737NG (was: Seating Pitch)

Date:         26 Apr 98 03:44:44 
From:         niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath)
Organization: i b4 e xcept after c
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Followups:    1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <faurecm-0203982300480001@blv-pm104-ip20.halcyon.com>
           faurecm@halcyon.com "C. Marin Faure" writes:

>In article <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>, niels@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>European registered new generation 737s have had to
>> have re-designed emergency exit doors installed to meet the regulations.
>All the New Generation 737s are being fitted (or retro-fitted) with the
>new, faster-opening overwing emergency doors, and this door will be used
>on 757s as well.

IIRC it is a matter of record that Boeing initially resisted JAA
pressure to design/install these new exits.  While I appreciate
the sense of some aviation conservatism  I think that it can sometimes
be open to question.

For example: Why does the 737 still have the `707,727' cockpit/nose
shape? Looking at old magazines I have noticed that the original design
studies for the 757 (7N7) had the 727 nose/cockpit. Then , I have been
told, along came that PSA 727/Cessna collision over San Diego where
cockpit visibility (lack of) was deemed influential     and it
was decided to improve the 757 cockpit windows to what it is today.
Whether that was the reason or if it was pure aerodynamics that dictated
that   I am not sure,  but visibility was certainly improved.
Nevertheless no improvement was made to the newer 737s even though
I -did- see one early design study of the 737-300 that had a 757
nose/cockpit!  With the newer-still 737NGs, again, no improvement was made.
Conservatism rules.


(for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren')