Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

737 MAX first flight

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 737 MAX first flight

    The Boeing [NYSE: BA] 737 MAX 8 took to the skies for the first time today. The 737 MAX program achieved the milestone on schedule which begins a comprehensive flight-test program leading to...

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  • #2
    Now in database

    Pretty awesome! It's hard to believe it has been so long since I just caught the former prototype 73G a month ago!

    Congrats to Boeing

    Unfortunately, this also means we will be flying on the same boring aircraft for the coming decades...
    Last edited by hongmng; 2016-01-30, 01:15.

    Comment


    • #3
      (Yawn)

      Those winglets are hideous.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        (Yawn)

        Those winglets are hideous.
        They are there to save fuel, not to delight your eyes.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          I find it pretty amazing that an airplane designed 60 years a go and that had its first flight 50 years ago and that, to a not lesser extent, is a derivative of even older planes long out of production (707 and 727), is able to reinvent itself over and over (under its same type certificate) and to compete head to head with the most moderns competitors and keep achieving amazing improvements in fuel consumption and operative costs, as well as safety, to the point that, at the moment of its first flight and more than one year ahead of its entry into service, there is a backlog of more than 3000 already.

          Boeing should get whatever engineers are survivors from the first design and original certification, and award them 1 million dollars each.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            I find it pretty amazing that an airplane designed 60 years a go and that had its first flight 50 years ago and that, to a not lesser extent, is a derivative of even older planes long out of production (707 and 727), is able to reinvent itself over and over (under its same type certificate) and to compete head to head with the most moderns competitors and keep achieving amazing improvements in fuel consumption and operative costs, as well as safety, to the point that, at the moment of its first flight and more than one year ahead of its entry into service, there is a backlog of more than 3000 already.

            Boeing should get whatever engineers are survivors from the first design and original certification, and award them 1 million dollars each.
            Yes, all props to the original 737 engineers. But I think it's clear that Boeing has decided to maximize short-term shareholder profits by avoiding the retooling and development costs of a clean-sheet competitor to the A320, bolting on improvements to a proven but antiquated airframe instead. After years of speculation about the "Y1", I find that disappointing. After the breakthrough design of the 777 and now the 787, I would have expected a true 21st century full-FBW, composite clean-sheet single-aisle evolution of the 737 (or possibly a vastly modernized 757 variant). Instead Boeing has kicked the can down the road to 2030 and I have to continue to fly in the same old can at the same pressure altitude breathing the same occasionally rancid bleed air.

            Again, nothing against the 737, it's a fine and proven classic, but from a progress point of view, just... yawn.

            Comment


            • #7
              Fair enough, but I bet Boeing's accountants aren't yawning!

              Well maybe after seeing large checks coming in again and again and again it may get a bit tedious.
              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

              Eric Law

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by elaw View Post
                Fair enough, but I bet Boeing's accountants aren't yawning!

                Well maybe after seeing large checks coming in again and again and again it may get a bit tedious.
                Yeah, well that is the bottom line, isn't it. Boeing has a near monopoly and both Boeing and Airbus have long wait times for new orders. Airlines don't care much about innovation aside from range and fuel efficiency but they do care about when they can get delivery of those new jets. It's very much a supply-sided market based not as much on who can deliver the best product as in who can deliver the soonest acceptable product. The essential advantage of more competitive markets lies in how they drive innovation. When competition dries up, innovations become rare. What we need is renewed competition in this market. The competitive 60's and 70's saw great leaps in aerospace design (FBW being one of them). Now it seems to be strictly a manufacturing concern with limited generational improvements. But at least Airbus is marketing a comtemporary FBW jet with envelope protections and improvements to cabin air quality. Maybe the Brazilian and Russian and Chinese and Japanese short-haul entrants will one day crack this binary market dominance. Expect to see the old bellcrank 737 rolling off the line for another 15 years. Sad to see Boeing give up their innovative leadership though. Sad to see a Russian or Chinese jet that is more futuristic...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  (...) But at least Airbus is marketing a comtemporary FBW jet with envelope protections and improvements to cabin air quality. (...)
                  Well - the A320 is 30 years old - so I wouldn't quite call that contemporary.

