User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17904
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:34 pm

catiii wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:

Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.


Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.


The nerve of Boeing, trying to meet customer demand.

How dare they!

Hmph, how dare they have a high profit and high volume product! The nerve. On a budget too! Hmph

I choose my flights on:
1. Schedule
2. Cost
3. Service
4. Seat


In that order. If there are enough choices, pick on type. I personally find a domestic first in a 737 so much better than Y. Even though I'm tall,. I'll only pay $10/hour for leg room in Y+. I've found any lie flat is awesome!!! Domestic first is only occasionally a good enough deal.

So if I'm spending more, I want a significant change in comfort. I'm 6 ft tall and not thin shouldered and yet I buy rationally.

If customers really cared, why is ULCC growth outpacing the industry? Aircraft real estate is expensive (cost, weight, drag). Pay for it or lose it.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
richiemo
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:39 pm

All of this debate leaves out that that the 320 is just such a better looking aircraft. I've never taken to the looks of the 737. But I say this all in fun.
 
Samrnpage
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:02 pm

The MAX wasnt a step to far, the MAX 10 was though. The design is pushed so far that its got a weird MLG just to make sure it doesnt crash on takeoff.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1582
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:04 pm

767333ER wrote:
The problem for me is how many times they have given the 737 a makeover, but how they had to cut so many corners (almost all not serious but frustrating) to keep the same type certificate. In that respect it has gone too far. I don’t care if it’s reliable, efficient, or a workhorse if the working conditions on that thing are worse to just about anything else built currently that even remotely competes with it or is agree than it. It obviously doesn’t work this way, but I were working on a 737 as a pilot,cabin crew, maintenance tech I’d feel like I should be getting paid more than doing an equal job on the A320 just because it’s so poorly set up in some respects that it makes the job a lot more complicated and/or fatiguing.


It's not at all unsafe, so it doesn't matter how many times they've refreshed it. It remains competitive and is safe. No serious corners have been cut.
Whatever
 
Polarisguy
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:55 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:16 pm

lhrnue wrote:
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft



Boy, I will second that!
Flown on DC3, 6,7,8,9,10 Conviar 440,880, Boeing 707,717,727,737,7472-3-4, Concorde, HS125, Lear23, Airbus 318,319,320,330 YS11, Saab340, Short 330,360, Cessna 150,172,177,210,310,340,421
 
Chemist
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:48 pm

Polarisguy wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft



Boy, I will second that!


This is so wrong.
We flew 707s and DC-8s over the pond 50 years ago with no problem.
I've flown 6-8 hr legs on 737s and 757s and they were just fine.
If longhaul on a NB was a problem, why is private jet travel considered luxurious?
It's ALL about the seating and configuration, not the width of the body.
I think what you are saying is really that longhaul in tight Y is a nightmare. That I could agree with.
I'd rather be on an aisle on a 7-hour 737 flight than in the center on a 7-hour A380 flight.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6492
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:53 pm

amcnd wrote:
I can only imagine where Boeing would be with a rewing/eng 757.... wowza... sad. So sad...


Saddled with a platform that was uncompetitively heavy and costly on maintenance. Which is why it was never contemplated.

If NMA is built, it will do everything a re-engined 757 could have done, and do it far more cheaply for operators. And it's still an uphill battle to make it cost-competitive with the A321neo.

Look, I adore the 757 as much as the next enthusiast. It's one of the best-looking and best-performing airliners ever built. But engineering has moved on.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1168
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:58 pm

catiii wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:

OK, only ALPA pilots flying MAX is UA; how about SW Southwest Airlines Pilots Association:

Bottom line: it appears to be hit-or-miss, which is unacceptable.


No, bottom line is that you didn't read the context of the thread. The post I was responding to called the MCAS a "silent addition." I said it couldn't have been too silent, as UA trained on it (thusly they knew about it). You then said "UA ALPA seems to disagree" to which I pointed out the inaccuracy of your assertion.

Something you are obviously willing to not understand: that addition was silent to a certain number of airlines/pilots (as reported numerous times by numerous pilot groups) and was not disclosed to all.
If MCAS is that critical to flight safety (as it appears to be), then it must be disclosed to every single 737 MAX pilot, it must be part of the standard training, it must be disclosed in full.

One could always argue that the pilot unions are unions; meaning they will do everything to defend the undefendable (even if it means lying or bending the truth).
Fact is, Boeing has not refuted the claims that some pilots were not trained.; that says a lot.

catiii wrote:
Not sure what WN or AA have to do with any of the above but okay, unless you're trying to show that they didn't put in place the appropriate training? Have to wonder how UA and other carriers knew about it...

Because, last I checked, both WN & AA operate the MAX; and their pilot group have said they were not trained on the MCAS.
So, again, training is not uniform; which shouldn't have happened had Boeing made it clear the system was a critical part of flight safety.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:28 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
patches wrote:
Just a question, Do you think Boeing took the 737 one step too far when they built the Max? They seem to be having problems with the Max design. Thought ?


