“Boeing 737, Copa Airlines, taking off from SXM, St. Maarten, Princess Julianna. Notice at the heat coming from the runway. I like to see the details of the plane. Check out the big version pressing L.”
Tips for getting featured: in your Flickr account, check “Privacy and Permissions,” and check “yes” on “Allow others to share your stuff.” Adding information about your image does not hurt your chances either.
We talked last week about identifying the various Boeing airplanes from their external characteristics. But to Boeing pilots who have been fortunate to fly most of them, each airplane has its own personality. I thought I’d share some different opinions of a few pilots who have flown them.
To accomplish this, I chose a select group of ‘friends of Kent that also fly Boeings.’ And by select, I mean John Steinbeck of UPS and Chris Countryman, formerly with Cathay Pacific Cargo and United Airlines. It’s not exactly a scientific survey, but they filled me in on the Boeings they have time in, including the 747.
I’ve also asked a Boeing test pilot to give his impressions on the new 747-8 and the 787.
Rest assured, no two pilots can agree if a cockpit is relatively small or large, or if an airplane is heavy or sensitive on the controls, so I’m sure we’ll see some dissenting opinions in the comments below. I welcome any observations from other pilots.
We’ll break them down by type:707:
My only experience with the 707 was in the simulator that American used for the pilot interview process. It’s impossible to know just exactly how an airplane flies when piloting a simulator, so I’ll have to skip this airplane. But it did seem to have a heavier feel than the newer jets. I remember thinking it was a rather macho beast that I would have loved to fly.
I flew the MD-80 for a year, which Boeing adopted through their merger with McDonnell Douglas, and eventually produced an updated version called the 717. This is by far the least similar to the other Boeing types, but if the 717 is anything like the MD-80, it’s also the quietest for the pilots. The 717 has far more performance than the MD-80, and a redesigned and more modern cockpit. But let’s face it: the 717 is a brother from a different mother, really.
Talk to any pilot and they all seem to LOVE the 727. My brother talks about the airplane like it was a long since deceased best friend. Unfortunately, after first spending 4 ½ years at the flight engineer panel of this classic airliner, I don’t have a fondness for the airplane at all. In fact, I still wake up from nightmares where crew scheduling calls and assigns me a 727 FE trip even though I haven’t touched the panel in 15 years.
But John’s experience in the 727 is far more typical among pilots. He says:
The 727-200 takes a lot of hours to figure out how to “grease on,” and is by far the most difficult Boeing to master on landings. It has humbled many pilots in its years! “Rolling it on” is usually done by stopping the descent a few feet above the runway, and then gently easing the yolk forward. But the reward is just so satisfying.
I remember my dad telling me of the forward push technique that he used to salvage a flare that had a high sink rate. Pushing forward when you’re still airborne is counter intuitive on most jets, but the 727s wheels are well behind the center of lift and actually pivot up slightly as the nose is initially lowered. Trying this technique when too high above the runway wouldn’t be pretty, though. John went on to mention that the 727 cockpit was rather cramped, but no worse than the 747 or 757.
Before landing my current job, I worked to build my resume by picking up a 737 type rating. The ’70s vintage Class “C” simulator wasn’t very advanced, so the check ride had to be done with the FAA in an actual airplane. For this we used a Continental 737-200 in Dallas at 2 a.m. one night. I was shocked at how much better it flew than the sim. It was the only checkride where I couldn’t stop smiling. I loved it, probably because up to that point I had no jet time, so it felt like a rocket to me. Other more experienced 737-200 pilots have told me they thought it was like flying a LearJet; hot and sporty.
Years later, I bid the 737-800 as soon as it came to AA. Being in one of the first groups of pilots to fly the airplane was fun, and the new technology, as compared to the MD-80 that I had previously been flying, was a welcomed improvement. The iPad sized displays were full of useful information for descent planning, crosswind intensity for landing, and navigation and traffic data. The flight director, two needles that help guide you along your path while hand flying the airplane, are much more precise than any other previous generation of Boeing.
At the end of training, the first 50 crews had to do takeoff and landing practice in an actual empty 737-800. I filmed the other pilot’s landings. You might enjoy seeing how we worked to get the hang of landing the airplane:
While many complain about the tight cockpit, the airplane did include two cup holders, which came in handy when storing a half opened soda can on the left and the ice filled cup on the right. It’s the little things that leave an impression, I guess.
