Boeing 737NG range, wrong?

[Virgin Serbia]

Looking at the range for the Boeing 737-700, they look plain wrong. Looking up at Boeings website, the 737-700 basic version has a range of 3365 nm, not 1772 nm  

http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_700tech.html

The 737-700HGW / ER does 5510 nm

http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/737-700ER/tech.html

Shouldnt Boeing list the most correct ranges? They are afterall the manufacturer

Other than that, perhaps thats the range for a fully loaded 737-700? In that case, the A319 range should be lowered to 1800 nm, as per the Airbus website

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/a319/specifications.html

[dktc]

The 737-700 on Boeing website is the 737-700HGW in our database.

The 737-700ER didn't get into service until 2007, which is why you haven't seen it yet. It is in the db... with a range longer than that listed on the Boeing page... interestingly  
[edit: oh wait... 6340mi = 5510nm roughly... so that is correct too. ;D]

[Virgin Serbia]

But what is a 737-700HGW then? It isnt listed on the Boeing website Or what is the basic 737-700. This is getting me confused...

[dktc]

Boeing's website doesn't list every single stupid details. It doesn't have 737-700IGW (ie. the 737-700C / QC) either. The BGW and HGW are basically engine variants. The engineering designation are too much for us "lessor beings" to understand so they just list it as a whole. You don't see them listing all 10 plus variants of the 767-300 on their website, so same here.

737-700           

Two CFM56-7B20s, each rated at 91.6 kN (20,600 lb st) standard, or two CFM56-7B24s, each rated at 101 kN (22,700 lb st) in high gross weight version

I could go lose the HGW wordings if you so insist on it, but people wouldn't even be able to find it if I do so...

[Virgin Serbia]

Ah, i understand now, thanks ;D

I could go lose the HGW wordings if you so insist on it, but people wouldn't even be able to find it if I do so...

Nah, no need to, just needed clarification

[fewlimitz]

Heh, even with the HGW package, 737-7s have nothing on the 4200nm A319s.. Think that's what hes trying to say 


Personally, I wondered if the 738, when released in AM, would even be worth it. Anyone here have it's in game stats? range, fuel ecno, turn time, speed, base price and price "fully loaded"?

[dktc]

Personally, I wondered if the 738, when released in AM, would even be worth it. Anyone here have it's in game stats? range, fuel ecno, turn time, speed, base price and price "fully loaded"?

People who has it aren't allowed to disclose it....

[fewlimitz]

People who has it aren't allowed to disclose it.... 

Booo!  ;D

[sam051]

and the A319 can do more than 1800nm, it's also an engine variant.

IAE
&
CFM

I would personally choose CFM in real life, considering that they are both great engines, but the CFM is slightly more proven for its reliability and ease of access...

IAE for in game though.

[sam051]

Also i forgot to mention, that the B737ER can do the long range as mentioned in the Boeing site, but only with its 9auxiliary tanks which are completely optional for the airline itself.

Also i would choose Airbus over Boeing, although Airbus has like a .3gallon/seat nautical mile increase than the Boeing 737ER, the airbus is faster, wider, and doesn't need auxiliary tanks that crowd the cargo. Also, the airbus engines are not as powerful as the Airbus, Airbus therefore lessens the runway limit for the average takeoff, respectively considering the full PAX weight.

Boeing 737ER = 0.78mach
Airbus A319  = 0.82mach

It's not much of a difference, but considering that the plane goes faster, you have to cut it some slack for the .3gallons/seat nautical mile usage increase.

(It's something like .3, i will correct if i must...)

[iranair777]

I noticed the 738's range problem long time ago but it hasnt been fixed yet