What kind of problems? Please cite them. One accident / one case study is not sufficient evidence to form the basis of proof.

The "Max is inherently unstable" is Airbus fanboy propaganda along the lines of, "the 787 is cramped and uncomfortable."


Sadly though, more than one airline has had issues due to this design change. If it was not unstable due to forcing an engine under it at a new angle rather than spending the money for longer landing gear. The bean counters should not run a company that needs safety as Job #1.They why put in a new automated program to correct for the known flaw. Then not note the change per pilots at several airlines and comments from Boeing as part of the difference training. That part is on Boeing, no matter how they spin it. So no "Max is inherently unstable" is not a Airbus fanboy propaganda and that comment is an insult to those that died due to not having all the information on the automated system.

BTW I have been a fan of the 737 from the 1970's 737-200 was my favorite frame for years. Also a 787 fan and Boeing stockholder.
Last edited by rbavfan on Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:30 pm

Yes, and actually the 737 program may have gone more than one step too far. As an example, Pitch Stability...

1. On the 737NG, The STS applies Trim Nose-down automatically even in Manual flight when thrust is increased.during low-weight and/or back loaded CG situations -- because the bigger more powerful engines would otherwise apply too much nose-up pitch that the horizontal stab can't handle without help.

2. On the 737-Max -- MCS goes even further and applies trim nose-down in the low-speed, high AOA flight regime because the flight control system, and the stab, may not have the authority for the pilots to adaquetly recover from this situation when a stall aprraoches. It is a band-aid. The dual air data and flight-computers are another weakness -- in the case of sensor (AOA) or air data failure -- it should be completely triplet.

The MAX is safe I believe -- only if much more traiining and documentation is provided about MCAS and STS. And, only because there are thousands of pilots and maintenance crews familiar with the 737-- plus parts reliability has been improved over the decades. Obviously a more modern design would not have the limitations of the 737-Max.

It is time for B to start looking at its replacement -- certification authorities, FAA, etc.should not allow this design to be significantly upgraded anymore. I worry about the Max-10 which will be even bigger and heavier, exacerbating the two issues above.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
LDRA
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:41 pm

seabosdca wrote:
amcnd wrote:
I can only imagine where Boeing would be with a rewing/eng 757.... wowza... sad. So sad...


Saddled with a platform that was uncompetitively heavy and costly on maintenance. Which is why it was never contemplated.

If NMA is built, it will do everything a re-engined 757 could have done, and do it far more cheaply for operators. And it's still an uphill battle to make it cost-competitive with the A321neo.

Look, I adore the 757 as much as the next enthusiast. It's one of the best-looking and best-performing airliners ever built. But engineering has moved on.


Not if rewinged ala 777X

Wingspan less than 36m, single MLG -> MTOW less than 100ton, CFM56 instead of PW2000
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6492
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:49 pm

LDRA wrote:
Not if rewinged ala 777X

Wingspan less than 36m, single MLG -> MTOW less than 100ton, CFM56 instead of PW2000


You'd need a new airframe, not just a new wing, to make that work against the A321neo.

The 757 was engineered to carry a 40 t payload and to share a significant degree of systems commonality with the 767. It's heavy and the maintenance costs are more like a 767 than a 737. On a spreadsheet, it looks a lot more like a small widebody than a modern narrowbody. When the frames are fully depreciated and configured at high density airlines can still make the numbers work, but they just wouldn't pencil out if new-aircraft acquisition costs were included.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:03 pm

QuarkFly wrote:

2. On the 737-Max -- MCS goes even further and applies trim nose-down in the low-speed, high AOA flight regime because the flight control system, and the stab, may not have the authority for the pilots to adaquetly recover from this situation when a stall approaches.


So does the STS in the 737NG. Not much new here.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:26 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:

2. On the 737-Max -- MCS goes even further and applies trim nose-down in the low-speed, high AOA flight regime because the flight control system, and the stab, may not have the authority for the pilots to adaquetly recover from this situation when a stall approaches.


So does the STS in the 737NG. Not much new here.


If there is not much new - why change in system logic (e.g response to yoke movement) and system name? Somehow there should be more about it.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:38 pm

Not in the least.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:03 pm

Chemist wrote:
Polarisguy wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft



Boy, I will second that!


This is so wrong.
We flew 707s and DC-8s over the pond 50 years ago with no problem.
I've flown 6-8 hr legs on 737s and 757s and they were just fine.
If longhaul on a NB was a problem, why is private jet travel considered luxurious?
It's ALL about the seating and configuration, not the width of the body.
I think what you are saying is really that longhaul in tight Y is a nightmare. That I could agree with.
I'd rather be on an aisle on a 7-hour 737 flight than in the center on a 7-hour A380 flight.


Also if your a fan of the 737 and will not fly in long haul because the seats are to narrow. Here is a hint: The new seats on the 747/777/787 seats are the SAME width as the 737 seats. Just 3x3 vs 3x3x3 787 & 3x4x3 777. So if your praising those models, don't bitch about 737 long haul seats. It just means they have not studied the specs before inserting foot in mouth.
 
estorilm
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:07 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
AvObserver wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it.