                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  (...) Maybe the Brazilian and Russian and Chinese and Japanese short-haul entrants will one day crack this binary market dominance. Expect to see the old bellcrank 737 rolling off the line for another 15 years. Sad to see Boeing give up their innovative leadership though. Sad to see a Russian or Chinese jet that is more futuristic...
                  The looks of a jet may be futuristic, but that does not mean they are also advanced. (Quite obvious, for example, when comparing the Sukhoi T-50 to the F-22.)
                  I think the real problem is somewhere else. When Airbus announced the A320NEO, Boeing had to respond right away or lose a huge market share. The A320 series admittedly had (and in my opinion still has) more potential for development than the 737. But if you consider the length of development for the 787 you can imagine why Boeing had to go for the compromise on the narrowbody model. They simply could not afford the time to develop a completely new, advanced aircraft and lose out on all the orders Airbus would get for the A320NEO in the meantime. When the A320NEO was annonunced (and before Boeing decided on the 737MAX) I was still hoping for a completely new Boeing design that would eventually turn into the 797, but at that point Boeing obviously wasn't far enough into developing a new plane to announce a timely successor to the 737. My guess is that developing the 787 and getting it out and ready for the customers was such a big enterprise for Boeing that they simply could not take on the additional work (and risk) of developing a new narrowbody. Well - that's all water under the bridge. We are stuck with two compromise "pot-boiler" aircraft based on pretty old designs, one from Seattle and the other from Toulouse... and will be stuck with them for a while. In my opinion, neither the Chinese nor the Russians have anything that is even equal to the A320NEO or the 737MAX... and if you ask me, both, Boeing and Airbus, would have a next-generation narrowbody out there before Russia or China even deliver anything that is better than the NEO or the MAX.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                    I think the real problem is somewhere else. When Airbus announced the A320NEO, Boeing had to respond right away or lose a huge market share. The A320 series admittedly had (and in my opinion still has) more potential for development than the 737. But if you consider the length of development for the 787 you can imagine why Boeing had to go for the compromise on the narrowbody model. They simply could not afford the time to develop a completely new, advanced aircraft and lose out on all the orders Airbus would get for the A320NEO in the meantime.
                    Yes, that's what I'm getting at. Boeing had been thinking on a FBW narrow-body successor to the 737, probably even before the A320 rolled out. They knew back then that FBW was the future. Meanwhile they developed the 777 and the 787 and a lot of technology in the process that could be applied to the new narrow-body airframe. They gave it a working name. They dropped some hints about it. But mostly they dragged their feet and now they've fallen behind in the single-aisle department, maybe not in sales but in innovation, in design leadership. You can certainly make a case that the 737MAX is a sales success, but I find that cynical. America once led the world in technological progress. Now, Sukkoi, Embraer, Bombardier, Mitsubishi and Comac are all rolling out 21st-century clean-sheet designs featuring composites, bigger windows and better cabin pressurization systems and most, if not all, are FBW. The A320 was well ahead of its time in the late eighties so it can hold up to these new jets but the 737 is quite obviously an old timer on life-support. Yes, new engines, modified wings, FBW spoilers, big LCD's, wingtip... things, but still a very dated airframe that feels increasingly out-of-place as a production aircraft in the current age.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What is so super-cool about FBW after all?
                      I have always been pragmatical. I don't stand technology just for the sake of technology.
                      In fact, I love super-effective things that are stupid simple at the same time. I loved the DC-9 family's controls FBA (fly by air, or aerodynamically powered).

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        What is so super-cool about FBW after all?
                        I have always been pragmatical. I don't stand technology just for the sake of technology.
                        In fact, I love super-effective things that are stupid simple at the same time. I loved the DC-9 family's controls FBA (fly by air, or aerodynamically powered).
                        It saves weight and mechanical complexity, thus reducing maintenance issues and wear-related failures. So it's more efficient and reliable.

                        It enables the plane to protect itself from pilot stoogery, either via hard protections or soft, overrideable ones. So it's safer.

                        It enables the flight control system to get feedback from the control surfaces and react far faster than a human pilot could ever do. So it provides a smoother ride.

                        I also don't stand for technology for technology's sake. But nor do I stand against it for profit's sake. Humankind needs to keep progressing.

                        Boeing is progressing with the 737MAX, but far less than they should be.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          It enables the flight control system to get feedback from the control surfaces and react far faster than a human pilot could ever do.
                          So much so that some people seemingly forget power pitch performance and decide it's better to perform the power on stall procesure right out of the 172 POH, except for the recovery part.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            It saves weight and mechanical complexity, thus reducing maintenance issues and wear-related failures. So it's more efficient and reliable.
                            Sure... if you ignore electrical complexity, and software.

                            Actually I don't even necessarily agree with the reduction of mechanical complexity. How many moving parts does a hydraulic actuator have? Usually one: the piston. Some electric motors have only one moving part (the armature), others (brush-type motors) have more. If the motor has a position-feedback pot or resolver on it, that's another moving part. Etc. etc.

                            I'll bet dinner at a nice restaurant that a FBW system comparable to the hydraulic systems on the 737 has at least twice as many components... defining "components" down to the level of IC chips, not the components that make them up.

                            Software adds another type and quantity of complexity. Have you ever heard of a hydraulic system having a BSOD? I haven't! The occurence of "bugs" in aircraft hydraulic systems is incredibly rare... the 737 rudder PCU issue being one notable exception.

                            On the part about FBW being able to provide protection against pilot error I agree... but as we've seen, automation can also *cause* pilot error. That coin definitely has two sides.
                            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                            Eric Law

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by elaw View Post
                              Sure... if you ignore electrical complexity, and software.

                              Actually I don't even necessarily agree with the reduction of mechanical complexity. How many moving parts does a hydraulic actuator have? Usually one: the piston. Some electric motors have only one moving part (the armature), others (brush-type motors) have more. If the motor has a position-feedback pot or resolver on it, that's another moving part. Etc. etc.

                              I'll bet dinner at a nice restaurant that a FBW system comparable to the hydraulic systems on the 737 has at least twice as many components... defining "components" down to the level of IC chips, not the components that make them up.

                              Software adds another type and quantity of complexity. Have you ever heard of a hydraulic system having a BSOD? I haven't! The occurence of "bugs" in aircraft hydraulic systems is incredibly rare... the 737 rudder PCU issue being one notable exception.

                              On the part about FBW being able to provide protection against pilot error I agree... but as we've seen, automation can also *cause* pilot error. That coin definitely has two sides.
                              I didn't intend to debate the merits of FBW here. If they weren't self-evident, every new 100+ pax airframe would not be using them. And of course, even bizjets are going FBW now. My point was that Boeing chose to scrap the clean sheet and perpetuate the 737 out of economic considerations that stifled innovation. And now, when they are rolling out a new version of the same old bird with some Star Wars winglets, I just feel a yawn coming on.

                              But now that you got me going on the issue, let's not lose perspective. I never said anything about the number of components; I said mechanical complexity. Mechanical means something moves against something else, creating friction and wear and requiring maintenance and periodic replacement. Solid state components do not have this concern. Software is easily debugged and upgraded. And mechanical cables, pullies, springs and brackets weigh more than electrical wiring. And remember, we are only talking about the flight control system here. The 737MAX still carries a full raft of flight management computers, FADEC/EEC, coms, IFE and even FBW spoilers. The only reason it is not completely FBW is because Boeing didn't want to pay for it. The only reason it is not using more composites is because Boeing didn't want to pay for it.

                              And on that two-sided coin of safety, for every bizarre pilot-error accident there are probably countless (including unreported) incidents of the protections saving the day and the flight continuing normally. If you call that a two sided coin flip, it is a very weighted one and will always land with the FBW side-up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X