Talk:Boeing 737 Classic/Archive 1

Number produced
From Boeing's Orders and Deliveries page, I get the following for each 737 variant. Original (-100: 30, -200: 991, -200C: 104) totals 1125. The Classics (-300: 1113, -400: 486, -500: 389) totals 1988. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

May Need To Be Updated
Near the end of the first section, it says "...as of January 1, 2001..." and then something about sales. Even if the amount of sales or whatever hasn't changed, the date and sales should be updated.Cedargang (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't really matter because the 737 Classics were taken out of production in 2000. There's no real point in updating this, then.  &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Seat Pitch and Width
Why does the Specifications section include information on seat pitch and width? Don't these seat specifications vary with (and sometimes within) each operator (not to mention within each plane, if it has more than one class)? 76.230.154.46 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. This doesn't quite make sense why this is here.  Maybe it's just the standard, but you'd think this would vary by airline.  &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This article needs expansion
I've noticed that this article needs to be expanded, mainly with more info added to the intro and development sections. This article in general is way shorter than the Boeing 737 and Boeing 737 Next Generation articles. The development and design section is really short, and has little information about the aircraft's development history and design features. I'd like to start working to change this; if anyone wants to help me that would be great. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 2294
As of 23 October, 2015, the entry for this flight in the list of accidents stated that the cause to be still under investigation. However, the page for the accident itself, shows a cause for the accident. Accordingly, I removed the "cause still under investigation" part of the item. ÞorsHammer (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox picture / article improvements
Hi all, amidst the ongoing improvements to the 737 series of articles (further edits may be forthcoming the 737 Classic article, e.g., the area that needs expansion most is the first section, as well as an expanded lead paragraph), would anyone object to replacing the infobox image with an improved one? The current photo is ok, but overexposed on the white portions, and with the dark belly it's hard to make out details there. There are at least two photos on wiki which have almost the same angle but are not overexposed on those portions. Also, as a plus, they face the text which is preferable (per WP:ACI). Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:17, 29 June 29 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the -300 personally. Mostly just as a slightly better angle getting a little more of the side and top. oknazevad (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, the angle is indeed relevant. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the middle one (#2) also. It has a good angle and colors with a lighter background. --Finlayson (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Update to article will follow. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

main pic change
The current picture is OK but is a bit from below and over a dull sky. The proposed pictures are more level and over a blue sky. I picked them from Southwest (pictures abound) with the old livery to convey an idea of the era. The first 2 are film scans but not too grainy, but the last one is digital and present an interesting view, showing the larger CFM56 intakes - the main upgrade from the original -100/200. More in commons:Boeing 737--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

includes 737-100/200 but no info given
needs a new article on boeing 737 jurrasic or a new area in the article...

there is no article talking about the best series (in my own view) anywhere on wikipedia, boeing 737 article mentions you to come here, but no re direct (thingee) to the jurrasic version of 737.

thanks in advanceDarrenvox (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The original variants are covered in detail in the main Boeing 737 article. BilCat (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Specs table - suitable format
This article has a non-"standard" presentation in having a table of three variants rather than a single one as given in the Project guidelines (WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)) intended to show comparative parameters of the three variants.

Now within this table alt units were presented separated by a slash rather than the usual parentheses (MOS:units); so I converted to and used the disp=br new line option in template:convert to put the conversion beneath the original for -IMO- better reading experience. I separated wingspan, wing area and sweep angle and aspect ration from sequential items on one line to separate lines. And I changed instances of " to MoS-compliant inches. Resulting in this presentation (includes one or two lesser formatting things along the way such as ref formatting but the presentation of the seating arrangements could use polishing). Opinions?  GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for bringing this in talk. I replaced slashes by parentheses per MOS:UNITS. You don't just replaced them but replaced the numbers by convert templates, but keeping original numbers is preferred to avoid subsequent conversion errors. Using line breaks only make the table longer, so it can't be seen as a whole in a browser view:


 * Note that by resizing your browser, line breaks are automatically added to the table by your browser to keep the table within the window width.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to have done most everything that I did, except for folding some of the conversions onto a second line. We don't normally take separately sourced units but one from sources and use the convert to determine the conversion.
 * Are you happy with the 'wing' row that runs "span 94 ft 9 in (28.9 m), area 979.9 sq ft (91.04 m2), sweep 25°, AR 9.17", it ought to be broken into three lines (it would be on more than one line in the standard aircraft specs layout)  for readability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I just double checked the maximum payload values which are currently formatted $lb$ ($kg$ the first part is a calculation taking the maximum design zero fuel weight in the source (HGW variant) and subtracting the operating empty weight. The second part is same calculation using a to-the-nearest-kg conversion of the lb values. Which delivers an over-precise value: compare the displayed text "138,500 lb (62,822 kg)" against using the convert function on the weight in lb alone - 138,500 lb. MoS:Units says "converted quantity's value should match the precision of the source " which is what the convert template does by default (and is a reason why the '0' is redundant in eg 100 lb ) and all the weights seem to be suffering from that.
 * Conversely the length/width/height are under precise: eg 109 ft 7 inches is 33.40 m at the right precision level, the table currently says "33.4 m" which is a range from 33.35 to 33.45 - roughly 4 inches range GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A minor point, but still a point, the MoS for imperial unit volume is cubic feet (cu.ft) not ft3 (I corrected that in this edit). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If the ref gives both units, the ref should prevail. No need for conversion templates and possible conversion errors.
 * The "wing" row is shorter than the table width, and line breaks does make the table longer and thus harder to view in a limited browser window.
 * The max PL values are not false precision: they come from the straightforward subtraction of the ref values. Indeed MOS:UNITS says a value should match the precision of the source. If Boeing says the MZFW is 49'713 kg and the OEW is 32'821 kg, there is no conversion to do, and no false rounding to do.
 * Ditto for lengths: if the source says it's 33.4 m, it's not 33.35 or 33.45; it's 33.4 m. More precision may be available in the acap.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The kg values in the table are not from the source, source does not say 49713 kg, 32821 kg, it says 49,710 kg and 32,820 kg (diff ). The table says kg, the calculated conversion from the lb values using the source lb precision is actually undefined lb. Boeing and me are in agreement. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, original values were modified in 2019. We restored the original ref values at the same time!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)