I hope posts like this put to rest the nonsense spewed by Airbus diehards that the MAX is fundamentally unstable despite that they offer no proof of such.


If it does not return from a non-stalled and within envelope positive angle of attack then it is longitudinally statically unstable by standard definitions of flight dynamics.

That in itself is no problem. Airbus have had relaxed stability aircraft for years with their FBW.


But direct law is direct law - you simply cannot have the FCS adding its own take on things when the pilots believe they are in total control.

THIS ^^^ I'd buy you a drink if I could.

NG STS augmentation is one thing, but MCAS going one step further? The damn airframe just simply wasn't designed to be compatible with engines this large, or providing such thrust. Blows my mind that Airbus can slap a huge efficient high BPR high thrust engine into a perfect CG location on the wing and have no (inherent) design/cg/stability issues, yet Boeing is forced to do ALL of this stuff and everyone STILL says they're perfectly identical aircraft that are basically each companies version of the same thing.

They aren't.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:07 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
The MAX wasnt a step to far, the MAX 10 was though. The design is pushed so far that its got a weird MLG just to make sure it doesnt crash on takeoff.


I feel brain cells dying after reading this post.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:08 pm

mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it. And the NG. As a pilot, I like the A320 WAYYYY more because it’s more comfortable upfront. But the MAX is extremely efficient, reliable, and predictable. The MCAS issue is, in my opinion, an error of omission, not some inherent flaw in the airplane.

On a side note, I hope that this puts to bed the issue of pilotless aircraft for a good long time. That a faulty sensor can trigger a system that, without human intervention, pitch the aircraft into a crash tells me all I need to know.


Totally agree with your last comment.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1168
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:12 pm

rbavfan wrote:
Chemist wrote:
Polarisguy wrote:


Boy, I will second that!


This is so wrong.
We flew 707s and DC-8s over the pond 50 years ago with no problem.
I've flown 6-8 hr legs on 737s and 757s and they were just fine.
If longhaul on a NB was a problem, why is private jet travel considered luxurious?
It's ALL about the seating and configuration, not the width of the body.
I think what you are saying is really that longhaul in tight Y is a nightmare. That I could agree with.
I'd rather be on an aisle on a 7-hour 737 flight than in the center on a 7-hour A380 flight.


Also if your a fan of the 737 and will not fly in long haul because the seats are to narrow. Here is a hint: The new seats on the 747/777/787 seats are the SAME width as the 737 seats. Just 3x3 vs 3x3x3 787 & 3x4x3 777. So if your praising those models, don't bitch about 737 long haul seats. It just means they have not studied the specs before inserting foot in mouth.

I'm not sure the issue at hand (long haul in NB's) is about the seats; but about all the stuff around.
NB aircraft pretty much prohibit most pax movement front-to-back and back-to-front due to the aisle being occupied (by an FA and a cart, by other people going against your flow, etc).
WB aircraft have more room for people to move around (such as the cross-aisles around the lavs and galleys) and do feel much less cramped.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:13 pm

Heinkel wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
On a side note, I hope that this puts to bed the issue of pilotless aircraft for a good long time. That a faulty sensor can trigger a system that, without human intervention, pitch the aircraft into a crash tells me all I need to know.


This event shows, that even with the intervention of two people on the flight deck, the result was fatal. The "human intervention" sometimes doesn't help.


The humans need to know the system exist & how to disengage it without it resetting over and over to overcome the problem. The fact they new nothing about the system, had no training to over ride it was not the pilots fault.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:26 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:

2. On the 737-Max -- MCS goes even further and applies trim nose-down in the low-speed, high AOA flight regime because the flight control system, and the stab, may not have the authority for the pilots to adaquetly recover from this situation when a stall approaches.


So does the STS in the 737NG. Not much new here.


No, STS does not have much to do with MCAS low-speed, high AOA flight envelope. STS on the NG was to help keep the nose trimmed down when thrust increases with a light payload or a rear-load center-of-gravity. MCAS is all about the stall region.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:35 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I’m unclear on how a 70’s 737 Classic like the ones I regularly flew on were an example of “a manufacturer focused on the quality of flight” but a much improved 737 MAX is an example of “a manufacturer that made flying uncomfortable”? If you are referring to seats, pitch, etc then blame the airlines as they are the ones who choose those things. I suppose you can blame Boeing for the bathrooms being smaller but then I guess you need to throw Airbus into that camp as well.

I think anyone who boards a brand new MAX today will find a brighter, more modern and refined interior than was found “back in the day”. Seats were klunky, bins were klunky, headphones (if you could call them that” were klunky - I wouldn’t look back to it as anything special. The aircraft is immensely quieter and more efficient and a much better neighbor to the communities it serves. The cockpit is night and day as well.

Maybe I’m missing something but perhaps people are confusing airline-chosen amenities with the actual aircraft design?


Big tick here! Throw in some misplaced nostalgia for a plane that never was. I mean, do people remember those 732s? By god they were loud! Today's BSI 737s are a genuine pleasure, though I'm yet to try these mini lavs. Perhaps, uh, people's increasing girth has contributed to things ;-)
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:37 pm

SEPilot wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
It's still selling like hotcakes. There's strong demand for fuel efficient narrowbodies. It's not like it's a failure.

I think most of us agree though, this should be the last major update to the 737. It's replacement should be a clean sheet design. The inclusion of MCAS is an indication they've reached the limits of the 737s design.

Boeing did not want to do the MAX; they wanted to do the NSA. But they could not afford to lose the narrow body market completely to the A320NEO, which they would have had they not done the MAX because the customers were not willing to wait. I assume they are doing work on a new design now, but a lot will depend on what the next generation of engines is like, so they cannot go too far at this point. It all comes down to timing and what Airbus does. If eight years from now there is a new engine available that offers 15% or more fuel burn improvement and Airbus bolts it on to the A320, unless Boeing is far enough along to bring out the NSA in a timely manner they will be forced to find a way to slap it on to the 737. And they will. As to MCAS, as I understand it its purpose was to make the MAX handle like the NG. Boeing did make a big mistake by not explaining it to pilots, but to say that it is proof that the MAX was a step too far is a gross exaggeration. The fact that the airline with the worst safety record of any currently flying was unable to properly repair it and then one of their crews could not figure out how to disable it when three previous crews had again speaks to Boeing’s omission in explanation and the airline’s likely poor training, but not the design. The simple fact of the matter is that their are not massive gains in efficiency to be had in redesigning the airframe; the gains are to be had in the engines. And if the new engines will bolt on to the old airframe it becomes very hard to justify the billions required to design a new airframe. And this applies to Airbus as well as Boeing. So unless an advancement comes along that gives a compelling economic advantage to a new design airframe, or Boeing manages to get one designed in their spare time before the next engine generation is ready, it is likely we will see the A320NNEO and the 737ULTRAMAX.



The way you worded the start of paragraph 2 says they did not want to do the upgrades, but they had to. So then it's ok people died because of the failure to communicate a kludged system put in place to fix a major issue. Because they had to. No they could have done the NSA and took a short term hit in sales. If they had we would probably not be having this conversation.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:53 pm

musman9853 wrote:
fsabo wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

What kind of problems? Please cite them. One accident / one case study is not sufficient evidence to form the basis of proof.

The "Max is inherently unstable" is Airbus fanboy propaganda along the lines of, "the 787 is cramped and uncomfortable."


It is not the accident itself. It is the silent addition of MCAS because the MAX is _less_ stable than the NG.

From a commercial perspective boeing had to do the MAX. They had no other conceivable response to the NEO. They later found out that this adversely effected stability, so they threw in a kludge in the flight control and kept quiet about it. Is that a step too far? IMO, yes.



they didnt keep quiet about it. multiple airlines have said boeing told them about mcas


Yes and sadly Boeing reps have said they did not tell everyone about it.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:00 pm

lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
A trolling thread imho based on one negative incident. The 737 Max is an excellent aircraft as is the A320 Neo.

But hey, if people want to bash I guess why not...right?

My opinion too.

It is like saying FBW is bad because if the Paris airshow crash decades ago.

I'd fly a MAX any day. Just not into BUR. :duck:

Has anyone calculated how many MAX flights happened pre-crash? If it is more than a million, then it meets criteria.

Lightsaber



BUR LOL
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:05 pm

Polot wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Nope.

The 737NG had 400 orders at first flight. The 737MAX has 4,000. Its the fastest selling airplane in the history of Boeing and is performing with very high reliability.

The view from Boeing

https://randy.newairplane.com/2018/05/2 ... the-globe/

RELIABILITY

With the 737 MAX, we added new functions and capabilities to make it the best single-aisle airplane in the market. When you put in all that new technology, you’re bound to have some teething in the beginning. But after working those out, the MAX is sitting at 99.4% schedule reliability. That’s the highest reliability of any new airplane entering service, and exactly where we expected to be 12 months into service.

Now, we’re driving toward even better numbers, targeting 99.7% reliability by the end of this year. All indicators show we’re right on track to get there as we work closely with our customers.



Looks pretty good

FUEL EFFICIENCY

One of the biggest promises we made about the MAX was the advantage it would give our customers over Next-Generation 737s. We designed the airplane to be 14 percent more fuel-efficient than today’s most efficient NGs. Our customers are proving that on a daily basis.

flydubai recently said it has seen 15% more efficiency with the MAX, along with less disruption and lower maintenance costs.

Hainan Airlines tells us they’ve seen fuel efficiency increase significantly with the MAXs compared to the NG, especially for flights longer than three hours.

And China Southern says its fuel consumption rate for the MAX has made it the most cost-saving type of any 737 model and the best fit for flights around seven hours.

Before putting the MAX into service, one customer told us they sometimes had to reduce the payload on its 737NG routes covering more than five hours. The MAX has made that a moot point.


