Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Short Leash For Boeing's MAX Design  
User currently offlineWN787 From United States of America, joined May 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 19605 times:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_06_18_2012_p54-465857.xml

An interesting article on how Boeing plans to roll out the MAX.

Interesting highlights....
"Boeing will spend the rest of this year “getting the final concept done” before marching on to a firm configuration in mid-2013, Teal says. Design will take place in 2014, assembly in 2015 and first flight in 2016. The 737-800-sized MAX 8 is to be produced first."

"By the time the MAX enters production in Renton, Boeing expects the factory to be producing 42 airplanes per month from the plant's two final assembly lines."

And lots more in the article. Do you think that Boeing has learned from the countless delays the 787 had?

Is it even possible that Boeing can make all of these changes to the 737 and expect the factory to be able to seamlessly continue production on a "different" airframe?

If Boeing can keep a "short leash" on the development like they think, it could be possible, but are they selling the MAX short of upgrades?

What do you think......


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 19441 times:

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
If Boeing can keep a "short leash" on the development like they think, it could be possible, but are they selling the MAX short of upgrades?

You'd like to hope that they can avoid the mission creep that dogged the 748 and the the A350XWB programmes but there's always a balance between doing a tightly defined, well executed incremental upgrade and the temptation of "It'd be so much better if we also did this and this and this........."


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18802 times:

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
are they selling the MAX short of upgrades?

I certainly hope so. If they put all the upgrades onto the MAX that it's capable of taking then it will never be on time or on budget.

Derivatives take an enormous amount of discipline to only let on that which was planned at the beginning or is absolutely necessary as discoveries happen in the middle.

Tom.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6910 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 18619 times:

It is very dangerous to let designers loose on an existing product (I speak from experience.) There are very few things that cannot be improved, and good designers can always see ways that they think will make the product better. They are seldom concerned with the costs and other implications; they are motivated solely by the thought that "it would be so much better if we just did THIS." But budgets and schedules are harsh realities that designers like to ignore; and management has to maintain them. But there is another reality, and that is that any project (especially one as massive as designing, or redesigning, an airliner) will always have surprises. Nobody can foresee all of the problems that will arise, and planning for them is an art. Boeing management failed spectacularly on planning both the 787 and the 748; we will see whether they learned the appropriate lessons, whether they now err in the other direction by not doing enough, or whether they do the same mistakes again. The stakes are very high; let's hope they get it right.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18345 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3):
Nobody can foresee all of the problems that will arise, and planning for them is an art. Boeing management failed spectacularly on planning both the 787 and the 748; we will see whether they learned the appropriate lessons, whether they now err in the other direction by not doing enough, or whether they do the same mistakes again.

Boeing has an excellent example how not to do it, which is the 747-8. However, they also have an excellent opposite example: the 777-300ER.

Some people believe cannot take much weight out of the 777 in the 777-9 design, mentioning if it had been possible Boeing would have done so in designing the 77W. But I believe Boeing deliberately didn't go that way, it would have caused way too many complications and it already was behind the A346 in development. I think Boeing will apply the lesson lesson regarding the 737MAX.

Still, there's enough that still can mess things up. Look the A350XWB, everyone (including, and especially, John Leahy) believed EIS in 2013 was an example of realistic planning. Still, the unexpected ate more away from the schedule than they had foreseen. The lesson Airbus learned however, was not cut corners in realising the original schedule. And that will pay off in the end.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 18039 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 1):
there's always a balance between doing a tightly defined, well executed incremental upgrade and the temptation of "It'd be so much better if we also did this and this and this........."

The enemy of 'good enough' is better. Boeing has to rush schedule or lose customers. They'll have time later for other improvements.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
If they put all the upgrades onto the MAX that it's capable of taking then it will never be on time or on budget.

  

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 4):
The lesson Airbus learned however, was not cut corners in realising the original schedule. And that will pay off in the end.

   But what if the 787 had been on time?    If there were already 200+ 787s in the global fleet by now, Airbus customers would be singing a different turn about A350 delays. It is fortunate for Airbus that Boeing gave them the time.   

