Results 151 to 175 of 270
Thread: 737 MAX
-
09-01-2019, 02:06 PM #151
Maybe. The public will forget soon enough. Average person has no idea what they are flying on. Knowledge is power. I think the A380 debacle, where Airbus executives decided to swing dicks rather than play the long game, might end up being the bigger long term disaster. The MAX might still have a long and bright future, albeit probably rolling with a different handle.
On that same note I can't believe neither major has decided to spend their money replacing the venerable 757. Best takeoffs ever and long term demand seems almost certain. The A380 and Max debacles should at least have some pencil pushers rethinking business plans.
Lastly, I have a flight (my first) on a 787 dash 9 coming up. Upgraded to bulkhead seats. Wife and kids on a 747 dash 8 on Lufthansa of course. Kind of jealous of them.Last edited by uglymoney; 09-01-2019 at 03:03 PM.
-
09-01-2019, 05:24 PM #152
Let's take a perfectly good airliner... Put bigger engines on it to eek out a little more payload and a few more pennies per flight. Never mind the fact that the bigger engines tip the balance point so badly we have to run special software to keep it in the air.. Oh, and let's not tell the pilots how the new software the plane can't fly without works or how to use it! Yep, right there's some good shit..
Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
09-01-2019, 05:58 PM #153
-
09-01-2019, 06:15 PM #154
-
09-01-2019, 07:18 PM #155
? The part where he talks about how the plane is actually inherently stable but the software was needed to provide proper stick feedback that falls within FAA requirements, which yes, is a result of the engine placement?
Obviously a series of bad decisions were made which resulted in these crashes but it doesn't seem to be because the plane is inherently built to fall out of the sky. More that it has flight characteristics that differ slightly from other 737's and for regulatory (pilot training, stick feedback) reasons the software was added and then modified later as they went down the wormhole.
-
09-01-2019, 08:55 PM #156
-
09-01-2019, 08:57 PM #157
Money reasons. The airlines wanted a plane that was operationally mostly interchangeable with their other 737s, but with better economics. That's what Boeing promised, that's why the airlines bought the plane. To deliver on that promise they went down a wormhole of engineering compromises.
Anyways, this won't make any fucking difference. Because you are conflating the utter IT fuckup of the A380 - where they lost design control, and years -with executive swinging to wave the flag. USA! USA! USA!
-
09-01-2019, 09:08 PM #158
So far, not great and only time will tell if it was a good long term business decision. As I said, some rethinking is almost certainly taking place with the benefit of hindsight. But, according to the man on the video at least, the software wasn't needed to "keep the plane in the air".
Should they have gone with a new 757ish design (bigger wings/higher stance/short runway capable)? Why, why not.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
09-01-2019, 09:26 PM #159
-
09-01-2019, 09:44 PM #160
Only if they restrict them to no family travel and fly them on predominately business routes. Got stuck on the back of one for a cross country trip around xmas time and it took 45 minutes to get everyone off. The Boeing NMA is aimed at that market however, but some talk of it being a dual aisle and sitting in-between narrow and wide body fuselage.
-
09-04-2019, 02:55 PM #161
-
09-04-2019, 03:17 PM #162
About one out of every six 757s still flying belongs to Delta. That's a big fleet to replace, plus the operational advantage of the 767 being considered the same type leaves little financial incentive to do so without a major increase in fuel price.
pretty much.
-
09-04-2019, 09:22 PM #163
-
09-05-2019, 06:45 AM #164
Many Delta 757 routes have 7373-900s in the rotation.
-
09-05-2019, 02:36 PM #165
The 757 has bigger wings so it can take off at slower speeds with more payload. 737's need more speed and longer runways to get airborne.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
09-06-2019, 07:22 PM #166
-
09-06-2019, 07:36 PM #167
-
09-06-2019, 08:20 PM #168
Aerodynamics’n’shit probly
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-
09-06-2019, 09:41 PM #169
Getting weirder.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...KvX4Xesd_AbbVs
A former Boeing official who played a key role in the development of the 737 MAX has refused to provide documents sought by federal prosecutors investigating two fatal crashes of the jetliner, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a person familiar with the matter.A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.
-
09-07-2019, 11:59 AM #170Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2018
- Posts
- 278
I'm now retired from Boeing (35 yr. career) but my last years there were on the 737 Programs and the Max. I had a senior position but not in Management and was involved in the Engineering world. The Max program was rushed and issues raised by many were not on the Program Managers radar. Lower-level Managers would deflect things and with knowledge that you threatened your own career by being too vocal, the program bumped along. The real experienced folks often were not listened to and many retired in disgust, some got demoted. So how did a single AOA sensor (rather than two with dual redundancy) get on those airplanes? Everything I was ever told or read made an emphasis on any system / apparatus having dual redundant capability. One fails, a second is in place to back it up. Faster, cheaper, and don't let anything obstruct or mess with our "Master Schedule". I could go on but in the years of the Max program some serious inside problems were festering and as some of my colleagues said, only a matter of time and there will be consequences. The video is an accurate, technical explanation but misses some of the behavior issues. I do remember the (senior) FAA reps. leaving and the assurances given that self-certification was perfectly fine. Yeah, right.
Last edited by L82thegate; 09-07-2019 at 12:36 PM.
-
09-07-2019, 12:12 PM #171
As Boeing goes, so goes the nation.
In 1953, Charles Wilson, GM’s president, became President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s secretary of defense.A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.
-
09-07-2019, 02:51 PM #172Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2018
- Posts
- 278
Just to add; a series of design reviews in packed conference rooms allow the entire design approach to be shared and critiqued by all other pertinent parties. Years ago, gruff and at times surly senior mangers would shoot arrows at anything they questioned or didn't understand. Different and more mechanical aircraft then but the practice is still in place. At the later event when 90% of the design is locked in, (Critical Design Review CDR) it would be appropriate to ask how a new system was "integrated" and were it's inputs fail-proof. Wouldn't someone in the room know you must have redundancy in the new MCAS system? Are there implications to the customers? Flight Manuals affected? and what about Simulators? Pilot / flight training considerations? There was a big hole in the experience / knowledge/ balls equation or it was a poorly attended event. The fly on the wall may know.
-
09-07-2019, 03:19 PM #173
-
09-07-2019, 04:40 PM #174
-
09-07-2019, 08:49 PM #175
Can we talk about the Boeing 2707 vs the Lockheed 2000 now?
Originally Posted by blurred
Bookmarks