People can argue anecdotally about technology and pushing a design too far, but reliability is where proven established designs shine

Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


Sound impressive on that map until you take out all the 757's in service. Talk about fudging numbers to make it look better.

Nowhere on that map or in that blog post are 757s included or talked about. In fact only one airline included on the map even operates 757 (Tui).


At the bottom of the graphic it clearly states "excludes 757" read the text on the graphic.
 
A3801000
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 pm

If there is something that worries me it is the 'grandfathering', life rafts for example. On a A32X are, as a option, slides that are rafts and all installed at all the doors. The 737NGs had life rafts stored somewhere up in the ceiling or optional in the bins.
No idea how it is now with the MAX but in case of a ditching i'ld rather sit in A32X. I wonder how it would have played out on the Hudson in a 737.
I also wonder if there are any other features grandfathered that I don't know of but could be seen as compromised safety ass the life rafts.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:11 pm

seabosdca wrote:
amcnd wrote:
I can only imagine where Boeing would be with a rewing/eng 757.... wowza... sad. So sad...


Saddled with a platform that was uncompetitively heavy and costly on maintenance. Which is why it was never contemplated.

If NMA is built, it will do everything a re-engined 757 could have done, and do it far more cheaply for operators. And it's still an uphill battle to make it cost-competitive with the A321neo.

Look, I adore the 757 as much as the next enthusiast. It's one of the best-looking and best-performing airliners ever built. But engineering has moved on.


You've just described the 1988 factor.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:11 pm

kalvado wrote:
MD80Ttail wrote:
Absolutely Boeing and Airbus have gone too far with their bathroom designs. Having just flown on a Max today and recently a new A321 both manufacturers have pushed the envelope on lavatory size. More accurately, the airlines have pushed the design too far to be fair.

And we have a winner!


Butt it's only a small win :)
 
estorilm
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:30 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Samrnpage wrote:
The MAX wasnt a step to far, the MAX 10 was though. The design is pushed so far that its got a weird MLG just to make sure it doesnt crash on takeoff.


I feel brain cells dying after reading this post.

You know what they say - the truth hurts. ;)


...jk, but there are some inherent points that are worth discussing.
 
hivue
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:35 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
But direct law is direct law - you simply cannot have the FCS adding its own take on things when the pilots believe they are in total control.


And a FBW airplane is an FBW airplane. The FCS will always have the last say. Sure the programmers may have tried to set up direct law so that the airplane behaves exactly the way the pilot wants, but the FCS cannot read the pilot's mind, which, since there are no cables and pulleys connecting the stick to the control surfaces, it would have to do to provide the pilot with "total control.".
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:18 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:

2. On the 737-Max -- MCS goes even further and applies trim nose-down in the low-speed, high AOA flight regime because the flight control system, and the stab, may not have the authority for the pilots to adaquetly recover from this situation when a stall approaches.


So does the STS in the 737NG. Not much new here.


No, STS does not have much to do with MCAS low-speed, high AOA flight envelope. STS on the NG was to help keep the nose trimmed down when thrust increases with a light payload or a rear-load center-of-gravity. MCAS is all about the stall region.


That’s not what the FCOM says. It provides protection as you approach stall speed also.
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:42 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft


I don’t understand this sentiment. Your “personal space” on the newest gen narrow body vs the newest gen wide body is the same. I prefer long haul on narrow bodies bc boarding and deplaning are much quicker..less people. Getting bags much faster....less bags. Better service...less people. Less chance for screaming kids or less screaming kids...less people. Customs is faster...less people. I will never again take an A380 flight if I can help it!!! When given a choice I choose a narrow body before a wide.



Truly the most compelling argument that I have heard for the year.

Adding to that - often these choices cost less (or, in some cases, are the only option at all). All hail widebodies, but increasingly when airlines are thinking of costs - they are finding compelling answers at the 737Max cost-sized-range. In specific ways, the aircraft will open up (and make profitable) routes, that were previously the sole domain of wide-bodies (and those that could possess them). Whether it's an A321NEOLR or a 737MAX10 - the fuel savings and range advantages now make new markets (many with lower costs) accessible, at more manageable costs.

The next big reach will be in design of the interiors as some of these aircraft undergo a 'mid-model' upgrade. I think that as airlines grow more comfortable with the ideas of, and consistency of more long-haul, narrow-bodies - we will come to shine upon the ways in which we can maintain the 'premium' elements. I think that the addition of larger premium cabins (with their advantages on specific missions and fuel burns) such as with JetBlue Mint, and AA's A321Ts - will become some of the newer ways in which these products can help specific carriers grow to the new reality of these being some of their workhorses, in specific areas.

Though much a disparaged pair, prior to the maligned current nature of their relationship - in the past, LionAir (and specific regional counterparts) were well received as producing some of the most compelling (and cost competitive) business class services on a 737. Where they were limited by cabin/seat design - smart fares, shining service and shimmering smiles of the crew - were the standard of these route - and the darling of reviews. They were not only an interesting, but also a fascinatingly good solution to what the region can so now (due to rising middle class incomes thus greater demand, and lowering operating costs) command.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:46 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
PacificWest wrote:
From an operational and technology standpoint, I think the MAX is fine.

That said, I think the the MAX program just says a lot about the kind of company Boeing has become. Boeing has made my favorite commercial airliners ever and has an enviable amounts of talent, but sadly it's just not the company it once was. While the mission of all companies is to make money for their shareholders... Boeing seems to have made that it's sole focus, especially when you compare their aircraft to Airbus.

~ The 737 MAX-Profit sucks for passengers, it sucks for the flight attendants, and the cockpit is still just as cramped/uncomfortable for the pilots as it was decades ago. Add the fact that there's constantly long lines at the back of economy as 150 pax share two lavatories that one can barely turn around in. Like the longer NG's, it's been stretched and modified to cram, cram, cram -- and my understanding is that's part of the reason for the existence of MCAS. It's also why you'll see a pole propping their tail's up at the gate. It's also why they seem to need so much damn runway for takeoff/landing.

~ The 787 is great, but Boeing marketed economy seating as a comfortable '8-across' to the public, but designed it knowing all Airline would jam in a 9th seat they left just enough room for. The A350 was actually designed for 9-across, which is why it's cabin is 5" wider than the 787.

From the perspective of passenger/crew comfort, Airbus makes far superior aircraft. I understand that Wall Street and all the bean-counters at the Airlines love Boeing -- but I'm not an Airline executive, I'm just a dude that mid-status flier that loves commercial aviation.


United put the same seat on the 737-9 that they have on their A320. One of the big travel bloggers even mentioned it on the post for the inaugural flight. It can be done.


Thats because United uses the same 737 spec seats on thier A320's and have a wider isle instead of the extra inch seat. You got the right idea, just the wrong direction of what seat came from where. BTW the original A320 was promoted with optional 26" isle and 59" seat set to speed load times vs the more comfortable 62" triple seat & 20" isle.
 
planecane
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:47 pm

Polot wrote:
MaksFly wrote:
The fact that the mcas got Data from only one AoA sensor and had no redundancy IS an issue.

Nobody said there were zero issues. But it points to a certification issue, and a design issue in the sense that redundancy was not concerned, not an issue with taking an old frame and trying to modernize it (“one step too far”). Any modern plane with computer controls will gladly crash itself if there is no system in place to make sure the computer controls deactivate (giving direct control to pilots that is) when the computer detects potentionally faulty information. Boeing, for whatever reason (rushed?), omitted that.


Does the autopilot disengage when there is an AoA disagree? If yes, shouldn't it be relatively simple to have MCAS use the same logic and give an indication?
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:36 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
superjeff wrote:


The "Space Flex" lavs are miserable, but they're (a) chosen as an option by the airlines, not by Boeing or Airbus, and (b) they are, unfortunately, the wave of the future, except for a few airlines (Hawaiian, for example) that have decided they are not good for their brand image.


Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.


Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.

Now and then it would be nice if a company did the right thing and said no thats to tight for passenger comfort & safety. Someone needs to set a moral judgement.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:14 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Samrnpage wrote:
The MAX wasnt a step to far, the MAX 10 was though. The design is pushed so far that its got a weird MLG just to make sure it doesnt crash on takeoff.


I feel brain cells dying after reading this post.


Yeah he really does not get why the landing gear was modified, does he.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:23 am

Amiga500 wrote:
AvObserver wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it.

I hope posts like this put to rest the nonsense spewed by Airbus diehards that the MAX is fundamentally unstable despite that they offer no proof of such.


If it does not return from a non-stalled and within envelope positive angle of attack then it is longitudinally statically unstable by standard definitions of flight dynamics.

That in itself is no problem. Airbus have had relaxed stability aircraft for years with their FBW.

But direct law is direct law - you simply cannot have the FCS adding its own take on things when the pilots believe they are in total control.

If pilots who actually fly the MAX say it's NOT unstable, I tend to believe them, not the armchair experts who weigh in here tediously. On your second note I agree to a point but I think there would not have been a crash if the MCAS operation was fully understood by the pilots. That it wasn't is fully Boeing's fault although Lion Air's maintenance and dispatch practices are likely complicit in the crash. But really, if Airbus's FBW compensates for "relaxed stability" then the MAX's MCAS is likely just another means to a similar goal and again, would likely be no problem as long as it is fully understood by the pilots. The big bugaboo is really that Boeing didn't get that critical information into documentation and training for all MAX operators. It remains to be seen if there are any actual deficiencies in MCAS but those are likely to be easily fixable; distrust caused by Boeing's lack of candor on MCAS, not so much.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:54 am

aerokiwi wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I’m unclear on how a 70’s 737 Classic like the ones I regularly flew on were an example of “a manufacturer focused on the quality of flight” but a much improved 737 MAX is an example of “a manufacturer that made flying uncomfortable”? If you are referring to seats, pitch, etc then blame the airlines as they are the ones who choose those things. I suppose you can blame Boeing for the bathrooms being smaller but then I guess you need to throw Airbus into that camp as well.

I think anyone who boards a brand new MAX today will find a brighter, more modern and refined interior than was found “back in the day”. Seats were klunky, bins were klunky, headphones (if you could call them that” were klunky - I wouldn’t look back to it as anything special. The aircraft is immensely quieter and more efficient and a much better neighbor to the communities it serves. The cockpit is night and day as well.

Maybe I’m missing something but perhaps people are confusing airline-chosen amenities with the actual aircraft design?


Big tick here! Throw in some misplaced nostalgia for a plane that never was. I mean, do people remember those 732s? By god they were loud! Today's BSI 737s are a genuine pleasure, though I'm yet to try these mini lavs. Perhaps, uh, people's increasing girth has contributed to things ;-)


Yes I remember many flights on Aloha Airlines, Southwest & America West on 737-200's & the 737-100 on America West.
BTW the early 737's on Aloha had open storage instead of closing bins.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:51 am

rbavfan wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:

Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.


Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.

Now and then it would be nice if a company did the right thing and said no thats to tight for passenger comfort & safety. Someone needs to set a moral judgement.


That would be the passenger. Vote with your wallets. As long as you (and I) make price the number one deciding factor, this is what you’ll get. And what is more “moral”, a bigger toilet or lower fares?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
WBM
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:53 am

rbavfan wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:

Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.


Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.

Now and then it would be nice if a company did the right thing and said no thats to tight for passenger comfort & safety. Someone needs to set a moral judgement.

If we’re going to talk about the ethics of seat size, I think it would go the other way. The more ethical seat would be the smaller seat. More people in a plane means less resources used per person. I wonder how many tons of fuel have been saved by 9 abreast 787s, 10 abreast 777’s. Similarly a wider 737 would mean a lot of extra fuel burnt. We all want more comfort, but it does come at a cost.
 
PacificWest
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:06 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:


Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.

Now and then it would be nice if a company did the right thing and said no thats to tight for passenger comfort & safety. Someone needs to set a moral judgement.


That would be the passenger. Vote with your wallets. As long as you (and I) make price the number one deciding factor, this is what you’ll get. And what is more “moral”, a bigger toilet or lower fares?


Somehow Airbus manages to be successful despite making a conscious effort to design aircraft with a cabin-width that prevents Airlines from compromising passenger comfort. The A320 cabin is 7" wider than the 737, and the A350 is 5" wider than the 787. I remember some article quoting SeatGuru that said if you average out the seat width across dozens of airlines, the average economy seat on an Airbus will be a half-inch wider than a Boeing.

I'll agree that the average person that flies 1-2x per year for holidays/vacation will purchase tickets purely on Price & Schedule, and they either don't care or have no clue what to expect when they board the plane. But the second one starts flying more than 7-8x per year, it doesn't take long to see recognize a pattern of narrow seats, long bathroom lines, and tiny lavs on Boeing's. When flying domestic, I'll pay 5-10% more per ticket to fly an A319/320/321 instead of taking a 737.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8691
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:22 am

AvObserver wrote:
If pilots who actually fly the MAX say it's NOT unstable, I tend to believe them, ...


how much worth do you think is their statement?
Zero.
MCAS is a wrapper around the unpleasant pitch up behavior of the MAX.
( MCAS in a rather heavy handed way limits "real" AoA to stay inside the airframes even more limited save zone.)
As long as that works as expected nothing untowards happens.

Certification issue afaics is that if you ever stall the airframe it will stay stalled. afaik : not allowed.
Murphy is an optimist
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:17 am

PacificWest wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
rbavfan wrote:

Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.

Now and then it would be nice if a company did the right thing and said no thats to tight for passenger comfort & safety. Someone needs to set a moral judgement.


That would be the passenger. Vote with your wallets. As long as you (and I) make price the number one deciding factor, this is what you’ll get. And what is more “moral”, a bigger toilet or lower fares?


Somehow Airbus manages to be successful despite making a conscious effort to design aircraft with a cabin-width that prevents Airlines from compromising passenger comfort. The A320 cabin is 7" wider than the 737, and the A350 is 5" wider than the 787. I remember some article quoting SeatGuru that said if you average out the seat width across dozens of airlines, the average economy seat on an Airbus will be a half-inch wider than a Boeing.

I'll agree that the average person that flies 1-2x per year for holidays/vacation will purchase tickets purely on Price & Schedule, and they either don't care or have no clue what to expect when they board the plane. But the second one starts flying more than 7-8x per year, it doesn't take long to see recognize a pattern of narrow seats, long bathroom lines, and tiny lavs on Boeing's. When flying domestic, I'll pay 5-10% more per ticket to fly an A319/320/321 instead of taking a 737.


So we’re going to argue morality over a half-inch difference? Frankly I’d take a WN 737 over an NK A320 anyday. YMMV
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5449
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:10 am

rbavfan wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
It's still selling like hotcakes. There's strong demand for fuel efficient narrowbodies. It's not like it's a failure.