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 4):

Some people believe cannot take much weight out of the 777 in the 777-9 design

Not the Boeing stress and design engineers I talk to. They *know* of weight that should be out of there. The 777 was rushed to market and certain joint weight, in particular in the wing, is ready to come out. However, Boeing didn't want to be forced to re-break the wing, so much was left along. If the 777-X does indeed receive a new wing... Time to go all out in weight reduction (it won't just be material changes).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 856 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 17439 times:

Some very nice contributions to the discussions. Thanks for sharing them guys.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6910 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16813 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 4):
Boeing has an excellent example how not to do it, which is the 747-8. However, they also have an excellent opposite example: the 777-300ER.

Excellent point; the 77W is probably the most successful aircraft upgrade ever, and was done very expeditiously, with results that exceeded all expectation. It is surprising that the same company could do such a superb job, and then just a few years later fall so flat on its face with the 748. But to be fair, the problems with the 748 were probably a side effect of the massive cock-up with the 787 in that the 787 sucked up all of the engineering resources. Had that not happened perhaps the 748 would have gone much better.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 856 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 15966 times:

Quoting WN787 (Thread starter):
Interesting highlights....
"Boeing will spend the rest of this year “getting the final concept done” before marching on to a firm configuration in mid-2013, Teal says. Design will take place in 2014, assembly in 2015 and first flight in 2016. The 737-800-sized MAX 8 is to be produced first."

So we won´t know basic things like whether or not the flat bulkhead is being retained or seating configuration. What is interesting is the 8MAX is being treated as the baseline..... then the 9MAX the stretch and finally the 7MAX as the shrink.

I have always thought the leap from 73G to 738 was rather large, considering the leap from 738 to 739 was pretty small. I wonder if Boeing will take the time it has with the 7MAX to stretch it just a tiny bit, one plug or so, to make it a true 149 pax plane. That could put come CASM pressure on the new entries (Bombardier, Mitsi, Sokhoi, AVIC, etc..). One could imagine the ranges of the planes, in truly comfortable (32" pitch) 1 class seating, at 149, 175, 199.

Alas, we won´t begin to know these figures until mid 2013 (Final Concept-Config).

What is also interesting is that Boeing is resisting incorporating so many of the things from the Eco Demonstrator and the NGPlus Studies/Programs.

They have also been very quiet on the materials front. So, I am looking forward to clarification on that in 2014 (Design).

Peter



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 15846 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):
The enemy of 'good enough' is better. Boeing has to rush schedule or lose customers. They'll have time later for other improvements.

Grab the low-hanging fruit (engine improvements, MTOW boost) up front to make EIS and then tweak it afterwards. The MAX should be in production for decades (just as the NG did) and will consistently improve over that time just as the NG has.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
Excellent point; the 77W is probably the most successful aircraft upgrade ever, and was done very expeditiously, with results that exceeded all expectation.

But that was mostly an MTOW boost with some wingtip modifications for longer range missions.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 663 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15735 times:

odwyerpw,reply=8

Quote:
So we won´t know basic things like whether or not the flat bulkhead is being retained or seating configuration. What is interesting is the 8MAX is being treated as the baseline..... then the 9MAX the stretch and finally the 7MAX as the shrink.

I believe its because it's the model that a majority of the carriers (current and/or new) will want to have in their fleet. With the -8 you have the base to build around, where the -9 is a step above as far as short to medium haul for heavy loads and the -7 being for smaller carriers or start ups who just want a new model but don't need the extra seats or range in the -8 and the -9.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6910 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15524 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
But that was mostly an MTOW boost with some wingtip modifications for longer range missions.

Plus a nearly new engine.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15524 times:

I appreciate the article and the insight that it provides into how specific design changes are being made. The general strategy of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, makes a lot of sense to me. The 737NG is probably the most perfected design in production since it has been redesigned and fixed for decades. It has spectacular reliability, so not changing parts if there is not a measurable benefit makes sense to me. There’s benefit to fly by wire spoilers, but not fly by wire for the whole aircraft. Obviously they are calculating where they will get benefit and where they will not and not changing parts just because they can.

I hope the MAX program goes well and it appears Teal might be the right guy for the program having learned from the 747-8.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6910 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15382 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 12):
I hope the MAX program goes well and it appears Teal might be the right guy for the program having learned from the 747-8.