The airplane does have a few drawbacks though. The noise in the front is probably worse than the 727. That pointy nose, the same used on the 707 and 727 was never designed to reduce cockpit noise. Some airlines use noise canceling headsets in their 737 cockpits. Unfortunately, we don’t.
My next complaint is the autopilot. Most pilots hand flew the climb and descent for a much longer time than any other airplane I’ve flown, simply because it was possible to be smoother than the autopilot. The other, newer Boeings can out fly a pilot, climbing and descending without the slow porpoise exhibited in the -800.
The final issue is the approach speed. I wrote a Plane Answers post a few years ago that compared all the recent airliner approach speeds and the 737 stood out at the top of the group. It’s a full 16 knots faster than a 757 at max landing weight and it has only four main tires to slow down, compared to eight on the 757. The 737 brakes also took more pedal force to slow, adding to the excitement when landing on a short runway.
When flying the new 737-800 at Flight Level 410 doing Mach .81, a controller asked us if we were really in a 737. I turned to the captain and said, “This isn’t my dad’s 737” in a nod to the Oldsmobile ad and the fact that my dad flew the 737-200 for so many years.
Oh, how I would love to fly the 747. Unfortunately that won’t happen, so I’ll leave it to John and Chris to describe the 747-400.
John explains: The 747 handles very similarly to the 727-200, despite being two completely different airframes in both size and shape. One difference between the two is in the landing techniques. The 747-400 is the easiest aircraft to land, as it has four trucks to disperse the landing forces, and is so massive that even a runway can’t “slap” the jet back into the air.
Surprisingly the cockpit is extremely cramped for a widebody jet, and can barely hold a flight case between the pilot’s seats and the aircraft sidewall.
Chris, from Cathay Pacific Cargo adds:
The 747-400 is a gentle giant. It flew like a dream, and was light on the controls. However, I went from the DC-8 to the -400, so perhaps anything would be light compared to the 8.
Its massiveness was remarkable. At max gross weight during takeoff, the muted roar of the engines belied how slow the initial acceleration would be. In the air while straight and level, the astounding momentum relinquished an imperceptible airspeed change when the throttles were closed to slow down. Careful to not get too slow, because it takes a fist full of throttle to get that speed back again.
Landings were mechanical for me, as my line of sight was so high. The gentle prod of the radar altimeter’s voice “100, 50, 40, 30, 10” cued a check before the flare, throttles closed and flare.
I loved her and I miss her!
The airplane that I have the most time in by far, the 757 is sexy even sitting on the ground with its long legs and big… engines. The nose is unlike any other Boeing, leading many to wish the 737 could have acquired this advancement. Blunt noses create a shock wave around the cockpit and reduce the air noise. The 757 and 767 are the quietest Boeings so far (save the MD-80 and 717), but the 757 can get noisy both on the ground and inflight when the packs (air conditioning and pressurization systems) go into a high flow mode creating a tornado of internal wind noise.
Many considered the seven-five harder to land than average, but in the hands of a seasoned 757 driver who isn’t constantly hopping back and forth between it and the 767 (which is allowed by the FAA) the airplane can be ‘squeaked’ on consistently.
After landing, the nose wheel is rather difficult to lower smoothly. The spoilers come up, which drives the nose back up, and the reversers open, pulling down. I’ve finally figured it out, but early on, I remember at least once where the nose wheel bounced.
The 757 approach speed is so slow (I’ve seen 115 knots when extremely light) that the airplane can get in and out of airports designed for Cessnas. This is probably why a 737 just won’t ever be a perfect 757 replacement.
The 757 has a slightly more rounded yolk than the 747 and 727 and handles the best of all the Boeings. It’s like flying a sports car-very responsive, but it still requires some muscle input to get the airplane to move. During landings, the 757-200 takes a lot of effort to keep from making its (normal) firm touchdown, even with a next-to-nothing descent rate. Smooth roll-ons are rare! (No two pilots can agree on anything and here is the first difference in our observations).
John goes on to describe the 757 ergonomics:
The 757 cockpit is cramped. If you’re the jump seater behind the captain, hopefully your trip is short.
