Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

737 MAX first flight

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    I know that these claims are... well... just claims. As you said, they are very close in everything

    One things that they are close, and this is data, not claims, is:

    The 737 NG has better dispatch reliability than the A320.
    The 737 NG has a lower (better) empty weight / MTOW (it's structurally more efficient, despite being a design 20 years older and the A320 having a much more extensive use of composite materials).
    These 2 things help in the business equation: With the same useful on board, the 737 is lighter what helps reduce the fuel burn (which compensates for smaller fan diameter). And the better dispatch reliability means not only better customer (passenger) satisfaction but also lower cost in terms of hotels, crews, etc...

    The A320 is a good plane, as good as the 737, and each of them has their stronger and weaker points when compared one to the other.
    But both of them still have too much value as to trash it, ans neither of them is willing to do it.

    None of them would be able to price a clean-sheet single aisle replacement at the same prices that they are selling the 737 and A320. The investment is huge, and not only in the product development but also in the factories and tooling (all along the supply chain). And none of them is willing to do it by now, because, again, they both have a product that still has a lot of value. Would a clean sheet design be better? Sure! Nobody argues that. Not me at least. But that is not enough for a business case.
    I think it comes down to decisions made long ago, when Beoing still might have produced a clean sheet rollout to compete with whatever Airbus had to offer. Obviously, by delaying that decision (largely due to post-9/11 downturns that anyone should have known would result in corrections over time) they had no other option than to produce the 737MAX. I think the final deciding factor was American Airlines wanting to place a large order for narowbodies once that correction occurred. There was no way to get a clean-sheet design in service soon enough to meet that demand.

    So, as I see it, Boeing missed their opportunity to get a FBW narrowbody into the market and now must wait for the next generation of design opportunity to produce that.

    In the meantime, Boeing will be playing catch-up to Airbus in the narrowbody market. Maybe they will catch up, but the shoe is definitely on the other foot now.

    This is a pretty good evaluation of the current situation (audio podcast):

    http://aviationweek.com/technology/p...airbus-a320neo

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Not true. I love the older planes. I love the older cars. I love the older ships. I hope they keep flying/rolling/sailing for a long time to come...

      ...Like many folks, I still struggle to reconcile that the 73' has displaced the 75'

      Let's build a new plane...new, efficient wings, long leggy gear to hang big, fat efficient turbofan engines underneath, design it so we can move pilots between it and the 767 with no training...newer this and newer that- bring on Cable TV, MTV, and the 1980s!

      Ok, shut 'er down- get me the LITERAL blue prints for the 737, squeeze new engines (some with flattened intake ducts) under the wing, hope they don't scrape and accept a LONG list of stuff designed in the 1960's and stretch a short little fire plug into a LONG airframe that looks like it lives to drag its tail.

      Edit: Not only that, but this marginally popular airplane spent many many many years playing second fiddle to "the most successful airliner of all time, the 727" (Please place that comment in the proper historical context.)
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        ...Like many folks, I still struggle to reconcile that the 73' has displaced the 75'

        Let's build a new plane...new, efficient wings, long leggy gear to hang big, fat efficient turbofan engines underneath, design it so we can move pilots between it and the 767 with no training...newer this and newer that- bring on Cable TV, MTV, and the 1980s!

        Ok, shut 'er down- get me the LITERAL blue prints for the 737, squeeze new engines (some with flattened intake ducts) under the wing, hope they don't scrape and accept a LONG list of stuff designed in the 1960's and stretch a short little fire plug into a LONG airframe that looks like it lives to drag its tail.
        Here's where I think Boeing should have been around 1990. 737 headed for the barn (maybe a 737-600NG if it made sense), but mainly replaced by shortened variants of the 757 with a 737NG sort of flightdeck, slightly lower single-boogie gear much like the A320, RB211 or CF-6 power, FBW at least on the on the elevators and wing spoilers, maybe a redesigned wing... 757-500/600/700...

        If they did this then, they could be rolling out the full FBW 757MAX right now and it would be an A320 killer.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Boeing_757-2G5,_Air_Astana_AN1912219.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	189.3 KB
ID:	1015112

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          ...................................

          So, as I see it, Boeing missed their opportunity to get a FBW narrowbody into the market and now must wait for the next generation of design opportunity to produce that.

          ................
          I have worked for commercial aircraft companies both in the UK (long time ago) and here in the USA. The biggest issue over developing a new aircraft is getting concept buy-in from airlines (and leasing companies). Often there is insufficient interest in a particular concept to ensure economic production quantities. I do know of one design that almost entered advance development but was squashed by corporate events (can't discuss because of disclosure agreement).

          Airlines want the lowest operating cost aircraft fleets that will return a profit.

          However I have seen public comments from Boeing that indicate a 757 replacement is being seriously looked at including this note in this weeks AW&ST magazine:
          Click image for larger version

Name:	Aircraft.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	8.4 KB
ID:	1015113

          Incidentally it is possible the next new aircraft will use FBL rather than FBW. FBL uses fiber optics to transmit control signals, however I use fiber optics in non-aircraft applications and do not trust the technology under vibration and thermal environments>

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
            Airlines want the lowest operating cost aircraft fleets that will return a profit.
            Specifically, the lowest cost-per-available-seat-mile. This is where Boeing has a definite disadvantage on narrow-body long-haul routes. If an operator wanted to place a significant order for this purpose, I would expect that to be the impetus for Boeing to develop a 757 replacement. As it stands, the 737-900MAX is no match for the A321NEO on available seats or the A321LRNEO on range. I guess the question is, is there significant future demand there? I tend to think, with business diversifying to more cities and tourism as well, a move away from hubs with lower capacity planes on medium-long-haul non-stop routes to a wider variety of destinations is the future, especially trans-atlantic. United currently operates NYC-TXL nonstops only on their 757-200's.


            Incidentally it is possible the next new aircraft will use FBL rather than FBW. FBL uses fiber optics to transmit control signals, however I use fiber optics in non-aircraft applications and do not trust the technology under vibration and thermal environments>
            Or FBWireless?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              AFAIK, there are no electrical actuators in any primary control surface in any transport-category plane.
              I don't know if you consider it primary flight control but the 787 uses EMA on spoilers 3, 4, 10 and 11. These are the spoilers that border the flaperons and, in the event of a total hydraulic failure, can be used for primary roll control. They are entirely electrically powered. They are the first use of EMA on a production airliner.

              The 737MAX also uses FBW spoilers but I don't know the details. Perhaps it is a similar ocnfiguration for electrical back-up in roll.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                I don't know if you consider it primary flight control but the 787 uses EMA on spoilers 3, 4, 10 and 11. These are the spoilers that border the flaperons and, in the event of a total hydraulic failure, can be used for primary roll control. They are entirely electrically powered. They are the first use of EMA on a production airliner.

                The 737MAX also uses FBW spoilers but I don't know the details. Perhaps it is a similar ocnfiguration for electrical back-up in roll.
                Interesting, I didn't know.

                I consider primary flight control surface anything used to maneuver in pitch, yaw and roll (trim doesn't qualify), so if these are roll spoilers (that I think they are) then yes, I'll take them as primary.

                Regarding the backup, you say "in case of total electric failure...", but what happens in the other axis (especially pitch). Being able to control roll alone will not help much.
                Let me guess: Electric stabilizer trim motor?

                --- 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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Interesting, I didn't know.

                  I consider primary flight control surface anything used to maneuver in pitch, yaw and roll (trim doesn't qualify), so if these are roll spoilers (that I think they are) then yes, I'll take them as primary.

                  Regarding the backup, you say "in case of total electric failure...", but what happens in the other axis (especially pitch). Being able to control roll alone will not help much.
                  Let me guess: Electric stabilizer trim motor?
                  RIght, but of course that's nothing new. Worst case scenario: you lost all hydraulics and all generators and main electrical busses - you still have the RAT for electrical power and the HOT bus and those firetrap lithium batteries to move the roll spoilers and the stab trim, and I reckon there is a mechanical link to the rudder.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Regarding the backup, you say "in case of total electric failure...", but what happens in the other axis (especially pitch). Being able to control roll alone will not help much.
                    Let me guess: Electric stabilizer trim motor?
                    Well of course it's not technically "pitch control" but you can regulate climb/descend with power. Of course life gets more interesting when you have to touch down on a runway at 250 knots! I imagine flaps could help with that (assuming they're somehow still powered), but I wonder how much.
                    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                    Eric Law

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      From the BBC today:

                      The world's largest plane manufacturer Boeing plans to cut more than 4,500 jobs by the middle of the year to reduce costs.

                      Boeing is reacting to concern that demand for its jets is slowing.

                      The US company has also been losing market share to rival Airbus Group SE.
                      I rest my case. Boeing embraced a short-term shareholder-oriented strategy when they killed the Y1 and now they will pay for it.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        If they did this then, they could be rolling out the full FBW 757MAX right now and it would be an A320 killer.[ATTACH=CONFIG]6175[/ATTACH]
                        Says you?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Decisions that include engineering are infallible and shall not be questioned.

                          Decisions made by economists and business persons...fair game.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            It's unfortunate that you can't simply admit that you have OCOTOATS (Obsessive Compulsive Objection to Older Aircraft Types).
                            We should relax. Imho that is one of the illnesses that does not prevent you from
                            a) boarding a car (in the front left seat)
                            or
                            b) boarding an a/c (in the seat that you like).

                            I have to admit (!) that I haven't read the full thread yet. But the 737 MAX spec sheet seems very known to me, like an old friend. And the word friend is a positive word in my eyes.

                            Don't you have to learn the 737 before you are ready for ...the B773ER, the 78 78/78 79, the 747 or, as in a very special case, the 77 79... ?

                            Completely independent from that rough guess, there are two European airlines who avoid that question:
                            AF - they no longer own 737s or 747s.
                            and
                            LH, who avoids flying 737s in 2017.

                            I don't know if the A320 is such a good basis to learn the bigger Boeing types, since March 24th, 2015. Let me utter a honest word.

                            An idiot who is able to fly a jet as long as due to CFIT 150 people die should NOT be able to switch the jet manufacturer!
                            The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
                            The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                            And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                            This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X