Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch)

Date:         17 May 98 00:43:01 
From: (C. Marin Faure)
Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc.
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1998.684@ohare.Chicago.COM>, wrote:

> 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.

While I have no idea what drove the decision to retain the existing 737 41
Section window design (outside of holding down costs), I can say that as
the 757 fuselage is slightly larger in diameter than the 707/727/737
fuselage, simply grafting a 757 41 section to the front of a New
Generation 737 43 Section won't work.  Also, the 757 41 Section was
designed to accomodate the 767 flight deck.  As the 737 flight deck
(panel, aisle stand, etc.) is structurally different than the 757's, it
would require a lot of redesign and new tooling to accomodate the 737
hardware into a 757 flight deck.  But I suspect the main driver was cost,
as redesigning the 737 41 Section to accommodate larger windows is
probably a lot more complex than simply cutting larger holes.  The contour
of the skin is tailored to the existing windows, so I suspect an extensive
and costly aerodynamic redesign would have been necessary.

C. Marin Faure
  author, Flying A Floatplane