The 767-300 is a sweet flying airplane. Compared to the 757, the controls require about the same force but are more responsive, giving it the impression of being lighter on the controls when it really isn’t. It’s just more sensitive.
But this is why it’s so nice to fly, I suppose. That and the big trucks that make it possible to ‘feel’ the runway when touching down smoothly enough add up to a nice handling airplane. And the takeoff performance is stellar, similar to the 757, although the shorter 767-200 is a little lacking in get-up-and-go.
The cockpit is rather spacious as well, although it still only has one cup holder and the approach chart mount next to the window is tiny, making it hard to find a place for your charts.
John explains: The 767 flies like a Cadillac-it’s almost too easy to handle, especially in the pitch axis. Landing it is straightforward, almost like a Cessna 172; but you have to watch for the nose pitch-up upon main wheel touchdown and speedbrake deployment.
I have only 19 hours in the 777 and it’s a good thing. Had I stayed on the airplane any longer, I would have been completely spoiled and unwilling to go back to fly any other jet. A great deal of thought was put into making the 777 exceptional. Every other airplane has a design quirk that can get annoying, such as the 31 dimmer switches on the 757 to lower the lights in the cockpit, which may be the subject of a future Cockpit Chronicles video. On the 777, everything is well thought out, including the single knob to reduce the cockpit lighting level.
Interestingly, there’s a touch pad that allows you to move a mouse around when calling out the mechanical checklist items and cycling through the systems displays. This took a little getting used to in training. But one cool feature is that the checklist wouldn’t ask you an item you’ve already accomplished, such as the landing lights while on approach. The checklist knows if you’ve accomplished these items, leaving you with just a few call outs during the Before Takeoff and the Before Landing checklists.
Another slick feature: Both engines are started at the same time. I nearly fell off my chair when told about this in ground school.
My only disappointment was that it seemed to fly exactly like the 767-300. After six weeks of training I was hoping to fly something that felt completely different, perhaps just for the variety, but alas, Boeing chose to make their first fly-by-wire jet mimic the 767-300 in its handling.
787 and 747-8:
To get a feel for what Boeing’s newest jets fly like, I asked Tom Imrich, a former Senior Engineering Test Pilot at Boeing to share his thoughts:
If you liked the 777, you’ll love the 787.
It kept the terrific features of the triple seven (to assure flight deck and handling commonality), and then added some new twists too, like big displays and one of my favorite features called “Pick Waypoint” on the ND (Navigation Display) via the cursor device that will allow pilots to eventually define precise multi-segment paths, such as around thunderstorms, and then easily coordinate them with ATS (direct text messages to ATC).
While I flew the 787, and helped some with its development and certification (and loved every minute of it), I’ve primarily been a B747-8 flyer the past 4 years.
From my vantage point, I’m prejudiced. The 747-8 is one terrific airplane to fly, equal to the triple seven, if not even now my favorite, at least for some missions.
Just as an example, I did 48 kts of crosswind with it in Keflavik (both all engine and with an outboard engine out) and it could have easily done more!
So that’s just a sampling of pilot thoughts on the various Boeings. Each of us have differing opinions and I’m sure others will contribute a few in the comments section below.
Cockpit Chronicles takes you along on some of Kent’s trips as an international co-pilot on the Boeing 757 and 767 based in New York. Have any questions for Kent? Check out the Cockpit Chronicles Facebook page or follow Kent on Twitter @veryjr.
One of the first things any aviation enthusiast or pilot learns is how to tell one airplane from another. Usually, those of us aviation obsessed types pick this up as kids.
But a few frequent fliers, airline employees and maybe even some pilots may not be able to catch all the nuances that separate the various types of jets. We’ve broken down the differences between the various Boeings to make you a better spotter. So the next time you fly, see if you can spot the differences.
707: Let’s face it. If you see the 4-engine narrow body Boeing 707 flying around, it’s probably painted in Qantas colors and it’s owned by John Travolta. There aren’t many 707s still flying. There are, however, a number of military KC-135 tankers flying that supply fighters and transport aircraft with fuel. This airplane is a re-engined 707 that has been in use for decades.
The 707 is somewhat easy to confuse with the Douglas DC-8 that’s still widely in use by freight operators. But the DC-8 has two scoops on the nose that drive a turbo compressor which pressurizes the airplane. The 707 also had a long pitot tube HF radio antenna mounted to the top of the vertical stabilizer.717: This is the oddball of the Boeing fleet. Inherited when Boeing purchased McDonnell Douglas, the 717 is essentially a re-engined MD-80. Unlike the MD-80, however, the 717 features a larger engine made by Rolls-Royce and the vertical stabilizer is squared off at the top, and especial toward back. Airtran (soon absorbed by Southwest) and Midwest are the two main operators of the 717 in the U.S. These are the only Boeings with two engines mounted at the rear.
727: This is an easy one. The T-tail and three engines mounted at the rear of the airplane give it away. The only other non-Russian tri-engined airplanes are widebodies that don’t have the horizontal stabilizer mounted on the top.
FedEx and other cargo operators such as Amerijet still operate the 727. There were two types of 727s made, the -100 and the -200, with the more rare and shorter -100 featuring a slightly oval shaped number two engine inlet.
737: Offered in the late ’60s as a more fuel efficient airplane than the 727 it is by far the most popular Boeing. This type has so many variants that we’ll use the engines, tail skids (or lack thereof) and over-wing exits to tell them all apart, starting with the…
737-100: Since only 30 -100s were built, and none are actually flying since 2005, we’ll go ahead and skip the slightly shorter 737 that was initially delivered to Lufthansa.
737-200: The easiest way to spot a 737-200 is to look at the engines. If they look like long and narrow tubes below the wing, then you know they’re the late ’60s to early ’80s 737 that many of us grew up with. They were also much louder on takeoff. Today a number of Central and South American countries still fly the 737-200. The airport in Caracas is filled with them, in fact.
737-300, -400 and -500: These 737s, now called the ‘classic’ at Boeing, were easy to spot from the -200. The engines are much larger, and in many ways similar to the ‘New Generation’ engines on the most recent 737s. The easiest way to tell them apart, however, is the flatter lower cowling on the classic 737s. The -500 is the shortest, followed by the -300 and then the -400, which seats enough passengers to require two over-wing exits like the -800 and -900 below.
737-600, -700, -800 and -900: The ‘next generation’ 737 as Boeing calls them, are the most popular 737s in the sky today. They’re much more fuel efficient than their predecessors, and most are now fitted with winglets that increase their efficiency a further 5%. Some of the classic 737s have also been retrofitted with winglets just to throw you off. In fact, the 737-500 can be fitted with winglets, but so far, the newer 737-600 which is the same length, can not.
737 Max: Boeing has recently announced the 737 “Max” which will follow the same shape as the -700 through the -900, with the name 737-9 “Max” used to differentiate these updated narrow-body Boeings. So far the only way I can tell them apart is with the engines which are differently shaped and include v-shaped cutouts at the trailing edge of the cowling called chevrons. But truthfully, we don’t know what the final look of the 737 Max will be. It’s scheduled to go into service in 2017.
747: With it’s bulging upper deck, the 747 is by far the easiest Boeing to spot. The -100 to -300s didn’t have winglets, while the newer two-pilot cockpit -400 has abrupt winglets at its tips. The new 747-8 has a completely new wing design that doesn’t need winglets to eek out maximum efficiency. It has the chevrons that are featured on the 737 max and the 787.
757: Some say it’s the prettiest Boeing, with it’s long legs and tall stance. The nose on the 757 was completely redesigned when compared to the more traditional 707, 727 and 737 front ends to reduce the drag and noise inside. In Boeing airliners, the pointier the nose, the noisier the cockpit. The blunt nose 767 is one of the quietest.
It’s sometimes easy to confuse the 757 for the 767, but if you look closely at the bottom of the aft fuselage, the 767-300 has a tail skid. The 757 and the short and stubby looking 767-200 don’t have this tail skid as they’re less prone to tail strikes on takeoff and landing.
767: The 767 is a widebody airplane that shares the same cockpit features and layout as the 757, which means that pilots can fly both airplanes, even switching between the two in the same day or same trip. On landing, the 767 wheel ‘trucks’ hang down, while the 757 trucks hang at an upward angle.
777: The quickest way to tell the 777 from the 767 or any other Boeing is to look at the tail ‘cone’ at the end of the fuselage. It’s flattened into a wedge which gives it a unique look. Taking a hint from some Russian airplanes, the main landing gear features three trucks of wheels compared to the two sets on the 757 and 767.
787: One look at the upward bending wing and swooping rudder on the 787 and you know it’s not like any other Boeing. The cockpit has gone from six to four large windows. And as mentioned before, the back side of the engine cowlings feature ‘chevrons.’
While this post wasn’t meant for the super spotter or seasoned pilot, it just might help people who are casual flyers pay attention to what model or type of Boeing they prefer to fly aboard.
Cockpit Chronicles takes you along on some of Kent’s trips as an international co-pilot on the Boeing 757 and 767 based in New York. Have any questions for Kent? Check out the Cockpit Chronicles Facebook page or follow Kent on Twitter @veryjr.
The last time you wanted to book a trip somewhere in the U.S., what airline did you think of first? If you’re like thousands of U.S. air passengers, you checked to see if Southwest Airlines flew in and out of the city you wanted to visit. Since its inception almost forty years ago in 1971, Southwest has been providing passengers all over the country with low-cost travel options.
Southwest uses several strategies to lower its costs so they can, in turn, can offer cheap fares. Among them:
They mostly fly in and out of secondary markets, which are less costly.
They only use one type of plane, the Boeing 737, which keeps maintenance costs down.
They only fly domestically.
Southwest Airlines is a “low frills” airline, dispensing with extras like meals or in-flight movies.
The formula seems to be working. The average Southwest Airlines ticket can often be a fraction of the price of a ticket on another major airline. Further, many passengers will drive out of their way to a secondary market in order to be able to take a Southwest flight. As a result of this success, other airlines have been pressured to lower their prices in order to compete. The average ticket price in markets with Southwest in them has gone down in the last ten years, while many markets without Southwest have gone up.
Because of Southwest’s policy of serving secondary markets, however, it’s difficult to do a simple analysis of the data to see in which markets the price has gone down, and in which markets it has gone up. Take, for example, Chicago Midway Airport, into which Southwest flies. Southwest does not fly into Chicago O’Hare, but prices there are still likely to be affected, since airlines at O’Hare want to compete for passengers who might otherwise go to Midway and use Southwest.
For a simple analysis, we looked at four cities in which Southwest had started service in the last ten years, and then compared ticket prices ten years later.
Buffalo started Southwest service in 2000. By 2009, Buffalo’s average fare had plunged by 19%. Southwest entered the market in both Dulles and Denver in 2006. From 2006 to 2009, the average ticket price at Dulles went down 1%; in Denver, the average ticket price dropped 13%. In 2007, service to San Francisco started; between 2007 and 2009, the average airfare went down 21%. None of these data account for inflation either.
By contrast, we also looked at the airfares from 2000-2009 in markets that did not have Southwest. Although the gains were modest by some means, in a world where most airfares have gone down in the last ten years, they were still significant. Not only does Savannah, Georgia, not have Southwest, but Southwest does not operate anywhere in the entire state of Georgia. Therefore, it was no surprise to see a 6% increase in fares over the last ten years. Alabama and Tennessee are both under served by Southwest, as well, which is reflected by Memphis increasing by 3% and Huntsville increasing by 9%. Finally, Reagan (Washington DC), which competes with Dulles, went up by 2%.
All in all, it’s cheaper overall to fly now than it was in 2000; but for the markets served by Southwest, it is cheaper still. The advent of Southwest and other low-cost airlines such as Air Tran have lowered costs all over the nation. Many people have reported that flying Southwest is a more pleasant experience in other ways as well; the facts bear this out. Southwest has the lowest customer complaints in the industry (as of 2009).
So what are you waiting for? Grab your sun tan lotion and your swimsuit — your next vacation in the California sun just got a lot cheaper.
An Indonesian 737 operated by Merpati Nusantara Airlines skidded off of a runway in the eastern Paupa province early yesterday, coming to rest over a canal and subsequently breaking in two right through the fuselage.
Initial reports indicate that the incident was weather related and had nothing to do with the aircraft or its operator.
Miraculously, nobody was killed during the incident although scores were injured. The crash does, however, bring the safety records for many Indonesian carriers back into the limelight, many of which have been recently scrutinized for being below international standard. MSNBC has footage from the crash site below: