(first posted 5/29/2018) As prevalent as a first generation Taurus used to be, so it was with the Boeing 737-200. To see a nice original 1986 Taurus today is unusual. Even more so is it to see a 737 of that age. The once very common first generation -200s have been mostly retired for years. They were succeeded by the 737-300 (using new hi-bypass turbofan engines and the first of the “Classic” 737s). The -300s and their kin are also generally retired. The hugely successful 737 line continued with the very capable and efficient “Next Generation/NG” series and just recently the most modern 737 “MAX” planes. The 737-200 was Boeing’s first successful local or mid-range service passenger jet and it has been truly significant in the airline business.
The -200 was a workhorse of regional flights (along with the Douglas DC-9) from 1968 up to about 2006/7. It was a common sight and many airlines used it in North America and abroad. The -200 is now too small and too thirsty to economically continue with any major airline but some aircraft are still flying with charter operators in the USA and there is some scheduled -200 service in Canada.
I photographed this 737-205 on the ramp at Cheyenne on 27 May 2018. N467TW is owned by Sierra American, which does business under the trade name “Ameristar Charter”. Though the normal capacity of a -200 in airline service is up to 130 coach passengers, now 67TW has only 56 first class seats. This was a late build -200, coming off Boeing’s Renton line for a first flight on 16 May 1986. The following month it was delivered to Norway’s Braathens SAFE registered as LN-SUZ and named “Olav Kyrre”. Specifically, this model is a Boeing 737-205. The “05” was the Boeing assigned customer code for Braathens’ aircraft (United = “22”; Delta = “32”).
Braathens was established in 1946 and disappeared when merged into SAS in 2004. It was Norway’s largest domestic airline. The various models of the 737 represent the largest number of planes used over the years by the airline. Eventually this airframe went to VASP (Brazil), ConocoPhillips Alaska and in 2013 to Ameristar. 67TW is Boeing’s 737 line number 1236 and serial number 23466. It is a -200 Advanced – signified by better performance and different thrust reversers. Eventually, and by the time this one was built, all -200s were Advanced models. A total of 1,114 -200s were built, the last one in 1988.
The 737-100 made it first commercial flight on flight on December 28, 1967. Just 30 of the shorter 737-100s were built, and most were sold to Lufthansa, which was the first non-American airline to launch a new Boeing plane. The -100s were almost immediately eclipsed by the -200, which had a six foot fuselage stretch, the first of many to come. This -100 was shot at Stockholm Airport in 1968.
This airplane was in Cheyenne after flights on 25 May from Laramie (50 some miles) and prior to Laramie from Charlottesville, Virginia. I know nothing about its purpose sitting in Cheyenne for at least two days.
The noisy and old 737-200 is one of my favorite aircraft. As a frequent flyer I always wanted to be on the Boeing over the Douglas (or later any Airbus). When living in Denver in the ‘70s it served me on many dozens of flights on the original Frontier and the service on that airline was superb (steak, ice cream sundaes and Mateus Rose wine). I still used Frontier a lot in the ‘80s, until it failed.
From the ‘80s on I also had dozens and dozens of flights, maybe even a hundred, on Southwest’s -200s – mostly in Texas but eventually everywhere in the west. I remember many other -200 flights on Western, United, Continental, Piedmont, US Air, America West, Delta, Pacific Western, Eastern Provincial and Canadian. I thought the -200 was a little rocket ship and so did its pilots. Along with the -500, the power to weight ratio made those two the high performance 737s.
Miss the classic “707 face” of the old 737. The latest ones deleted the four small “eye brow” windows and made the face less distinctive.
Yeah, but at least all of the 737 family still has that classic Boeing nose. The 757 and later 787, just looked weird for a Boeing plane. Although the 767 & 777 did retain that classic Boeing shape, albeit bigger.
I did not include the 747 or 717 in this comparison comment; the former being its own look entirely, and the latter just being a glorified DC-9 or MD-80/90.
If I were Southwest’s livery designer, I’d paint four black squares where the eye brow windows used to be, just for “old time’s sake.”
The Boeing 737 has been around so long and in so many iterations that the near-extinction of the 737-200 kind of sneaked up on us, just as the -300 and -400 have now largely disappeared from mainline service.
The 737-100 and -200 had a major commercial disadvantage: they were operated with a three-person crew, while the Douglas competitor, the DC-9 were flown by a crew of two.
As a passenger, I preferred the DC-9 and derivatives, up to the MD-80s and MD-90s. the last of which was renamed “Boeing 717” after Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas…but that was the only change. Its certification plate still identified it as a “DC-9.”
The reason for the preference? I most often traveled by myself and the DC-9 and derivatives had two seats on one side of the main cabin. I’m also not too large so that the smaller, more curved fuselage of the DC-9 was space-restrictive in the window seat. Also, a forward seat in the DC-9 and especially the stretched versions MD-80 and MD-90 was quieter, due to the rear-mounted engines being farther away.
One did have to get accustomed to the nose-up attitude of a DC-9 in flight; to go to the restrooms in the rear was a downhill walk; returning to the front was uphill.
As a passenger, I preferred the DC-9 and derivatives, up to the MD-80s and MD-90s. the last of which was renamed “Boeing 717” after Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas…but that was the only change. Its certification plate still identified it as a “DC-9.”
The reason for the preference? I most often traveled by myself and the DC-9 and derivatives had two seats on one side of the main cabin instead of three on both sides (which side varied…airline option!). I’m also not too large, so the smaller, more curved fuselage of the DC-9 was not space-restrictive for me in the window seat. Also, a forward seat in the DC-9 and especially the stretched versions MD-80 and MD-90 was quieter, due to the rear-mounted engines being farther away.
One did have to get accustomed to the nose-up attitude of a DC-9 in flight; to go to the restrooms in the rear was a downhill walk; returning to the front was uphill.
Three man cockpit crew: an early issue but eventually of no impact on 737-200 operations.
Boeing designed and the FAA certified both -100 and -200 for a two cockpit crew; problem was pilot’s union. The only carriers whose unions went to the mat on this were United, Western, Wien and Frontier. Frontier was able to go to two in the cockpit in ’76; United not until ’81. Both airlines had previously operated 727s with three man crews so the union had a beef. However, unlike the 727, the 737 never had a flight engineer’s station. There was just a little jump seat for the redundant third guy.
The earlier, smaller and lighter competing airframes (DC-9-10 and BAC 1-11) were two man crews from day one in service. Three of the big four US airlines had the others (EA & TW had DC-9; AA had 1-11). Only United had the 737 and the impediment of the three man crew. United had ordered 40 -200s. It is true that this issue adversely affected Boeing’s early -200 sales, but obviously it recovered.
It was a union issue – never a Boeing design or FAA issue.
There was a nickname for the third crew member, a flight engineer who was really not needed. I forget what it was, now.
The Boeing 737 itself was nicknamed “Fat Albert” and “FLUF,” for Fat Little Ugly F**cker, because with its full-width Boeing fuselage and short length, it looked fat; but with the stretches it has undergone, it is anything but fat-looking, now.
Boeing’s president when the 737 was designed and introduced, Bill Allen,
said at the unveiling that “We’ll still be building this plane when I’m in an old-man’s home.” Allen died in 1985, and Boeing is still building the 737.
My dad was a Delta pilot for 28 years and started with the L-100 cargo planes as an engineer. When the 737s came out he referred to the 737 as “the Polish Football”. He flew only the stretch DC-8s (which he liked), L-1011s (his favorite) and finally the 767s.
Boeing also built a small number of 767s with a flight engineer station for Ansett, a legacy Australian airline. This too was because of union issues.
Sorry, I am still processing that the 707 isn’t a modern plane anymore. 🙂 And has not been for a very long time, I should add. In my defense, I can still remember as a kid flying on four engine prop-driven commercial aircraft like the DC-7. So to me anything with multiple jet engines is modern.
I’m only a year younger than you JPC, but my first plane ride was in a TWA-707.
They were still flying (probably not TWA at that point) the occasional (author of this post’s avatar) Constellation, but other than the commuter jumpers at BWI (Friendship) in Baltimore, most things were jets by the 60’s.
I’d LOVE to ride in a DC-3! It sure is fun to fly in Microsoft’s Flight Simulator. Taxiing that thing is a PITA however. ;o)
How about something even older than a DC-3? The EAA takes their 1928 Ford Tri-motor on a tour around the US every year, offering “experience” flights. https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/flight-experiences/fly-the-ford-eaa-ford-tri-motor-airplane-tour/ford-tri-motor-flight-experience
Buffalo Airways uses the DC-3 for passenger flights in northern Canada. I think those are the only regularly scheduled passenger flights. I believe there are still some flying to remote parts of the Amazon as well, on a more ad hoc basis.
That classic Ford is also in my version of Flight Simulator (2004 – Century of Flight). I found it easier to taxi than the DC-3.
About 10 years or so ago now I was out at the Frederick Maryland Airport visiting a friend and his classic 1966 Cessna 172 (which I would later get to fly, albeit from the right seat as he was an airplane mechanic and pilot, but not an instructor). While we were socializing with a couple of guys with Pitts biplanes, a bright green and yellow DC-3 lands and exits the runway; pulls over to the gas pumps as though to fuel up; then taxis back out to Rwy 5 and takes off again. I guess he didn’t like the price ;o). My buddy said that he flies out of Hagerstown, MD and “stops by all the time”.
Fun hobby if you can afford it. Alas, I cannot.
I’ve done the Trimotor ride, and recommend it. SSSSLLLLOOOOWWWW. And you can smell the pig farms, too.
I’d love to add a DC-3 ride to my life experiences. I did get to walk through Delta’s “Ship 41” right after they finished restoring it. It was their first DC-3, and the finished restoration is a museum piece. Every seat back had an original 1941 copy of Life Magazine in the pocket. We had to wear gloves and booties to walk through.
My first airplane ride was in a neighbor’s Stinson Reliant. Can’t remember what my first commercial flight was in, but I do remember it was from Atlanta to New York, back in the mid 1980s.
I’d love a DC-3 ride too, what a plane!
My first ride was on a World Airways charter from Frankfurt to Los Angeles on I am pretty sure a DC-10 in 1976.
My most harrowing flight experience was on an ATR-42 with Royal Air Maroc on our honeymoon in 2000 heading from Spain to Morocco. The flight number was 666 (!) and the pilot and the sole stewardess were literally face to face screaming at each other in Moroccan while everyone was boarding around them. Then the pilot slammed his door and the stewardess sulked for the whole flight (which was otherwise uneventful, thank goodness).
I recently met a guy who specializes in repairing cloth control surfaces. He showed me pics of turboprop converted dc3s he’s worked on. Imagine what the original designers would have thought of that. I don’t think they’d ever guess their design would still be flying 80 years later. That’s something you could take pride in. Still prefer the look of the radials.
My home town only had DC-3 service from Trans Texas Airlines (aka TTA, aka Tree Top Airlines). To fly something better people had to drive to Memphis or Little Rock. This was in the 1950s and 60s and flying was still a big deal. People dressed up, the terminal was nice and clean, and any flight was much discussed with family and friends. I got to fly on a DC-3 a few times and though it was exciting – guess I didn’t know any better.
I remember TTA from the 70s, when it was known as Texas International Airlines. My Dad flew with them quite a bit to Houston and Dallas, and I recall that his flights were often delayed, much more so than when he flew on Delta.
To this day, the wreckage of TI Flight 655 is at the top of a mountain, a few hours south of me.
Time marches on, I find it hard to believe that the 747 is being retired from PAX service.
My first flight in ’64 was a DC-6. Plenty of L-188 Electra miles from New Guinea to Australia and back in the 60s too.
One I’d like to fly in is a Connie, ditto on of the Convair 240-340-440 family.
Last piston powered flight for me was the B-29 ‘FIFI’ in 2011.
That was an experience!
N467TW flew from Cheyenne WY to Charlottesville VA yesterday:
28-May-2018 B732 Cheyenne Rgnl (KCYS)-Charlottesville-Albemarle (KCHO)
Take off 12:22 MDT (was scheduled for 11:00 MDT)
Landed 17:33 EDT (was scheduled for 16:22 EDT)
“737 coming out of the sky……..”, immortalized by Creedence Clearwater Revival in their song “Travelin Band”.
Don’t know much about airplanes, but I sure like the Volvo Duett in the Lufthansa shot.
Funnily enough, I was just browsing airliners.net before I came here (I’m interested in planes, trains, and automobiles, you see). When I saw that picture at the top of the page I had to double check what site I was on.
Even the 737 “Classic” (300, 400, and 500) is becoming pretty uncommon in the US. Southwest was the last major airline flying that generation, and they retired theirs at the end of last year.
Unlike classic cars, I’m not sure I’d want to be in a classic plane. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/world/americas/cuba-plane-crash.html
“Unlike classic cars, I’m not sure I’d want to be in a classic plane. ”
From the article you cite, I suspect the key word might be “Cuba”. It is one thing to keep a fleet of antique cars on the road with bailing wire and home-fabbed spare parts, something else entirely to do it with airliners as modern as a 737. With good maintenance, an airframe can be kept safe and airworthy for decades. For pretty much all of jet aviation history, old aircraft have become uneconomical because of age far more often than they have become unsafe because of age. At least in an environment of maintenance, inspections and certifications that we have in countries like the US.
Well, that particular plane was actually leased from and operated by a Mexican company, so I don’t think Cuba has much to do with that crash.
But yes, as long as proper maintenance is done an airliner can be safe to fly pretty much indefinitely. There’s nothing inherently unsafe about an old plane. Northwest actually had DC-9s in their fleet that were just as old as the plane that crashed in Cuba at the time of their merger with Delta. The oldest one was manufactured in 1967, IIRC, and the merger took place in 2008. Delta continued to operate them for a year of so after the merger.
DC-3s are still in use today. Often, they’ll be re-powered with turboprop engines.
A big difference between a DC-3 and modern jets, though, is that the DC-3 is unpressurized, and thus doesn’t experience the pressurization and depressurization cycles a jet does.
I would agree with that. I know that some people (see YouTube) sought flights on Iran Air’s 747-SP toward the end. All I could think about was why? I’d like to see it, I don’t want my life depending on it, though.
Just found it interesting that one of the few remaining 737-200 was in the news last week. My understanding is a plane can only withstand so many pressurization cycles before the frame becomes brittle.
I mean of course we could keep them flying, but it would be like the “grandfather’s axe”.
Still would rather take the ’86 Taurus any distance.
“My understanding is a plane can only withstand so many pressurization cycles before the frame becomes brittle”
Ya think?
It’s the skin that eventually weakens. Which is why the 737 had thicker skin than the 727, because as a short-haul plane it was going to have more pressurization cycles than the medium-haul 727. That was one of the many differences from the 727 that Being didn’t reckon on making initially; they had hoped to use more of the 727’s fuselage.
There’s no basis as of yet to suspect that it was a metal fatigue issue in that Cuban crash. Quite likely not, given that it happened so shortly after take off (IIRC).
Nice write-up! This reminds me of a sticker I saw recently on a pickup: “If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going!”
I took the Boeing factory tour about 10 years ago and the guide said that line more than once (it works as a call-and-response with the crowd). Pretty catchy slogan – I think of it whenever I fly!
Boeing actually sells those from their on line shop.
Keep these rampside classics coming!
While the loss of the -200 is sad, a 737 will be a 737 to me, no matter the series.
What I bemoan more is the gradual loss of entire airframes a la the 757 and 767s.
I’ve flown in a Ford Tri Motor (Put in Bay, circa 1972) but have never flown in a 737. For how common they are, it seems a little odd. DC-8, L1011, DC9/MD80 variants and a stray 727 or two, of course some A319/320s but no 737s.
Great stuff, the 737 is my favourite jetliner. Small enough that it looks like something that could fly.
On my first big work trip in 1995-ish I was very impressed to see Aerolineas Argentinas still using 737-200s. I took one from Buenos Aires to Trelew.
They still had one in 2004 and I flew in it from Buenos Aires to Montevideo. Inside it still had an orange and purple interior which must have dated back to the 1970’s
Yeah, their 747 I was in had an amazing orange interior. I consoled myself by telling myself they spent the money on maintenance and not redecorating.
Weird. Just about an hour ago I made a reservation with Southwest for a vacation trip to Washington DC to visit the Air & Space Museum on the Mall AND the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Museum by Dulles. Talk about your curbside coincidence!
Enjoy your visit! – Speaking of Tarmac Classics (I like that better than Rampside Classics BTW, but I don’t write the articles ;o) – You’ll get to see the “Dash 80” which was Boeing’s first 707 prototype. The livery on that plane is very bizarre.
There’s lots of other cool stuff to see as well, like this beautiful Boeing 307….
Still recall my first flight on a 737. I was not a frequent flyer and did not really follow what airline was flying what. All I know is I got on the airplane and thought, hey, this is really roomy! I feel like I am on a big airplane here! Which adds to your sense of security, in a funny way. I looked up the type (on the laminated booklet that tells you what to do right before and after the crash) and learned that I was flying in a 737. It was indeed louder than the front of a 727, but then, it was not nearly as loud as the back of a 727. I am glad they are still building these in later forms, there is something “right” about this design.
I remember the first time I saw one of these, at Cedar Rapids in 1970 (UAL). It looked so short and stubby.
I actually flew on one of those very rare 737-100s, on a short Lufthansa hop from Cologne to Zurich in 1982. That flight left an impression on me because both the climb to cruising altitude and the descent were decidedly steeper than was typical in the US, where fuel saving shallower climbs (after initial climb) and descents were the norm. It felt a bit like being in a fighter plane (not that I’ve been in one). Maybe the ATC in Europe was different and required it, or a tight schedule, but it made for a memorable flight. And that -100 cabin, with European generous leg room, seemed very short, due to the fewer rows of seats.
I used to fly lots of -200s in California, on Air California. They had unusually generous leg room on their planes too; a happy memory of less crowded 737s.
Yes, the AirCal 200s. In 1990, the first 737 I flew on was an American flight from LAX to SFO. The plane, N465GB, was painted in American’s livery, and I couldn’t understand why the registration had a GB suffix instead of the usual AA. Later, I was reminded that American had adsorbed AirCal and its aircraft. “465” was part of an order Air California placed in 1968, and the GB suffix reflected the GATX-Boothe leasing company’s ownership of the plane. By 1990, in spite of the freshly polished fuselage and vivid cheatline colors, this aircraft was rather old; the interior panels had numerous dents and showed signs of multiple coats of off-white paint. “465” was retired and broken up the following year, 1991.
I am classic cars collector and fan. I love lots vintage stuff like TV series and movies. I am No pilot but as child I remember once flying in the Lockheed Tristar L-1011 I liked that aircraft since then. I believe it’s one of best jet aircraft’s in history
The 737-200 was Boeing’s first successful local or mid-range service passenger jet
I have to quibble with that line a bit. My understanding is that the sales numbers for the 737-200 were ok, but not great. The DC-9 was the more popular plane in that class for that era. From what I understand Boeing was considering cancelling the 737 program in the early 1980s, but ultimately decided to develop the 737-300. That was when the 737’s popularity with airlines really started to take off (yes, the pun was intended). I imagine having more modern, high bypass engines versus the competing MD-80 helped a lot. Then in the 1990s Airbus was eating Boeing’s lunch with their much more technologically advanced A320, so Boeing developed the 737NG to stay competitive.
The 737-200 did have a slow start in the late 60s, then it ran into an aviation slump in the early 70s, then the recession of ’74-’75. But when the economy picked up in the late 70s, -200 sales really perked up, which was the motivation for Boeing to develop the next generation.
737-200 production didn’t end until 1988, after 1,114 were built, which is actually a very substantial number for back then (A total of all 1,824 727 types were built). Southwest built its whole early success on the -200, and it was very common on other airlines. I would say it was an unqualified success.But yes, bigger sales were still ahead.
This is entirely anecdotal and I don’t have any documentation of this, but I’ve heard Southwest initially planned to use DC-9s. But due to that aviation slump you mentioned Boeing had a couple of unsold 737-200s sitting around after their original buyer canceled their order, that they were willing to sell cheaply. So Southwest bought those instead and the rest, as they say, is history.
Very nice! My youngest son (9) s a huge aviation buff, hence the reason we went to Seattle last year to the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field as well as the Boeing Factory Tour in Everett. The boy was reciting stats to the docents at the museum, they were amazed at what he knew.
His birthday (St. Patrick’s Day) request this year was to go to Denver International Airport, so we all drove down there, looked at planes out the window, and had lunch and opened presents at the Panda Express in the main concourse (He brought his unopened gifts with him in a roller bag). And we took lots of pictures with airline staff… 🙂
His favorite airline is Southwest, so he wants to see their HQ, so at the beginning of August we will be flying to Love Field in Dallas via SWA, will see the HQ building, try to worm our way in, as well as taking in several museums (Aviation and others) in the area.
He keeps finding old airliner stuff on ebay that he wants us to buy for him. At the top of the list is an aircraft door, below that some seats and other items. The latest request is for an Oxygen mask that he wants to hang on the ceiling. At least those are cheap…
How did you get through security? I know you can get a pass to get through the TSA checkpoint if you’re not actually flying, but I was under the impression that you needed to have a good reason. I didn’t think they gave them out to just anyone. Or am I wrong about that?
Does your son have any Plane Tags? These guys take skin from retired airliners and turn them into little medallions etched with information about the plane it came from. I’ve got one from a 747 on my backpack and one from a DC-9 on my key ring.
Those same guys make furniture out of old airplane parts, like a desk made out of an aileron or a bed made from an engine cowling. They don’t list prices on their website, though, so I’m guessing it’s an “if you have to ask, you can’t afford it” type deal.
We just asked a baggage guy to “Yo, hold the door” and actually got onto the tarmac. (Ha, no, just kidding!)
We just hung out in the main concourse and went onto the bridge to Terminal One until the checkpoint there. P L E N T Y for him to see and do there including collecting various luggage tags, weighing himself repeatedly, actually running into someone he knew that was really going somewhere, taking pix with and of everything etc. You’d think we never fly anywhere…The SouthWest guy in the St. Patrick’s Day outfit got on the speaker and introduced Riley to everyone waiting in line and started singing Happy Birthday. SWA does still know how to have fun with flying. I think his favorite gifts were a Southwest T-shirt and a working jet engine model to build (which he did and which he now spools up at all hours of the night if he’s aware.)
Plane Tags? No, but I will look for them now, thanks for that! He has found the re-purposed furniture and you are correct about the pricing…We did find a small airplane junkyard near the Greeley airport when we were there a few weeks ago, I may need to take him there or go myself and see if I can find some doo-dad…
How close are you to Oshkosh? The airshow is in July, and the Fly Market (play on flea market) usually has vendors selling all manner of aircraft bits and pieces. There are also different workshops that both you and your son would really enjoy. My sons put me to shame at a welding workshop – they seem to have been born with an innate talent for drawing a perfect bead with a gas torch on an aluminum plate.
It’s only 1,032 miles. So a longish day’s drive. 🙂
Darn, now you’ve got me thinking…July 23-29. The rest of the family will be in Colombia and Panama, so if work takes a breather maybe we could hop up there before Dallas the week after. Although next year might be better…
You and your sons’ welding skills could come in handy for something I was considering that Mr. Shafer was trying to talk me into! Or I should take that workshop myself…
Please add the Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton to your son’s list. I could meet you there if interested and we could walk him through their collection of planes/equipment used in WWII basic pilot training, including the Link Trainer for basic instrument training that was my Dad’s job.. Plus,, THE Memphis Belle just arrived this month and is on permanent exhibit. Wear comfortable shoes, they got a lotta stuff there.
I second this recommendation — lots of military planes on display including the large bombers such as the B-29, B-47, and B-52.
And the mammoth B-36. It completely overshadows the multiple other airplanes placed underneath it. There really are no words to describe the size of the B-36. Which is OK, you just stand there with your mouth open, anyway.
Thank you! He’s just starting to learn about the military planes, for some reason he focused entirely on commercial stuff at first. But as we see museums or drive by airports he’s beginning to notice the others as well and gets interested when I point out how some (OK, many) have civilian counterparts that he knows.
Honestly in spite of my presence on this site I’m probably more of an aviation buff than a car buff (although I obviously have an interest in both), and I’m kind of the same way in that I find civilian airliners more interesting than military planes. I think I just feel more of a connection to commercial airliners, in that I’ve either flown on them personally or have a chance of flying on them in the future. There’s not much chance that I’ll ever fly on a military plane. That and I have a sort of romanticized notion of air travel, that airliners take people to exotic far away places and that sot of thing.
Pima Air Museum here in Tucson has a B-36, too. It covers a whole lot of ground.
I was a small kid when the B-36 was being taken out of service. The landing pattern for the local air base went over our house, and as those planes would come in, they would shake the house. Such a distinctive sound, with those six engines going.
B-36 is my favorite plane, especially in 6 turnin 4 burnin version
Another vote for the USAF Museum. And Pima in Tucson.
Paul: The LH -100s were known for steep climbs and descents. I never flew on one but did experience that kind of flying on the LH 727s in and out of Frankfurt. A famous -100 route for that fun flying was the short Frankfurt-Dusseldorf run.
The -100s did fly in the USA as used aircraft. People Express had a bunch of them. America West had some too and I may have unknowingly been on one of their -100s at some time.
Jim: My favorite USA aviation experience, and something your son might enjoy, is the annual EAA AirVenture at Oshkosh. Imagine 10,000 aircraft on the field and you can get up close and personal with just about every one except the newest military iron. There are a few airliners – usually something current and several obsolete, privately owned planes. I’ve seen an A-350 doing demonstrator stunt flying over Whitman Field. Back in the day the Concorde made appearances.
Your son can fly on some very special airplanes too. The EAA owns two Ford Tri-Motors and a seat on a local flight on one of them can be purchased. For more money you can buy a ride on a B-29 from the nearby airport at Fond Du Lac.
Thanks! Yeah, we’ve considered Oshkosh and will likely go in the next couple of years, my brother went a few times and has raved about it.
His first suggestion was a roadtrip to visit Pima, AZ and tour the airplane graveyard along with going to Roswell…That now morphed into flying to Dallas when I didn’t really want to drive that much this year. The heat’s gonna kill me either way but the things we do for/with our kids… 🙂
We have a couple of okay museums here. The Cavanaugh is at Addison and AA has a small corporate museum as well with free admission.
If you are ever in northwest Florida you should check out the Navy’s Aviation Museum at NAS Pensacola. It is fairly compact so you should be able to see all the exhibits in a couple of hours, unless you want to spend longer. Nothing as big as a B-36 of course but some of the planes do seem to be fairly large to have taken off/landed on carriers.
My most vivid memory from Oshkosh was a low level high speed flyover of P51s in formation. Oh my god the sound was fantastic.
No doubt about the impact of the 737, worldwide. In Europe, the largest operator is Ryanair, with over 400 -800 variants flying with high density seating for 189 people. The business model is unashamedly modelled on Southwest and Ryanair is the largest airline in Europe by passenger numbers, if not by passengers-miles.
No frills at all, unless you pay extra, but with a good safety record and a reputation in the industry for working to solid engineering and aviation standards. Many passenger/staff encounters could be closed with “but it’s cheap – what else do want?” though
Personally, I prefer the Airbus A320 family – that extra 6″ of fuselage diameter makes a real difference.
+1 on the A320 family. I don’t fly a lot – 2 or 3 times a year (excluding a 14 year period where I inexplicably developed a fear of flying that had to be overcome) but the little bit of extra room is really nice. Maybe it’s coincidence, but the A320’s seem to fly smoother if that makes any sense.
I have a soft spot for the DC9 family as well due to having flown in them since the 70’s. Delta still uses the MD 80/88/90/B717 regularly here in the US. Last year my daughter and I went up to Niagara Falls and she got to experience the difference in noise between the front and back of the plane. Good times. . .
The second picture brings back memories, back when flying was fun, especially on Western Airlines champagne flights (the oooonly way to fly).
Ameristar also has another -200 and a nice stubby DC-9-30. The JT8D is the R-1830 of our day.
CP Air had lots of these -200s flying around BC at one time. Today’s 737 doesn’t have “that push you back in the seat” feeling those old hotrods did. On the other hand the -200s didn’t have that “pull you out of your seat” feeling the new ones do when the thrust reversers are deployed.
I well recall a long landing in a -200 on a slippery runway topped off with a hard left onto the very last taxiway at what had to be the maximum speed the aircraft would negotiate a turn at way back when. After an appropriate pause the Captain sheepishly said “sorry about that folks”.
It seemed like every one of those old 737s sounded like they needed a brake job too. I don’t think I ever rode on one that didn’t squeal and shudder until the newer -400s came along.
To me these just don’t look right unless they are in CP Air’s bright orange livery!
One thing I do know is that United Airlines is one of the only major airlines to operate all four generations of the Boeing 737. They included the 200 (73S) models in service from 1968-2001 along with the 300/500 “Classics” in operation from from the late 1980s through 2009. When United merged with Continental, 737s found their way back into the fleet, mostly Next Gen 700/800/900 models. And United has 737 Max 9 and 10s on order.
Back to the 737-200, Delta Airlines was the last major US airline to operate the 737-200 when they were retired in 2006 or 07. Several were purchased new by Delta in the early to mid 1980s and others came from Western Airlines after the merger in 1987.
When America West Airlines (HP) started back in the early 1980s, their fleet mainly consisted of used 737-200. America West (and Southwest) retired their 737-200 in 2005. The B737 (all versions) is a workhorse,
Although they probably weren’t considered a “major” airline, I believe Aloha Airlines was the last to operate the 737-200 on scheduled flights in the US. They still used them on flights between the Hawaiian Islands until they went bankrupt in 2008. Alaska Airlines was also one of the last holdouts flying the 200; they used the “combi” version (combination passenger/freighter) to remote Alaskan towns although I don’t remember the year they retired them.
In 1989 I flew with VASP on a 737-200 which by that time felt already very shabby and worn up, but who knows, maybe that’s the plane pictured above! VASP is a defunct airline since 2005 and deservedly so – it was founded and owned by he State of São Paulo (Viação Aérea São Paulo) and later privatized. It always had the tackiest livery of all Brazilian airlines until the arrival of TAM, but on the other hand it had some exotic planes, like the SAAB Scandia, which VASP flew 16 out of a total of 18 produced (of which 5 crashed). It also flew the very cool Vickers Viscount, the noisy but lovely BAC 1-11 and the rare Japanese made NAMC YS-11, called Samurai by the airline.
Great post!
I have to fly relatively often around Southeast Asia and the 737 classic (-300 or -400, usually) is still very present in these parts, along with the A320 and the ATR72. But I haven’t flown in a 737-200 in over a decade.
Re: Paul’s comment on “steep” flights, the most extreme one I’ve had was in a Swiss BaE-146 landing at London City airport about 10 years back. The view was just astounding, too.
“Flying cigars” is what my buddy and I called these short, stout, stubby planes a long time ago.
The modern descendant of the DC-3.
When my dad first started flying for business in the early 70’s out of Fayetteville, NC, Piedmont was the only airline and he almost always flew a 737. I drew several sketches of 737s while waiting for him at the airport.
A couple dozen 200s still operate out of unpaved strips in the north of Canada because there is no replacement. The gravel kits were never approved for the Classics or NGs.
http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm
I flew on the 737-200 several times as a boy on Piedmont Airlines in the mid 70’s then several times on Delta in the late 90’s. Some say Boeing never should have stretched the 737 beyond the 737-800. Hopefully the 737-7 and 737-10 are soon certified.
I find the 737 abnormally interesting considering how ubiquitous and now reviled it has become. Great airplane back in the day, before they continually mutated the poor thing into a cheap replacement for widebodies on transcontinental routes.
Delta still flies a bazillion of the stretched last-gen 737-900s out of Salt Lake and they’re not very pleasant at this point–noisy, rattly things with worn out interiors.
I was pleasantly surprised by a few recent flights on a MAX-8. Much, much quieter planes with less vibration, and felt more powerful on takeoff. Combined with a window seat and a good view and it was a nice flight.
Fond memories of the 737-200 and (as a guy who called 727’s “Impalas” in the ’70’s) appreciate the analogy: 737-200’s were to the S.F – L.A. corridor what Tauruses were to Hertz. And about as surprise-free as a Holiday Inn, for that matter, but I digress…
Today at Ottawa.
Try that again