze you solid. The seats suck in both coach and FC. I don't know what the deal is but that was true on both TWA and AirTran. It is noisy on the ground in the rear of the aircraft but it gets better in the air.

As my user name implies, I loved the 717. I would have gladly flown it the rest of my career. The guys at AT and MidEx are lucky to have the opportunity. Enjoy.TC

 

[Ty Webb]

The 717 is just an upgrade of the original circa 1960's DC9.

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 . . .

 

[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.