Boeing 737 Replacement

[KSUpilot]

Since there has been a lot of speculation about what approach Boeing will take with the new 737, I thought we could speculate and throw some ideas around in this thread.

There has been talk of rear-mounted engines, and at first you might not see why Boeing would want to receate the 717 or the MD-80. While these are great aircraft, from a political standpoint it may look like Boeing is reinventing the wheel. However, the airlines did like the 717, but the cockpit was different from other Boeing aircraft. The airlines still approve of rear-mounted planes, Air Tran uses mostly 717s, and look how well the EMB-145 is doing. It seems every regional has that aircraft in its fleet. I believe a composite 717/737 mix wouldn't be such a bad idea. You could also say that it would fill in for the 727 as well.
While I do like the shorter 737-300, I believe the fuselage should be based upon the longer 737-900. This would put the length of the new 737 at 138 feet. This puts the new 737 right inbetween the 124 foot 717 and the 153 foot 727. With the engines being rear-mounted I would use the GEnx engine to power the new 737. It is a larger engine and would not clear the ground on the current 737, hence the reason for the rear mounted design.

Here is a quick image I put together in MS Paint using 3 view drawings of the 737-900 and 717:

I believe the airlines would approve of this design. It combines fuselage of the 737-900 with the composites and efficient engines of the 787, along with the rear mounted engine design that allows for the larger GEnx engine. Airlines like Air Tran who like the 717 would buy this aircraft, as well as airlines looking to buy EMB-145 aircraft. While it may look like the EMB-145, the new 737 would be larger, more fuel efficient and use lighter matierals, as well as having a common cockpit with the other Boeing aircraft in that airlines fleet.

 

[KSUpilot]

I just finished a new render using a Boeing Family Poster image I found on the Surclaro flight sim site.

The "smaller engines" would be something similar in size to the engines used on the 717, only more efficient because of the new GEnx technology.

The "larger engines" are similar in size to the engines used on the 757. I could not use the 787 GEnx as it was way too big for this aircraft. The "larger engine" is a nice increase in size when compared to the current 737 engine. And with the technology from the GEnx engine it will be much more efficient. With the rear-mounted configuration, these engines are perfect for the 737-900 sized aircraft.

 

[Spirit MD-80]

I like 737 with small engines! I hope this happens! Rear-Mounted engine aircraft are quiet for 80% of the aircraft! On regular normal engine under wing airplanes, none of the aircraft is quiet like the RM planes.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

I like 737 with small engines! I hope this happens! Rear-Mounted engine aircraft are quiet for 80% of the aircraft! On regular normal engine under wing airplanes, none of the aircraft is quiet like the RM planes.

Several points I'd make are.... Under wing is a vacumm cleaner for FOD. Negative. Rolls Royce BR715's suck. Negative. GE engines better. Positive. Depending on the size of the design, just how large of an engine could you mount to propel and still have comfort on the tail? From a Maintenance side of things, much easier to work "on wing". My hunch is that the next 737 design will be a smaller version of the 787 with the same technology. JMHO.

 

[Spirit MD-80]

. Rolls Royce BR715's suck.

Several Points I'de like to make are. If BR715's suck, why do they save so much fuel savings? And quietness? Don't know what your talking about. I think you have attitude problems, because, whenever you reply, you never say anything nice about anything. :down: