737 3-view drawingsJuly 21 2012 at 6:47 PM
|Joe (Login JersyJoe)|
from IP address 184.108.40.206
With the advent of Squadrons new At The Gate book about the Boeing 737 airliner family my interest in the subject has grown almost out of proportion. The book give the basic dimension and major changes for each series model from the -100 to the -900 but it does not provide detailed dimensional 3-view drawings for each. Does anyone know where these kind of drawings may be found and obtained.
Boeing.com has some good data. (edit)
|July 21 2012, 7:14 PM |
|July 21 2012, 11:31 PM |
Thank you Clifford. This info is almst exactly or even better than I had hored for.
Michael McMurtrey, Proud IPMS Low # Thumper
|July 21 2012, 7:24 PM |
But these are simple drawings for airport planning purposes and contain little detail.
I'm not really a pompous ***; I just play one on HyperScale!
|This message has been edited by ZergOvermind from IP address 220.127.116.11 on Jul 21, 2012 7:26 PM|
|July 21 2012, 11:37 PM |
Yhank you Michael. I believe that these files are similar yto oyhers I may have. I have to lap-link this stuuf over to my AutoCad Computor before I can open them to be sure,
They really don't exist
|July 21 2012, 8:35 PM |
The ones on the Boeing site are very crude and not at all accurate (they're not intended to be). Even Boeing's 1/100 model drawings aren't that accurate.
|July 21 2012, 10:30 PM |
Some time ago I caroused with a bunch of TWA guys from Kansas City who gave the lowdown the 737-100. -200 and 300 series. Twhe primary bits of info that are the key to making the drawings I need on Auto Cad are !) the fusalgage cross sectionof the 737 are the same as the 707. 2) The fusalages were meant to be the same except for the added length extensions as shown with the -100/-200. 3)The engines would be more powerful as the fusalages got longer and viceversa. 4) The wings were from the same basic design with changes to the spans, wing tips and root chord lengths as required by the fusalage length. %) As the fusalges would grow the tail assemblies particularly the fin and rudders would also grow to maintain longitudinal stability. 6) Longitudinal seat spacing would remain the same on all future models. If this proves to be true than it would be logical to assume that the window spacing would also be the same.
I have the basic dimensions for all of the 737 families so it's a simple matter of measuring the fusalage length in a picture and calculating the real feet per picture inch. The calculation is reversed to determine other dimensions in the same angullar plane in the picture. Other dimension in different angular planes would come from other picyure of the aircraft in that plane.
I made up a little computor program which does all the mathmatical work. All I have to do is plug in the dimensions of the figure in the photograph.The program automatically gives the dimensions for 1/72 scale drawings. I'm sure this what some of the kit manufacturers do to get their kit mold dimensions. After they've factored in the thermo and shrink details to produce satisfactory scale parts.
Some of the more difficult dimensions to obtain are things like root chords of the wings and stabilizers.
Those require mucho calcilations because of the angular disparities. A three view drawing can be used to derive the needed dimensions just like using a photo.
Thanks for your advice.
I hate to argue this, but...
|July 23 2012, 9:21 PM |
Almost none of that is true. The upper lobe of the 737 is the same as the 707. The lower lobe isn't. The 707 is deeper.
The wings on the 737 have nothing whatsoever in common with the 707 wing except that both were designed by Boeing.
It would be really nice if doing an accurate drawing were as simple as you make it out to be. A lot depends on your definition of "accurate".
|July 25 2012, 11:55 PM |
If you hate to argue than don't. But I don't believe that you can help yourself. You seem to be just naturally negative.
There are four or five sources on the web which confirm the same circumfernce and cross section dimensions for the 707 through the 757 fusalage and cockpits. In addition, I have the cross section drawings for the 707 and 737 which also confirm the dimensions.
I didn't say the wings were the same. I clearly stated that the spans, root chords and tip chords were all different. However, the basic constuction methodologies are indeed Boeing.
I have acquired all of the dimensional details for all of the 737 family airplanes. One source was provided by another hyperscaler. The second is from one of my sons who has worked for Boeing in Washington since the birth of the 737-100.
My drawings will be as accurate as the information supplied to me. My working drawings will all be in 1/72 scale for the purpose of generating molds for resins or more complicated ones for injected plastics.
707 and 737 fuse is the same
|July 27 2012, 11:58 AM |
We had a 707 hulk fuselage from Nigerian Air in our hangar that was used for reference to do some structure mods on the P-8A (which is basically a 737) lower fuse.
I asked "why use a 707?"....answer was the fuslages are the same between the two.
And yes, I do work at Boeing.
707 vs. the rest...
|July 30 2012, 12:36 AM |
Not being argumentative here, just stating facts. You may not like Pete's methods but he is correct. The fuselage cross-section for the 367-80, 717 (KC-135 series), 727, 737, and 757 were the same. I found several articles that claimed the 707 to also be the same. You know what they say, they couldn't pit it on the internet if it wasn't true. These folks simply didn't do their homework. The 707 WAS different.
