737 max... what now?

[pitzel]

Originally Posted by tundraotto
How many times did they cancel and redo that Airbus-USAF tanker deal until they could give it to Boeing? Maybe once too many....


The real tragedy there is that Boeing was allowed to sell their 40+-year old design in the 767 instead of basing it on the 787. So 20-30 years from now, the USAF will be right back in the same situation as they're currently in with the KC-135 fleet, of basically being the only operator of the type.

Boeing will need to do a 787F design at some point, they could've had that with a 787 tanker. General Curtis LeMay is probably rolling in his grave knowing that the USAF bought a completely obsolete plane for the purpose.

My 'read' of the 737Max situation is that its a long ways from being airworthy again, and there will be significant hardware modifications required. It seems foolish that they continue to build them, clinging to some delusion that someone can just walk up to them with a laptop and 'fix' the problems.

 

[4WD]

How old is the B52 ?

 

[pitzel]

Originally Posted by 4WD
How old is the B52 ?


First one off the line in the early 1950s. It was absolutely state of the art at the time. As was the KC-135. Nothing wrong with keeping old airplanes in service if they can be sustained economically relative to alternatives, but its a bit silly to start out new procurement with a design that's already well past its prime and obsolete as was the 767. And the 737max as well.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 4WD
How old is the B52 ?

Do not forget that Boeing wanted to sell plane based on B29 with props. They had meeting with LeMay at Wright_Peterson in Dayton and LeMay told them not to come back anymore if they do not have jet engines on it. If Boeing had clout over govt. like it has today, B52 would never exist.

 

[marine65]

I really don't know a lot about commercial aircraft.
And I don't like to fly.
There is no way I'm ever going to fly on a 737 Max even for free.
I just don't trust big corporations anymore.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by marine65
I really don't know a lot about commercial aircraft.
And I don't like to fly.
There is no way I'm ever going to fly on a 737 Max even for free.
I just don't trust big corporations anymore.

This is not the first time airplane model is having issues and public raised issue. Of course, today in the age of social media things are different. I read recently very good article about weather and how Walter Cronkite mentioned storms only 5 times in his life. Today, main selling point of news organizations is weather and scaring people. So, Boeing is going to have harder time going back on track than McDonald had with DC10 or Boeing with 727.
Hoever, every case is different and it is path that Boeing took that led toward this while at the same time trying to gut regulation. I think FAA push to do all certifications is right move. This did not only hurt Boeing, this hurt American institutions and trust in them. Once trust is gone, it is end of the game.

 

[ragtoplvr]

There have been planes that were retired early even though fixed. The DeHavland Comet was one. The concord was another. It could have been fixed, but never was. BA dd not care. Sad.

I would hate for Boeing to go under. The greedy SOB's that sold it to Douglass, and the leaders that led them to this, deserve to die penniless.

Rod

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by tundraotto
How many times did they cancel and redo that Airbus-USAF tanker deal until they could give it to Boeing? Maybe once too many....

The real tragedy there is that Boeing was allowed to sell their 40+-year old design in the 767 instead of basing it on the 787. So 20-30 years from now, the USAF will be right back in the same situation as they're currently in with the KC-135 fleet, of basically being the only operator of the type.

Boeing will need to do a 787F design at some point, they could've had that with a 787 tanker. General Curtis LeMay is probably rolling in his grave knowing that the USAF bought a completely obsolete plane for the purpose.

My 'read' of the 737Max situation is that its a long ways from being airworthy again, and there will be significant hardware modifications required. It seems foolish that they continue to build them, clinging to some delusion that someone can just walk up to them with a laptop and 'fix' the problems.

Is a 787F even possible ?

I think the 787 is not big enough for Boeing to try and turn it into a tanker / cargo hauler for the Air Force..... I could be wrong.

 

[4WD]

Dan Rather (from my area) launched his career with storm coverage - ended it with stormy coverage in the information era you mentioned

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by pitzel
My 'read' of the 737Max situation is that its a long ways from being airworthy again, and there will be significant hardware modifications required. It seems foolish that they continue to build them, clinging to some delusion that someone can just walk up to them with a laptop and 'fix' the problems.


What kind of "significant hardware changes"?

Boeing is not going to change the engine mounting configuration. I could see them possibly adding another AOA sensor, or some kind of new avionics hardware to the MCAS system to enhance it's function.

The 787 MAX flew fine, it's the control logic of the MCAS system that needs to be redesigned/tweaked to ensure it doesn't cause an out of control flight dynamics situation. Pilots also need more knowlege and training.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
I would hate for Boeing to go under.


Boeing has been a lot closer to "going under" in the past (ie, Boeing SST cancelled in early 70s) than the 787 MAX situation will ever impact Boeing. In the 60s and 70s Boeing wasn't a global company like it is now.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/supersonic-transport.page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by pitzel
My 'read' of the 737Max situation is that its a long ways from being airworthy again, and there will be significant hardware modifications required. It seems foolish that they continue to build them, clinging to some delusion that someone can just walk up to them with a laptop and 'fix' the problems.


What kind of "significant hardware changes"?

Boeing is not going to change the engine mounting configuration. I could see them possibly adding another AOA sensor, or some kind of new avionics hardware to the MCAS system to enhance it's function.

The 787 MAX flew fine, it's the control logic of the MCAS system that needs to be redesigned/tweaked to ensure it doesn't cause an out of control flight dynamics situation. Pilots also need more knowlege and training.



787 MAX never flew, 737 MAX, so so.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by pitzel
My 'read' of the 737Max situation is that its a long ways from being airworthy again, and there will be significant hardware modifications required. It seems foolish that they continue to build them, clinging to some delusion that someone can just walk up to them with a laptop and 'fix' the problems.


What kind of "significant hardware changes"?

Boeing is not going to change the engine mounting configuration. I could see them possibly adding another AOA sensor, or some kind of new avionics hardware to the MCAS system to enhance it's function.

The 787 MAX flew fine, it's the control logic of the MCAS system that needs to be redesigned/tweaked to ensure it doesn't cause an out of control flight dynamics situation. Pilots also need more knowlege and training.

787 MAX never flew, 737 MAX, so so.


Typo ... I think most knew what I meant in context, and also since there is no such thing as a "787 MAX".

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by pitzel
My 'read' of the 737Max situation is that its a long ways from being airworthy again, and there will be significant hardware modifications required. It seems foolish that they continue to build them, clinging to some delusion that someone can just walk up to them with a laptop and 'fix' the problems.


What kind of "significant hardware changes"?

Boeing is not going to change the engine mounting configuration. I could see them possibly adding another AOA sensor, or some kind of new avionics hardware to the MCAS system to enhance it's function.

The 787 MAX flew fine, it's the control logic of the MCAS system that needs to be redesigned/tweaked to ensure it doesn't cause an out of control flight dynamics situation. Pilots also need more knowlege and training.

787 MAX never flew, 737 MAX, so so.


Typo ... I think most knew what I meant in context, and also since there is no such thing as a "787 MAX".

You had two posts with 787, that is why I corrected.
But, 737 never flew OK. If it did, there would be no need for MCAS.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
I would hate for Boeing to go under.


Boeing has been a lot closer to "going under" in the past (ie, Boeing SST cancelled in early 70s) than the 787 MAX situation will ever impact Boeing. In the 60s and 70s Boeing wasn't a global company like it is now.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/supersonic-transport.page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

ZERO possibility the American government would allow Boeing to ‘go under'....

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
I would hate for Boeing to go under.


Boeing has been a lot closer to "going under" in the past (ie, Boeing SST cancelled in early 70s) than the 787 MAX situation will ever impact Boeing. In the 60s and 70s Boeing wasn't a global company like it is now.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/supersonic-transport.page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

ZERO possibility the American government would allow Boeing to ‘go under'....

Is there any other way to reemphasize that there is zero possibility?

 

[George Bynum]

Originally Posted by edyvw
But, 737 MAX never flew OK. If it did, there would be no need for MCAS.


I'm not sure I completely agree. I believe the MAX flies fine. The issue, AIUI, is that Being wanted to have the same (existing) pilot training cover it. I BELIEVE that it could have been certified, without MCAS which was to simulate a "normal" 737, as a new airplane with no problem. But different training ...

I am NOT a pilot, just a reader.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by George Bynum
Originally Posted by edyvw
But, 737 MAX never flew OK. If it did, there would be no need for MCAS.


I'm not sure I completely agree. I believe the MAX flies fine. The issue, AIUI, is that Being wanted to have the same (existing) pilot training cover it. I BELIEVE that it could have been certified, without MCAS which was to simulate a "normal" 737, as a new airplane with no problem. But different training ...

I am NOT a pilot, just a reader.


The MAX did not fly "fine" in the opinion of the test pilots at Boeing. Stall characteristics were undesirable, as the result of the change in engine location, thrust axis and wing re-design....

They needed to be corrected. MCAS was the "correction".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by edyvw
But, 737 never flew OK. If it did, there would be no need for MCAS.


My original comment meaning was that the 737 MAX flew fine with a properly operating MCAS. The crashes were a result of system hardware failure and subsequent over reaction of the MCAS along with under reaction of the pilots.

Like said, the MCAS needs to be enhanced to not be so over reactive and have some good system failsafe redundancy. Also more MCAS educated pilots. Once that's done and certified, then the plane will be as good as any in the sky.

 

[George Bynum]

Originally Posted by Astro14
The MAX did not fly "fine" in the opinion of the test pilots at Boeing. Stall characteristics were undesirable, as the result of the change in engine location, thrust axis and wing re-design....

They needed to be corrected. MCAS was the "correction".


Thank you for the correction to my erroneous understanding.

George