Airline Mogul Forum
Airline Mogul => General Chat => Topic started by: juancho on August 13, 2007, 04:10:20 pm
-
What the hell is up with the extended range (ER) 737s? I've never heard of 737-300ER or 737-400ER, etc
The only extended range 737 I know of is the BBJ.
Would it be possible to rename the 737OGs to their proper designation without ER?
The only ER versions offered by Boeing that I know of are the 737-900ER, 767-200ER, 767-300ER, 767-400ER, 777-200ER & the 777-300ER.
Edit:added 737-900ER
-
Actually there are 737ER's ...
-
Actually there are 737ER's ...
Really?
Give me the airline and aircraft registration.
-
There is the Boeing 737-9GP/ER which is operated by lion air. But I'm not sure about the older models.
-
Let's see. First up: quote from the Boeing Co. website:
"The Boeing 737-900ER is the newest member of the Next-Generation 737 airplane family. The higher capacity, longer-range derivative of the 737-900 was launched on July 18, 2005 with an order for 30 airplanes from Indonesia's Lion Air."
Second: Quote from airliners.net:
"A higher gross weight longer range version is offered. It features increased fuel capacity, and strengthened undercarriage and structures, but is otherwise identical to the standard 737-400."
I'll give you one thing, they aren't actually named ER or HGW (officially, that is) so it's hard if not impossible to find a 734ER registration.
-
Let's see. First up: quote from the Boeing Co. website:
"The Boeing 737-900ER is the newest member of the Next-Generation 737 airplane family. The higher capacity, longer-range derivative of the 737-900 was launched on July 18, 2005 with an order for 30 airplanes from Indonesia's Lion Air."
Second: Quote from airliners.net:
"A higher gross weight longer range version is offered. It features increased fuel capacity, and strengthened undercarriage and structures, but is otherwise identical to the standard 737-400."
I'll give you one thing, they aren't actually named ER or HGW (officially, that is) so it's hard if not impossible to find a 734ER registration.
There you have it.
-
yeah true the 737-900ER. Is it even in service yet? BUt there's the ER version and the non-ER version.
But still I've never seen or heard of a 737-300ER, 737-400ER or 737-500ER.
So show me, I'd be thrilled to see a 737-300ER. The winglet conversion are not ER.
-
Not sure I understand what you mean :)
-
Did a quick search on airliners.net
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Boeing+737%25&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=er&range=&sort_order=&page_limit=15&thumbnails=&calccount=1188189&truecount=false&engine_version=6.0
-
I'll give you one thing, they aren't actually named ER or HGW (officially, that is) so it's hard if not impossible to find a 734ER registration.
Hard or impossible to find, lol :lol: Maybe because it doesn't exist.
That's my point. There is no such thing as a 737-400 Extended Range.
-
Actually it is a HGW version,with better range and MTOW.
so call it ER is fine for me.
-
Did a quick search on airliners.net
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Boeing+737%25&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=er&range=&sort_order=&page_limit=15&thumbnails=&calccount=1188189&truecount=false&engine_version=6.0
the 737-700ER is the BBJ. That stands for Boeing Business Jet. Most of the airlines fly the 737-700 non ER version.
& where is the 737-300ER or 737-400ER or 737-500ER
OK this is starting to sound like you guys don't know the difference between ER and baseline models.
-
Did a quick search on airliners.net
This is how it should be for the Boeing passenger aircraft currently in service:
717-200
737-200
737-300
737-400
737-500
737-600
737-700
737-700ER (if you want to include this type whith only a very few in airline service)
737-800
737-900
737-900ER
747-400
747-400ER (I think only QANTAS uses this type)
757-200
757-300
767-200 (do any major airlines still fly this model? Not sure)
767-200ER
767-300
767-300ER
767-400ER
777-200
777-200ER (originally this was the IGW, then Boeing changed it to ER)
777-200LR (Long Range)
777-300
777-300ER
Airliners.net is a really poor source for this kind of info, wikipedia has much better information about aircraft models. If this game is trying to simulate airlines it should use the actual aircraft designations, not fantasy aircraft models.
-
Granted I cannot find what your looking for, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Que debate on Religion, same grounds there :lol: ) But the fundamental difference is range.
A higher gross weight longer range version is offered. It features increased fuel capacity, and strengthened undercarriage and structures, but is otherwise identical to the standard 737-400.
Source: Airliners.net
-
Granted I cannot find what your looking for, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Que debate on Religion, same grounds there :lol: ) But the fundamental difference is range.