While not as pronounced as its rival from Douglas, the DC-8, the 707 had a pinched waist which made for a double lobe fuselage. This pinch line ran from just behind the cockpit area, adjacent to the upper surface of the wings and to just aft of where the belly started its upward slope in the rear of the fuselage. The upper section of this lobe matched the diameter of the other 7x7 aircraft but the lower lobe caused the 707 to have a deeper overall cross-section.
Simply working at Boeing alone does not vouch for anyone's expertise on this or any other aircraft. They stopped 707 production around 1980 which is an entire career ago. Just as Jeff mentioned "somebody else" told him they were the same when he inquired. I once worked at General Dynamics and found it interesting that some of the people with thirty-year careers there barely knew more than the designation of the airplanes built there much less any technical data.
Now before anyone is ready to take me out behind the barn to settle this man-to-man, just do two minutes worth of research. Go to Google "images" and key in 707, VC-137, E-3 Sentry, E-6 Mercury/Hermes, or E-8 JSTARS, most of which were converted 707s. You will see that pinched section which does not appear on any of the other 7x7 series. It's harder to see on some of the older airliners because the airlines loved to use that pinch line as a cheatline for their liveries. But it's still there and there are an almost endless supply of images to prove it.
Hope I did more than just stir the pot.
then they're going yo have a bunch of messed up P-8's cause....
|July 30 2012, 9:21 AM |
.....they were using that 707 hulk for the lower fuselage. They needed to have a representive fuse of the 737 structure in that area. So if what everyone is claiming is true regarding the uppers being common and the lowers being different then our engineers are hosed in their thinking.
I'm just sayin'....
Not quite. The Dash 80, C-135 and 707 all have different widths ..
|August 1 2012, 10:25 PM |
367-80:132 inches (just like the Model 367/C-97 and Model 377)
C-135: 144 inches
707: 148 inches
The 727 fuselage upper lobe used the same geometry as the 707/720 upper lobe, ditto the 737.
757 started as a 727 development so has the same basic fuselage.
The 707/720, 727, 737 and 757 all have a fuselage width of 148 inches and the
upper lobes are basically the same with a cabin floor to overhead measurement
of 86.3 inches.
The 737 and 757 have a fuselage depth of 13 ft 2 inches, the forward fuselage of the 727 is
the same, the aft fuselage is 10 inches deeper.
The 707 lower lobe is deeper than the others, giving a fuselage depth of 14 feet 2.5 inches.
The 'waisted' appearance of the 707 is due to the upper lobe diameter being increased twice
from the base design of the 367-80.
L'avion accuse ... Le Corbusier
Thanks for that
|August 3 2012, 11:21 AM |
I had wanted to say something about not only the different fuselage widths, but the lower lobe differences between the 707 and the 727/737 - but didn't have the exact figures on the lower lobe to back up my knowledge. That lower lobe difference is something I definitely notice when looking at the real thing. Thanks for sharing that, and helping clarify things.
The lower lobe of the 707 is deeper than the lower lobe of the 737
|August 9 2012, 10:32 PM |
I have the manuals to prove it, regardless of who you work for. The upper lobe is (mostly) the same, but not the lower lobe. That's not a guess, that's fact.
With you're ability to work with complex computer programs
|July 25 2012, 8:59 AM |
Any chance you could simply turn on your spell check??? Hate to dog you out buddy but it's kind of painful trying to read your posts.
I believe in god and the only thing that scares me,,,,,,is Keyser Soze.
|July 25 2012, 11:59 PM |
My appologies. I actually hate to type. Takes too much time. I've been considering a little voice driven program which will type and edit as I go. Finding the time to get it done is one problem, Naking it compatible with web sites like Hyperscale is another.
Sorry, but 707 wings and 737 wings have *nothing* whatsoever in common...
|August 9 2012, 10:33 PM |
They simply don't. Both were designed by Boeing, but that's all they have in common.
Hi, Some info Boeing 737 info
|July 22 2012, 12:06 AM |
The closest I have to Good 3-view Drawings are in the 737 AMM and SRM. I have some 737-247 and 347 Plate Chart books put out by Western Airlines that are good, and at work I use the 737NG AMM and SRM when doing inspections, that are good. They are not 100% and are more for working on the acft. The Engineering Drawings are the info I think you are looking for, but they are held tight. Due to the size of the acft the Drawings are broken down to sections. It a Boeing thing. Like section 41 is a Nose on all Boeing Acft. I am sorry, but due to the propritary info, I can't copy work Documents. But if you can find a retired A&P with Plate Chart books, might be the way to go. Sorry I could not be of more help, Darren
|July 26 2012, 12:02 AM |
Thanks but I think i have all I need to start working. I usually don't like to impose on him but one of my sons is a long time Boeing guy.