Jump to content
Instructions on joining the Members Only Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jacko

Boeing 737-Max. Another one down.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, MrMango said:

The seating is a function of the cabin width as well as the desires of the Airlines, not boeing or Airbus. 

And the pitch of he seats is the same, up to the customer.

Yes, but Boeing actively encourage upseating. I'm glad TG have stuck with 3+3+3 on their 777's, much more comfortable than being crammed in a 3+4+3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, capdagde said:

Everytime I see this thread title - almost every day - I think WTF?  ANOTHER ONE?

Without having to read the whole thread..... How many is it now?

Andy Cap

So you haven't grasped that this is an Internet forum and not a daily red-top?

The date posted appears under the title. 

Just the two so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheFiend said:

Yes, but Boeing actively encourage upseating. I'm glad TG have stuck with 3+3+3 on their 777's, much more comfortable than being crammed in a 3+4+3.

Come on stop that BS!

Who gives a rats ass what Boeing "encourages"

Very knowable customers with huge engineering and marketing departments that are going to spend billions of US$ to buy Birds, do what they think is best, not what Boeing "recommends"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, jacko said:

The date posted appears under the title.

Thank you for taking my post "at the first degree" - it was meant "at the second degree", but who, in all reality, is going to want to get in a 737 Max - THE NAME NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

I believe continuing to have a Thread Title ANOTHER ONE DOWN - suggests (inadvertently) that there will be a post every now and again announcing another crash.  I follow the news (although NOT in the redtops) but I might not have seen the news on TV on any given day and I DO think every day when I see the thread bumped "Has there been another crash - test flight or other reason?"

The power of words and the maxim of "If you say/read/hear something often enough, it becomes true", is real.

Captain Over and out (Airplane).

Edited by capdagde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MrMango said:

Come on stop that BS!

Who gives a rats ass what Boeing "encourages"

Very knowable customers with huge engineering and marketing departments that are going to spend billions of US$ to buy Birds, do what they think is best, not what Boeing "recommends"

 

So you don't think Boeing Sales department pushes the economics of upseating.... more bums on seat means  more money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheFiend said:

So you don't think Boeing Sales department pushes the economics of upseating.... more bums on seat means  more money

How does Boeing profit besides slightly more material and installation time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheFiend said:

So you don't think Boeing Sales department pushes the economics of upseating.... more bums on seat means  more money

I assume Boeing and its sales force does what any sales force does - Sells airplanes and they don't benefit by pushing the number of seats to a customer who doesn't want that. 

They are not selling to some rube, but to very sophisticated Corporations who know exactly what type of bird they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orders being cancelled and serious financial impact on Boeing.

https://news.yahoo.com/saudi-carrier-cancels-troubled-boeing-122101629.html

 

A Saudi airline canceling an order worth up to $5.9 billion in favor of a European rival of the U.S. manufacturer.

Flyadeal, the budget airline arm of Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., ordered 30 A320neo jets from Airbus and took options on 20 more, meaning that its entire fleet will consist of planes from that company.

Officials with Indonesia's Garuda said in March that they were canceling the remaining 49 of a 50-jet Max order. Published reports suggest the airline and Boeing are in talks, however, and Boeing still lists the last 49 Garuda orders on its website.

Similarly, the owner of Lion Air — the Indonesia airline whose Max jet was involved in the first fatal crash in October — vowed to cancel. Boeing still lists the airline's 187 unfilled orders as active.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by families of those aboard the downed planes. Boeing will likely have to compensate airlines that already own Max planes — nearly 400 around the world — which are not expected to be allowed in back into the air any time soon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The problem Boeing, and the airlines who order this version, have is will people be prepared to fly on it ? I would try avoid it. The 737 was a great plane but this version is problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 1:53 AM, wacmedia said:

Hi,

The problem Boeing, and the airlines who order this version, have is will people be prepared to fly on it ? I would try avoid it. The 737 was a great plane but this version is problematic.

I agree. I would avoid it also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

I agree. I would avoid it also.

Cake or Death (again)!  Change the name or use something other than Aspartame in the fuel....

If they called it Zero would it remind Murcans of Pearl Harbo(u)r?   Too soon?

Maybe Zero Zen to with a Zanax in every Zeat?

Zero Max.JPG

Mitsubishi Zero Zen........ "chillax to the max pax"!

Zero Zen.JPG

Andy "We're DOOMED" Cap

 

Edited by capdagde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 12:56 AM, midlifecrisis said:

I agree. I would avoid it also.

Hi,

They are thinking about it as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change

A Boeing 737 Max due to be delivered to Ryanair has had the name Max dropped from the livery, further fuelling speculation that the manufacturer and airlines will seek to rebrand the troubled plane once it is given the all clear to fly again.

Photos have emerged of a 737 Max in Ryanair colours outside Boeing’s manufacturing hub, with the designation 737-8200 – instead of 737 Max – on the nose. The 737-8200 is a type name for the aircraft that is used by aviation agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wacmedia said:

Hi,

They are thinking about it as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change

A Boeing 737 Max due to be delivered to Ryanair has had the name Max dropped from the livery, further fuelling speculation that the manufacturer and airlines will seek to rebrand the troubled plane once it is given the all clear to fly again.

Photos have emerged of a 737 Max in Ryanair colours outside Boeing’s manufacturing hub, with the designation 737-8200 – instead of 737 Max – on the nose. The 737-8200 is a type name for the aircraft that is used by aviation agencies.

That only makes sense. Marketing 101 would say don't push something that portrays a bad image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 4:27 PM, MrMango said:

That only makes sense. Marketing 101 would say don't push something that portrays a bad image.

Hi,

I've flown lots of times on 737. Whatever they call this new version, I will avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now looks like other airlines are having the "MAX" moniker removed from their aircraft that have been built and put into storage whilst the wait for the grounding to be lifted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indonesian investigators release final Lion Air 610 crash report.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/indonesian-investigators-release-final-lion-air-610-crash-report/

 

I struggle to blame the crew even though they seemingly did not know how to defeat the MCAS system. A system which effectively took the control of an aircraft off the pilots and nosedived the aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacko said:

Indonesian investigators release final Lion Air 610 crash report.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/indonesian-investigators-release-final-lion-air-610-crash-report/

 

I struggle to blame the crew even though they seemingly did not know how to defeat the MCAS system. A system which effectively took the control of an aircraft off the pilots and nosedived the aircraft. 

Lots of blame to go around.

The crew did not have a clue how to deactivate the MCAS system and spent precious seconds trying to figure it out, resulting in the crash.

Bad design and lack of training IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a nice article a while back about the 737 Max.  According to the article, Boeing wanted to make a new plane, but the bean counters were trying to save money, so they didn't start from scratch.  Rather, they used the same frame as the old 737, but had to reposition the engines because the engines were bigger.  This repositioning made the plane inherently unstable.  In order to fly it, they needed a computer program to make in-flight corrections, so they came up with the MCAS system.  So that's it.  And another thing:  they didn't want to train all the pilots on the new system, so that didn't happen.  I guess they thought that the plane could fly itself.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'd never in a million years get onto one of this planes.  I'd rather walk or swim.  They all need to be parked out in the desert someplace, or fed into the shredder.  

Edited by js007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, js007 said:

I read a nice article a while back about the 737 Max.  According to the article, Boeing wanted to make a new plane, but the bean counters were trying to save money, so they didn't start from scratch.  Rather, they used the same frame as the old 737, but had to reposition the engines because the engines were bigger.  This repositioning made the plane inherently unstable.  In order to fly it, they needed a computer program to make in-flight corrections, so they came up with the MCAS system.  So that's it.  And another thing:  they didn't want to train all the pilots on the new system, so that didn't happen.  I guess they thought that the place could fly itself.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'd never in a million years get onto one of this planes.  I'd rather walk or swim.  They all need to be parked out in the desert someplace, or fed into the shredder.  

Sounds like pure BS to me.

From what I read, SW airlines, who is the biggest customer of Boeing's narrow body tubes, insisted on the same low tube height so all of its ground infrastructure could be used on it.  To do that, they had to mount the bigger diameter engines a few feet forwardard, changing the W&B a bit, but that does not make it unstable.

They did come up with a hairbrained solution - MCAS that relied on a single pitot tube to tell it when it was about to stall and when that failed, they did not tell the carriers how to disable it when it failed.

Any sane pilot can tell by the seat of his pants when a bird is close to stalling, and they have multiple instruments that also give a true airspeed reading, some requiring zero power.

I have many flight hours in birds with NO electrical power.

Edited by MrMango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MrMango said:

Sounds like pure BS to me.

From what I read, SW airlines, who is the biggest customer of Boeing's narrow body tubes, insisted on the same low tube height so all of its ground infrastructure could be used on it.  To do that, they had to mount the bigger diameter engines a few feet forwardard, changing the W&B a bit, but that does not make it unstable.

They did come up with a hairbrained solution - MCAS that relied on a single pitot to tell it when it was about to stall and when that failed, they did not tell the carriers how to disable it when it failed.

 

SWA also insisted that it didn't want to put it's pilots through additional training for the MAX....

The implementation of MCAS was very poor. On a safety critical system you shouldn't rely on just one Angle Of Attack sensor (not pitot tube) to trigger a reaction. I work on safety critical systems.... we never use just a single sensor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheFiend said:

SWA also insisted that it didn't want to put it's pilots through additional training for the MAX....

The implementation of MCAS was very poor. On a safety critical system you shouldn't rely on just one Angle Of Attack sensor (not pitot tube) to trigger a reaction. I work on safety critical systems.... we never use just a single sensor.

I see it simpler. A system that can put the aircraft into a forced nose down situation and ignore whatever the pilots try to do, pulling back for example, is just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheFiend said:

SWA also insisted that it didn't want to put it's pilots through additional training for the MAX....

The implementation of MCAS was very poor. On a safety critical system you shouldn't rely on just one Angle Of Attack sensor (not pitot tube) to trigger a reaction. I work on safety critical systems.... we never use just a single sensor.

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, js007 said:

i read that opinion piece and its the usual more lift with the engines a foot or two forward of the CG, but they never mention how much extra lift is generated. My guess is very little and that can be offset b y other changes. Lots of jets have engines mounted in the tail, which is much farther away from the CG than the 737, but no one is saying that creates unstable downward lift and is unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrMango said:

i read that opinion piece and its the usual more lift with the engines a foot or two forward of the CG, but they never mention how much extra lift is generated. My guess is very little and that can be offset b y other changes. Lots of jets have engines mounted in the tail, which is much farther away from the CG than the 737, but no one is saying that creates unstable downward lift and is unstable.

I know absolutely nothing about aeronautical engineering.  Just what I read, from time to time.  Anyway, the point seems to be that while lots of planes are manufactured to be aerodynamically unstable, that's not a good idea for a passenger plane.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...