A higher gross weight longer range version is offered. It features increased fuel capacity, and strengthened undercarriage and structures, but is otherwise identical to the standard 737-400.
Source: Airliners.net
The ER designation is an important one for Boeing when it comes to marketing and sales. There is no such thing as an Extended Range 737-300,737-400 or 737-500. Not because I say so, just look at the Boeing aircraft designations.
-
yeah,when ordering plane,you have to pick a standard version or HGW version for better range.
Or the system give you two 737-400,you have to guess which one is better range?? :roll:
so ER designate necessary in this game(or change it to HGW :wink: ).
-
Next question, are there 737's with that kind of range?
-
Granted I cannot find what your looking for, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Que debate on Religion, same grounds there :lol: ) But the fundamental difference is range.
A higher gross weight longer range version is offered. It features increased fuel capacity, and strengthened undercarriage and structures, but is otherwise identical to the standard 737-400.
Source: Airliners.net
The ER designation is an important one for Boeing when it comes to marketing and sales. There is no such thing as an Extended Range 737-300,737-400 or 737-500. Not because I say so, just look at the Boeing aircraft designations.
Alright.
BOEING CALL IT 737-300/400/500HGW
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/historical/737classic_perf.pdf
-
yeah,when ordering plane,you have to pick a standard version or HGW version for better range.
Or the system give you two 737-400,you have to guess which one is better range?? :roll:
so ER designate necessary in this game(or change it to HGW :wink: ).
There is no major sub variatn of the 737-400 no matter what airliners.net says. There may be IGW but not enough for Boeing to designate a whole new class as 737-400ER. There should only be one variant of the 737-300,737-400 & 737-500 in this game.
-
you're really funny guy. :lol:
-
you're really funny guy. :lol:
No you're more funny guy chucklnuts. 737-300ER :lol:
You like :D
-
Alright.
BOEING CALL IT 737-300/400/500HGW
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/historical/737classic_perf.pdf
Please, please read this. It does most definitely say HGW. Everywhere.
-
Just on a side note, the 737-300ER (the one ingame ;)) will be withdrawn in 2005 (End of year) so that will end the argument over that. :P
-
you should change it to 737-300HGW @ next round.
To keep this kind of people away from the forum. :lol:
-
And you should decrease the range for the 737-300 HGW !! According to the performance sheet from boeing it should be around 2255 nmi.
-
Alright.
BOEING CALL IT 737-300/400/500HGW
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/historical/737classic_perf.pdf
Please, please read this. It does most definitely say HGW. Everywhere.
The .PDF quit clearly shows 2 sub variants. The first column shows non HGW. 90% of all the 737OGs are the HGW variants.
The second says HGW. Nobody in the world, not Boeing or the airlines designates their 737-300s, 737-400s or 737-500s as the ER or HGW variation.
-
you should change it to 737-300HGW @ next round.
To keep this kind of people away from the forum. :lol:
Hee hee, that would be a good idea.
You deserve a free 737 or something for finding that! :D
-
The second says HGW. Nobody in the world, not Boeing or the airlines designates their 737-300s, 737-400s or 737-500s as the ER or HGW variation.
Ok so just strip the ERs off them and leave them normal?
-
The .PDF quit clearly shows 2 sub variants. The first column shows non HGW. 90% of all the 737OGs are the non-HGW variants.
The second says HGW. Nobody in the world, not Boeing or the airlines designates their 737-300s, 737-400s or 737-500s as the ER or HGW variation.
Okay, when I say everywhere, I obviously mean on every page, i.e. for every listed airplane type. I know the second says HGW, I can read. And the .PDF quite clearly shows that Boeing does actually designate their 737-300's, -400's and -500's as the HGW version.
And imagine what it would be like to have no ER designator. It's useless. I don't know how you want to clarify the difference between the versions when, for instance, checking out the view_aircraft page.
-
*sigh*... what's the big deal?? this is a game~~
-
Hey, you got your get-mad-topic, I want mine 8)
-
*sigh*... what's the big deal?? this is a game~~
This thread is keeping me entertained. :lol:
As long as its a nice clean debate theres nothing wrong with it.
-
Hey, you got your get-mad-topic, I want mine 8)
Actually, that sentences was not meant to you :wink:
Anyway, not keeping you from enjoying "getting-mad" :P
(...go sit beside StephenM to watch the show...btw, who brings pop-corns? :P )
-
Just go by the Boeing .PDF posted by Singapore chucklenuts.
Just use one variant of the 737-300, 737-400 & 737-500, make it the HGW varient so people don't bitch and moan about the range. But don't call it the ER or HGW! The difference between the HGW and non-HGW isn't so big that Beoing didn't deem it important enough to class them as ER and non ER versions. They're only a few thousand pounds different.
-
First, who exactly is chucklenuts? As far as I know, there's not actually a forum member named chucklenuts, so who are you referring to?
Second, people like to have a choice. Even if they're "only a few thousand pounds different." (BTW, what's your source there?) And if you allow people to make a choice, you have to make sure they can actually see what they're choosing from, which can easily be done by adding a designator like ER, or HGW, to the aircraft name. Which is the same as Boeing is doing, by the looks of the PDF.
Third, why do you keep going on about realism when you want to deny game airlines a choice Boeing gives airlines in real life?
-
First, who exactly is chucklenuts? As far as I know, there's not actually a forum member named chucklenuts, so who are you referring to?
That's my nickname for Singaporeair since he's so friendly & funny.
Second, people like to have a choice. Even if they're "only a few thousand pounds different." (BTW, what's your source there?) And if you allow people to make a choice, you have to make sure they can actually see what they're choosing from, which can easily be done by adding a designator like ER, or HGW, to the aircraft name. Which is the same as Boeing is doing, by the looks of the PDF.
Well if you really want choice then you might as well go all out. Add the Combis, freighters, ERFs, BCFs, winglet versions, etc. That would be great actually. The winglet version could have slightly higher range and fuel efficiency.
But my point is lets be somewhat accurate. If you want to offer choice then offer something realistic. Ok if a few thousand pounds is important to you then have the 737-300 and 737-300HGW. Good. But please not the 737-300ER.
Third, why do you keep going on about realism when you want to deny game airlines a choice Boeing gives airlines in real life?
As in the 737-300ER? :lol:
-
Well if you really want choice then you might as well go all out. Add the Combis, freighters, ERFs, BCFs, winglet versions, etc. That would be great actually. The winglet version could have slightly higher range and fuel efficiency. But my point is lets be somewhat accurate. If you want to offer choice then offer something realistic. Ok if a few thousand pounds is important to you then have the 737-300 and 737-300HGW. Good. But please not the 737-300ER.
So basically, after going on about removing the ER version, you've switched to saying the letters ER should be replaced with HGW? Fair enough. BTW, the game doesn't support cargo for now (so no -F, BCF, ERF, combi), and the option to add winglets has been considered and might still be.
As in the 737-300ER? :lol:
-HGW, yes. Clearly, Boeing allows airlines to go for the basic GW instead of the HGW version, so why not allow in-game airlines to do the same?
-
Cargo will be brought in eventually, not on the cards for the moment. But when we do combis etc will be added.
-
So basically, after going on about removing the ER version, you've switched to saying the letters ER should be replaced with HGW?
Most definitely, that ER designation for the 737-300, 737-400 & 737-500 is horrendous. Lets just please not mix up & confuse HGW with ER.
-
But, considering your urge for realism and your attitude towards ER, ( :wink: ) how do you want to name the Extended Range version of the 737-900?
-
But, considering your urge for realism and your attitude towards ER, ( :wink: ) how do you want to name the Extended Range version of the 737-900?
What are you talking about? I have no problem with using ER where Boeing uses ER.
I would only have the 737-900 and the 737-900ER.
-
Entertaining thread :D
well i think juancho got mad with the super long range 737s here in game.
there are many unrealistic data about all planes...at least i want a longer range A345...
Anyway, in this game, 737 had won A320family in terms of orders. :D
-
True but the A320 familys prices are way to high. We've talked about that and we decided to wait till after the round is over to change them.
-
although the CRJ price change seem to go through without any big problems. Maybe they could be changed now.
-
Yes, it's time for a change in price of 737s.
And about range of 737s, i think we should wait until next round.
-
I could have sworn the A320s were right... Anyway I will be putting up the price of 737s soon. A320s will also go up in price to real world values. (320/321)
-
According to Wikipedia the price of Airbuses should go down. Wiki says that a A321 cost 66,000,000.00 USD = 48,492,173.40 EUR.
Also according to Wiki the price of a Boeing 737-900 is 85,000,000.00 USD = 62,455,774.12 EUR.
-
I have another source for the information.
-
I could have sworn the A320s were right... Anyway I will be putting up the price of 737s soon. A320s will also go up in price to real world values. (320/321)
Very good news from Stephen :D
How about the issue of unbelievably long range of 737s?
-
And all this while I was sleeping...
It may be my opinion, but once
you've been going for 4 pages with
the same opinion, I think it's time to lock.
L O C K E D