I think most of us agree though, this should be the last major update to the 737. It's replacement should be a clean sheet design. The inclusion of MCAS is an indication they've reached the limits of the 737s design.

Boeing did not want to do the MAX; they wanted to do the NSA. But they could not afford to lose the narrow body market completely to the A320NEO, which they would have had they not done the MAX because the customers were not willing to wait. I assume they are doing work on a new design now, but a lot will depend on what the next generation of engines is like, so they cannot go too far at this point. It all comes down to timing and what Airbus does. If eight years from now there is a new engine available that offers 15% or more fuel burn improvement and Airbus bolts it on to the A320, unless Boeing is far enough along to bring out the NSA in a timely manner they will be forced to find a way to slap it on to the 737. And they will. As to MCAS, as I understand it its purpose was to make the MAX handle like the NG. Boeing did make a big mistake by not explaining it to pilots, but to say that it is proof that the MAX was a step too far is a gross exaggeration. The fact that the airline with the worst safety record of any currently flying was unable to properly repair it and then one of their crews could not figure out how to disable it when three previous crews had again speaks to Boeing’s omission in explanation and the airline’s likely poor training, but not the design. The simple fact of the matter is that their are not massive gains in efficiency to be had in redesigning the airframe; the gains are to be had in the engines. And if the new engines will bolt on to the old airframe it becomes very hard to justify the billions required to design a new airframe. And this applies to Airbus as well as Boeing. So unless an advancement comes along that gives a compelling economic advantage to a new design airframe, or Boeing manages to get one designed in their spare time before the next engine generation is ready, it is likely we will see the A320NNEO and the 737ULTRAMAX.



The way you worded the start of paragraph 2 says they did not want to do the upgrades, but they had to. So then it's ok people died because of the failure to communicate a kludged system put in place to fix a major issue. Because they had to. No they could have done the NSA and took a short term hit in sales. If they had we would probably not be having this conversation.

That is a separate issue, and I have never said or implied that it was OK that they failed to properly inform pilots about the system. But I also find it hard to believe that two properly trained pilots could not figure out that they were getting uncommanded trim inputs and find a way to stop them, even without understanding what caused them. The other three crews that flew that plane while it was malfunctioning did.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
crazyplane1234
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:20 am

Jouhou wrote:
I really wish other passengers would rebel with me and choose flights on the standard amount of room and comfort a particular airline provides, not just cost. I scold my father for going for the cheapest possible flights and then complaining about shrinking spaces. I tell him he's a part of the problem by being a cheap-ass! It's okay to pay a little more to fly with the better airline.

It goes both ways. I personally wish for cheaper fares, but you don't see me scolding those who choose the more comfortable seats. Horses for courses.

It's okay to pay a little more to fly with the better airline, but it's equally okay to endure the worse airline to pay a little less.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:21 am

I do not think the 737MAX went a step to far. And Boeing seems to be able to sell a few in size above the 737-8. The 737MAX still looks mainly like a one horse race.

The problems facing Boeing now, I would put firmly at the feet of the commercial department and top management. If Boeing had not insisted on minimum difference training between 737NG and 737MAX, we would not talk about a problem. We will not see Boeing admitting to fault, even if the FAA or better the NSTB would deliver a verdict, including design or not mandated pilot training having had an influence on the accident in Indonesia.

Otherwise the frame sells well, is the main money maker for Boeing and all problems with the AoA and MCAS will be solved, to a part IMO by more training.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:35 am

I think that if Boeing ( or Airbus for that matter) could think of a way of building a NSA that had a real and economic advantage on a 737/320 then they would - tomorrow.But both of them have said that they can't.
It's easy to think up ideas that are worse.Extra wide single aisle aircaft or narrow twin aisle aircaft a both with additional weight/ drag.Carbon doesn't really help at this small size either.I am not even sure fully laminar wings would make much difference ( and can be very unstable) over the usual short duration flights these aircraft do.They even say that hybrid BWB designs loose their drag advantage the smaller you go.
It would have to be a very bold radical design-and with that humongous risks as this is the aircaft sector that makes all the money!

It's a tricky one.Answers on a postcard!
 
kalvado
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:38 pm

mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it. And the NG. As a pilot, I like the A320 WAYYYY more because it’s more comfortable upfront. But the MAX is extremely efficient, reliable, and predictable. The MCAS issue is, in my opinion, an error of omission, not some inherent flaw in the airplane.

Which only means you didn't encounter modes where the problem may occur. And it was noted that one of the reasons for MCAS non-training was that a regular pilot will never happen to witness its operation.
As far as I understand, MCAS would activate well past stick shaker range - and how many times did you feel the shake? Doesn't mean that stall cannot occur, though.
If you look at it from the statistics point of view - alleged instability may make a difference between (I am totally making up numbers) between 1 out of 1000 stickshakes ending up in major crash - and 1 out of 100 - with stability problem at the edge of flight envelope, where MCAS would come to the rescue.
It may be some severe turbulence or wind shear where you could see a problem. And then that small edge blip can make a difference.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos