Celebrating a success, the Baby Boeing.

But lately CAE and a few others have started offering generic FTD’s with displays showing the panels for quick conversion between types. Haven’t seen them for real myself but it sure sounds interesting, at least for me as an engineer…

It sure will be interesting to see what success this change in FTD’s will have industry wide and where it will find a nitch.

But lately CAE and a few others have started offering generic FTD’s with displays showing the panels for quick conversion between types. Haven’t seen them for real myself but it sure sounds interesting, at least for me as an engineer…

It sure will be interesting to see what success this change in FTD’s will have industry wide and where it will find a nitch.

The FTD’s I’ve seen aren’t generic rather have the same setup as a full-motion sim minus the visuals and movement. The one’s I’ve used even have the appropriate resistance on the flight controls as well as stick-shakers and pushers. They’re quite complex but offer a cheaper introduction to procedures and ergonomics for pilots instead of wasting thousands of dollars in a Level D sim.

True, most FTD’s are of the classic type with a real cockpit. But lately CAE and a few others have started offering generic FTD’s with displays showing the panels for quick conversion between types. Haven’t seen them for real myself but it sure sounds interesting, at least for me as an engineer…

The first FTD we had at our company was the actual cockpit from an earlier hull loss that they retrofitted. The fuselage was converted into a full motion cabin trainer for flight attendants and even includes a smoke machine for added realism.

Indeed so! Parts of the Bell 412 simulator here in Stockholm was once part of a real 412 that crashed in Canada years ago…

The FTD’s I’ve seen aren’t generic rather have the same setup as a full-motion sim minus the visuals and movement. The one’s I’ve used even have the appropriate resistance on the flight controls as well as stick-shakers and pushers. They’re quite complex but offer a cheaper introduction to procedures and ergonomics for pilots instead of wasting thousands of dollars in a Level D sim.

True, most FTD’s are of the classic type with a real cockpit. But lately CAE and a few others have started offering generic FTD’s with displays showing the panels for quick conversion between types. Haven’t seen them for real myself but it sure sounds interesting, at least for me as an engineer…

The first FTD we had at our company was the actual cockpit from an earlier hull loss that they retrofitted. The fuselage was converted into a full motion cabin trainer for flight attendants and even includes a smoke machine for added realism.

Indeed so! Parts of the Bell 412 simulator here in Stockholm was once part of a real 412 that crashed in Canada years ago…

In the area of Flight Training Devices (i e fixed-base simulators with or without visual systems), the latest devices now are generic with screens that can display several types, for example 737 or A320 or 777 or A340.

The FTD’s I’ve seen aren’t generic rather have the same setup as a full-motion sim minus the visuals and movement. The one’s I’ve used even have the appropriate resistance on the flight controls as well as stick-shakers and pushers. They’re quite complex but offer a cheaper introduction to procedures and ergonomics for pilots instead of wasting thousands of dollars in a Level D sim.

The first FTD we had at our company was the actual cockpit from an earlier hull loss that they retrofitted. The fuselage was converted into a full motion cabin trainer for flight attendants and even includes a smoke machine for added realism.

In the area of Flight Training Devices (i e fixed-base simulators with or without visual systems), the latest devices now are generic with screens that can display several types, for example 737 or A320 or 777 or A340.

The FTD’s I’ve seen aren’t generic rather have the same setup as a full-motion sim minus the visuals and movement. The one’s I’ve used even have the appropriate resistance on the flight controls as well as stick-shakers and pushers. They’re quite complex but offer a cheaper introduction to procedures and ergonomics for pilots instead of wasting thousands of dollars in a Level D sim.

The first FTD we had at our company was the actual cockpit from an earlier hull loss that they retrofitted. The fuselage was converted into a full motion cabin trainer for flight attendants and even includes a smoke machine for added realism.

Another interesting tidbit is that the longest 737’s today are about as long as the 707-120 and 720 series. And yet the 707 looks huge in comparison, must be because of the deeper fuselage and enormous wings…

The 739 is actually a whole 2 feet (0.61 metres) longer than the 720 was. Well written article and nice pictures.

Another interesting tidbit is that the longest 737’s today are about as long as the 707-120 and 720 series. And yet the 707 looks huge in comparison, must be because of the deeper fuselage and enormous wings…

The 739 is actually a whole 2 feet (0.61 metres) longer than the 720 was. Well written article and nice pictures.

It is the sexiest nose ever! Although people I’ve spoken to who fly these things say that the wind noise is quite high, compared to other makes of aircraft. Too bad that Boeing now will remove the eyebrow windows from the 737. It is probably much better for flight crews who don’t want the sun in their eyes, and steep NDB approaches are uncommon these days, but it will change the look of that beautiful construction in a bad way… at least to an aviation romantic like me!

Another interesting tidbit is that the longest 737’s today are about as long as the 707-120 and 720 series. And yet the 707 looks huge in comparison, must be because of the deeper fuselage and enormous wings…

maybe airlines will paint dark patches where they should be, sort of a memorial… LOL

One thing that makes the high wind noise is the old tech window wipers… they catch the wind and make noisy

It is the sexiest nose ever! Although people I’ve spoken to who fly these things say that the wind noise is quite high, compared to other makes of aircraft. Too bad that Boeing now will remove the eyebrow windows from the 737. It is probably much better for flight crews who don’t want the sun in their eyes, and steep NDB approaches are uncommon these days, but it will change the look of that beautiful construction in a bad way… at least to an aviation romantic like me!

Another interesting tidbit is that the longest 737’s today are about as long as the 707-120 and 720 series. And yet the 707 looks huge in comparison, must be because of the deeper fuselage and enormous wings…

maybe airlines will paint dark patches where they should be, sort of a memorial… LOL

One thing that makes the high wind noise is the old tech window wipers… they catch the wind and make noisy

Interesting that you note the nose is the best design ever.

Look how well it has been used.. 707,727 and 737…. apart from saving $$ in development, it also shows that the design was so efficient it never needed changing.

It is the sexiest nose ever! Although people I’ve spoken to who fly these things say that the wind noise is quite high, compared to other makes of aircraft. Too bad that Boeing now will remove the eyebrow windows from the 737. It is probably much better for flight crews who don’t want the sun in their eyes, and steep NDB approaches are uncommon these days, but it will change the look of that beautiful construction in a bad way… at least to an aviation romantic like me!

Another interesting tidbit is that the longest 737’s today are about as long as the 707-120 and 720 series. And yet the 707 looks huge in comparison, must be because of the deeper fuselage and enormous wings…

Interesting that you note the nose is the best design ever.

Look how well it has been used.. 707,727 and 737…. apart from saving $$ in development, it also shows that the design was so efficient it never needed changing.

It is the sexiest nose ever! Although people I’ve spoken to who fly these things say that the wind noise is quite high, compared to other makes of aircraft. Too bad that Boeing now will remove the eyebrow windows from the 737. It is probably much better for flight crews who don’t want the sun in their eyes, and steep NDB approaches are uncommon these days, but it will change the look of that beautiful construction in a bad way… at least to an aviation romantic like me!

Another interesting tidbit is that the longest 737’s today are about as long as the 707-120 and 720 series. And yet the 707 looks huge in comparison, must be because of the deeper fuselage and enormous wings…

Best Looking Small Jet indeed -the classic Boeing nose section is the best designed ever.
I´ve flown the 737 a dozend times (but not much in recent times).
I´ve been a lot on 737-200 (mostly British Airways out of Berlin-Tegel those where the days it way either Air France A320, BA 737-200 or Pan Am 727 and A310 back then on a non-charter flight out of Berlin).
Back too the 737 : mostly I´ve flown the -300er series and a couple of times on the -500er and 400er. Until now I´ve only been twice on a NG. It was an Easy-Jet 737-700 Berlin-Paris-Berlin. Which was a great flight, great climb we flew very high alltitute and had a hot female captain on the return flight…….I hope that LH will buy 737NG as a -300er and 500er replacement since LH played a very important role to the 737. I really can´t think of LH without the 737.

Interesting that you note the nose is the best design ever.

Look how well it has been used.. 707,727 and 737…. apart from saving $$ in development, it also shows that the design was so efficient it never needed changing.

Best Looking Small Jet indeed -the classic Boeing nose section is the best designed ever.
I´ve flown the 737 a dozend times (but not much in recent times).
I´ve been a lot on 737-200 (mostly British Airways out of Berlin-Tegel those where the days it way either Air France A320, BA 737-200 or Pan Am 727 and A310 back then on a non-charter flight out of Berlin).
Back too the 737 : mostly I´ve flown the -300er series and a couple of times on the -500er and 400er. Until now I´ve only been twice on a NG. It was an Easy-Jet 737-700 Berlin-Paris-Berlin. Which was a great flight, great climb we flew very high alltitute and had a hot female captain on the return flight…….I hope that LH will buy 737NG as a -300er and 500er replacement since LH played a very important role to the 737. I really can´t think of LH without the 737.

Interesting that you note the nose is the best design ever.

Look how well it has been used.. 707,727 and 737…. apart from saving $$ in development, it also shows that the design was so efficient it never needed changing.

The 737 will always have a place in history and has been such a milestone in what it achieve sales-wise.

I must say I disagree with you lot with regard to looks… the NG series at least. I dislike the seemly disproportionate tail and the tiny-looking nose gear (though I understand it’s a sturdy one despite its child bicycle wheel-like proportions). But above all I dislike the engines- about the ugliest thing ever to be seen on an airliner- in my opinion of course.

Then again I’ve always thought aircraft looks are always secondary to the plane’s capabilities and achievements and I rather look at those aspects than to the appearance of the aircraft.

The 737 will always have a place in history and has been such a milestone in what it achieve sales-wise.

I must say I disagree with you lot with regard to looks… the NG series at least. I dislike the seemly disproportionate tail and the tiny-looking nose gear (though I understand it’s a sturdy one despite its child bicycle wheel-like proportions). But above all I dislike the engines- about the ugliest thing ever to be seen on an airliner- in my opinion of course.

Then again I’ve always thought aircraft looks are always secondary to the plane’s capabilities and achievements and I rather look at those aspects than to the appearance of the aircraft.

So there is no reason that an A320 sim would cost any different than a B737 sim with a few small exceptions. An argument that such training item cost would factor into a fleet purchase are unfounded.
—
What ever happened the Singer-Link company? Did they get bought out by CAE or someone else? I have a memory that one of UAL’s 777 sims was built by Singer when I saw it back in ’98.

Might be better to start a separate simulator thread, but anyway…

In the area of Flight Training Devices (i e fixed-base simulators with or without visual systems), the latest devices now are generic with screens that can display several types, for example 737 or A320 or 777 or A340.

Link-Miles (later Singer Link) was formed in 1969 and bought by Thomson in 1990. Thomson was renamed Thales some years later, so in other words, Singer Link is now part of Thales – just like Hughes Rediffusion Simulation which was bought in 1994. There are still several simulators around who wear the Singer Link Miles name, but they may have been upgraded since built. SAS’ two MD-80 simulators, for example, were upgraded by CAE in the late 90s and are now hybrid Singer Link-CAE simulators supported by both CAE and Thales…

So there is no reason that an A320 sim would cost any different than a B737 sim with a few small exceptions. An argument that such training item cost would factor into a fleet purchase are unfounded.
—
What ever happened the Singer-Link company? Did they get bought out by CAE or someone else? I have a memory that one of UAL’s 777 sims was built by Singer when I saw it back in ’98.

Might be better to start a separate simulator thread, but anyway…

In the area of Flight Training Devices (i e fixed-base simulators with or without visual systems), the latest devices now are generic with screens that can display several types, for example 737 or A320 or 777 or A340.

Link-Miles (later Singer Link) was formed in 1969 and bought by Thomson in 1990. Thomson was renamed Thales some years later, so in other words, Singer Link is now part of Thales – just like Hughes Rediffusion Simulation which was bought in 1994. There are still several simulators around who wear the Singer Link Miles name, but they may have been upgraded since built. SAS’ two MD-80 simulators, for example, were upgraded by CAE in the late 90s and are now hybrid Singer Link-CAE simulators supported by both CAE and Thales…

Let me add my tribute to the best looking small jet in service today.

When you said small jet this is what I was expecting:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/347509/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/272591/M/

🙂

Let me add my tribute to the best looking small jet in service today.

When you said small jet this is what I was expecting:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/347509/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/272591/M/

🙂