Provided that he doesn't overcompensate and end up with an inferior aircraft to the NEO. It is not easy to make the decisions as to what to change and what to leave alone; if it were easy anyone could do it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What I would like to know is if the 738MAX will gain the flat bulkhead and what other improvements to try and put in one more row of seats (or more?)?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Grab the low-hanging fruit (engine improvements, MTOW boost) up front to make EIS and then tweak it afterwards. The MAX should be in production for decades (just as the NG did) and will consistently improve over that time just as the NG has.

   For example, I've heard noise about changing the layout of the aft hydraulics to cut maintenance bills. Unless required for the new tailcone, I say do that work a few years after EIS of the 738MAX.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 8):
What is interesting is the 8MAX is being treated as the baseline..... then the 9MAX the stretch and finally the 7MAX as the shrink.
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 8):
I have always thought the leap from 73G to 738 was rather large

As already noted, the 738 is already the best selling length of the 737. This isn't like the 737NG where sticking wtih a known length cut risk on the 73G. Instead, the 'low risk' model will be the 738. That 'leap' will depend on mission. I expect the 73G to be stretched by a frame or so. I would also like to know if it is possible to stretch the 739 a little...

But for EIS concerns, get the 738 first.   

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 8):
They have also been very quiet on the materials front.

Not per my rumor mill. New aluminums are being seriously considered to cut the weight. What and when it is put in is for a later decision. For now, unless the part must be change, consider when (later) it may be changed.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14984 times:

Remember that Boeing had no trouble moving from the 737 Classic to the 737 NG. In fact, there was a span of a few years in which a carrier could order any series from the -300 to the -800. IIRC, the last Classics came off the line in late 1999, while the various NG series went into service in 1998.

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14498 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 15):
Remember that Boeing had no trouble moving from the 737 Classic to the 737 NG.

I am not sure I agree with that. The 737CL to 737NG ramp up turned into a mess and resulted in the production line being shut down for over a month to catch up on traveled work. That shutdown was very costly as it caused the contractual delay of every airplane that was in the production system. Delays with weeks of notice are very costly as they force the airplanes to miss contractual deadlines that become more firm as an airplane approaches delivery. It ended up costing Boeing $1.6 Billion.

[Edited 2012-06-19 13:50:30]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14052 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):
The 737CL to 737NG ramp up turned into a mess and resulted in the production line being shut down for over a month to catch up on traveled work.

And yet it was because of that snafu across all of Boeing Commercial's product lines that resulted in them implementing the processes in place today and instills caution when they make production rate increases.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9991 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):
I am not sure I agree with that. The 737CL to 737NG ramp up turned into a mess and resulted in the production line being shut down for over a month to catch up on traveled work. That shutdown was very costly as it caused the contractual delay of every airplane that was in the production system. Delays with weeks of notice are very costly as they force the airplanes to miss contractual deadlines that become more firm as an airplane approaches delivery. It ended up costing Boeing $1.6 Billion.

Didn't Boeing shut down both Renton and Everett? I seem to remember that Boeing was running every line (737/747/757/767/777) faster and faster, to catch up with the backlog and wound up having to shut down everything, because the production lines were getting ahead of the supply chains.

It wasn't so much an issue in trying to build both Classic and NG aircraft on the same line as it was trying to push the limits of assembly process. If Boeing had ended production of the Classic series, it still would have production problems because of the unsustainable production schedule.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckfred (Reply 18):
Didn't Boeing shut down both Renton and Everett?

Yes. All of the lines face-planted due to inventory shortages.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8420 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
And yet it was because of that snafu across all of Boeing Commercial's product lines that resulted in them implementing the processes in place today

Yet their European competitor has come out of nowhere to outproduce them without such a snafu, with every bit as complicated a supply chain (if not more complicated!).

Just sayin'...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):
Provided that he doesn't overcompensate and end up with an inferior aircraft to the NEO.

Inferior in what way?
From my seat, I can't see how "tinkering" to get the last couple of percent is going to materially affect the saleability of the MAX. Demand is just too great (IMO)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
Yet their European competitor has come out of nowhere to outproduce them without such a snafu, with every bit as complicated a supply chain (if not more complicated!).

Again, to be fair to Boeing, my recollection is that what REALLY screwed them up is that they'd ramped up hugely to satisfy all these huge "sole source" orders from the US majors, that evaporated into the mist overnight after 9/11.

Output went from 600+ frames to 250 frames within 2 years.

Airbus have NEVER had to face a disruption anything like that.
And to be honest, although their output has risen dramatically viewed over a decade or more, year-on-year the increases have been quite small..... (IMO)  

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7978 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
Yet their European competitor has come out of nowhere to outproduce them without such a snafu, with every bit as complicated a supply chain (if not more complicated!).

Airbus face-planted rather spectacularly in 2006 with pushing the A380-800 out the door and it can be argued their still trying to get back on their feet. And the jury is still out on how smoothly the A350 program will shift from development to serial production.

That being said, Airbus' rise from 3% to 30% of the market in two decades was one of the factors that pushed Boeing to ramp production so hard in the late 1990s. The other factor was the 60-fold increase in worldwide orders (from 15 in 1993 to 898 in 1996). Also not helping was the huge staff draw-down Boeing did as the 777 program moved from development to production (almost 10,000 senior engineers and machinists were given early retirement) and the introduction of the disaster that was the DCAC parts-tracking system.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7877 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):

Yet their European competitor has come out of nowhere to outproduce them without such a snafu, with every bit as complicated a supply chain (if not more complicated!).

I don’t want to get into an A vs B war, but both Airbus and Boeing have had challenges with new designs. It’s part of what happens with large scale new projects. The 777 was overbudget, the 737NG increased rate too fast, the 787 was late, the 747-8 was late, the A380 was late and has design defects, the A330 had a flight test crash, the A320 had serious teething issues with pilot error causing 3 crashes within 4 years of EIS. There’s always problems during programs. What Boeing is trying to do with the 737MAX is put a limit on change to only what is necessary to get efficiency improvements. They are trying to avoid all the problems that have happened on essentially every new model in the last 3 decades.

For what it is worth, Airbus seems to be using the exact same design approach on the A320NEO.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7708 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
Yet their European competitor has come out of nowhere to outproduce them without such a snafu, with every bit as complicated a supply chain (if not more complicated!).

Airbus outproduces Boeing primarily on scale...they're using something like double the factory space to produce nowhere near double the aircraft. Boeing's narrowbody production system is considerably more efficient on capital.

Tom.


25 SEPilot : Clearly neither Airbus or Boeing is capable of fulfilling 75% of the narrowbody demand, as you say. But if one outperforms the other on total cost of
26 WarpSpeed : Does this consider Boeing's outsourcing to Spirit Aero for fuselage fabrication?
27 tdscanuck : I was thinking of it in terms of final assembly space (i.e. not including Airbus's fuselage fabrication either) but I think the result would be prett
28 Stitch : Airbus does have A320 FAL buildings in three separate cities, so they must have a significantly larger amount of space allocated to A320 production.
29 Post contains images astuteman : I don't disagree, but I don't think we're in that space. the last 2 or 3% of fuel burn will make not much more than 1% difference in TCO. In this par
30 XT6Wagon : I'm betting its the reverse. The new tail will have a dome for all versions removing the flat bulkhead from the 900ER. Only it will be smaller and fa
31 odwyerpw : I wonder the same myself, put the pressure bulkhead further back in the taper...thereby regaining space and still have all of the advantages the flat
32 SEPilot : True; however I believe that both Boeing and Airbus are aiming for more than just improvements in fuel burn, which is why I said 5% total ownership c
33 Post contains images lightsaber : Thank you. I appreciate the heads up on the new tail. I've heard both. It depends on what is the high cost for the maintenance shop and which mainten
34 WN787 : Ok so I'm still learning. What exactly is TCO?
35 Post contains images astuteman : Apologies WN787. Total Cost of Ownership... Rgds
36 Asiaflyer : There will be a performance creep in Airbus favour over coming years, as firstly A320 sharklets will reduce fuel burn and secondly it looks at this m
37 XT6Wagon : Or you can say the reverse as the lower OEW per seat, newer wing design, more advanced winglet design, lower drag engine nacelles, and other advances
38 tdscanuck : Expect Boeing to counter with incremental technology improvements; that's been the path of the 737 for the last 40 years and it's not going to stop n
39 Post contains links NYC777 : Check out this link as it is eye opening regarding this discussion: http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/06/18/a321neo-737max9/
40 seabosdca : Subscribers only. Can you summarize the interesting bits?
41 Stitch : Airbus has enjoyed a performance edge over the 737NG on missions over 1000nm for the life of both programs and yet Boeing has consistently been able
42 WarpSpeed : While I tend to agree, the NEO was effective in busting the Boeing monopoly at American and Norwegian Air. These were huge victories in terms of the
43 Post contains images imiakhtar : I wouldn't bother. StrategicAero is ran by our friend Saj Ahmed, formerly of Fleetbuzz Editorial. I would take anything he says with an Antonov-225 f
44 Stitch : I still say American went with the A320 based on availability. They wanted to roll-over their entire MD-8x and 757 fleets in a short period of time a
45 LAXDESI : Congested Indian airports, average stage length of less than 600 nm, and 12 seat advantage(2 class) of B738 Max should give it an edge over A320 NEO
46 KDAYflyer : Sounds to me like both Boeing and Airbus have learned a thing or two from the issues arising from the A-380 and 787. This good news. Perhaps the NEO a
47 Post contains images yeelep : Haven't heard that, but it could very well be required to accommodate the new tailcone. I don't see were they would get the room to move a domed pres
48 Hamlet69 : Only if your assumption is that Airbus's wins at AA and DY wasn't based on price and financing. Which, at best, is naive. Hamlet69
49 WarpSpeed : Put in context, let's remember that American ordered the MAX on promises because it was effectively launched at the press conference announcing the s
50 Stitch : Fair point. My point was aimed more at the Airbus Aficionados who have been expressing the opinion that the A320neo is a superior platform and Boeing
51 KDAYflyer : Does anyne have any data on the weight of the new fan as opposed to the fan on the current 737-800??
52 WarpSpeed : Good for Boeing, its investors and other stakeholders as this is the only statistic that matters at the end of the day. Which would bring us back on
53 Stitch : Because if they do not, they risk scope creep and that could entail a risk to the schedule as well as the budget.
54 Post contains images Asiaflyer : I believe that was aimed at me, but we should be able to have these kind of discussions wihtout calling each other for names like you did. I just poi
55 Wingtips56 : I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as the bulk of you, by my thought is that Boeing minimizing upgrades to the Max is certainly a nod to getting the airp
56 LH707330 : As stated above, resisting scope creep will be important, but another consideration is that the NEO and MAX will likely gain more of a relative advant
57 odwyerpw : Ahh, I missed the tone this was written in.... So the heavy flat bulkhead of the 900ER (an optional on others) is gone in favor of the dome further a
58 Post contains images yeelep : Heres a photo of a current domed aft pressure bulkhead and jackscrew. Distance between the two is 2 feet. Does anybody know how far back the flat bulk
59 XT6Wagon : It likely didn't move back at all if your looking at the crown, but I don't have any technical details. Its my impression that the flat bulkhead was
60 odwyerpw : Thank you for the detailed fotos Yeelap. It's funny how we all yammer on and on about making this modification or that modification. However, when you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
69 Inch Fan For The MAX posted Thu May 17 2012 17:47:54 by rotating14
KLM Has Excercised Options For Boeing Planes? posted Wed Aug 31 2011 04:46:11 by SASMD82
Short Routes For DC10s posted Thu Feb 25 2010 16:19:35 by 747400sp
11 New Unidentified 787 Orders For Boeing posted Thu Dec 24 2009 11:49:47 by AeroPiggot
Ryanair Sets Deadline For Boeing posted Fri Nov 20 2009 00:36:17 by Asiaflyer
Missed Opportunity For Boeing/America? posted Sat Jul 25 2009 00:42:03 by DIJKKIJK
D A E Secures Loan For Boeing Freighters posted Sun Jan 18 2009 05:27:29 by Lumberton
Re-engining The 737 An Option For Boeing posted Fri Sep 5 2008 08:15:02 by OyKIE
Machinists Union Calls For Boeing Strike posted Sat Aug 30 2008 05:47:34 by Henkybaby
GE Delivers Flight Recorders For Boeing 787 posted Sun Jul 27 2008 02:16:14 by Aviationbuff