Aviation737 wrote:

Wow some people are really salty about the 737 and Boeing

Yeah I don't get it. Both the 737 and A320 are great planes. I'm not sure why both can't be celebrated.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

First, for umpteenth time, it’s an amended TC, nothing is grandfathered. Second, the 707 is a different type certificate from the 727 or 737. Amateurs may be otherwise, but they’re different.

GF

Semantics! It’s launched as if it’s a new plane but gets to use some rules from the 60’s and certificated to standards not acceptable if it were designed today. Call it whatever you want.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbavfan wrote:

LGeneReese wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Note that the registration number is listed on the United Fleet Website as the first UA 737-10 aircraft, presumably after certification is complete. I would also suspect the aft emergency exit will be swapped with a fixed plug (with a window) like on UA's 737-900ER and 737-9.

Indeed this aircraft will eventually become UA Ship 7751... still no idea why starting at 51 rather than 01..
Also IIRC the emergency exit is required to remain active.

Because boing list them by manufacture number. They don't start each model at an 01 number.

The registration and Ship/Nose/Fleet #s are chosen by the airline/customer and have no direct connection with the aircraft manufacturer #s.
UA Max9s are Ship#s 7501-75xx while UA -chose- the Max10s as Ships 7751-7799 and probably 7801-78xx. Boeing had no input into this decision.
UA’s fleet numbering system is quite the messy mash up between the pre-merger CO and UA systems. But give me any current UA mainline ship number and I can tell you the exact aircraft type it is.

Airliners.net, don't you just love it? Two opposing "factual" statement, neither offering any evidence to support their claim.

CALTECH wrote:

It has MCAS....

Pudelhund wrote:

You are in luck because the -10 doesn’t have MCAS.

So which is it?

Folks, please stick to the topic. Any discussion on MAX crashes please refer to main thread on same topic.

Pudelhund wrote:

You are in luck because the -10 doesn’t have MCAS.

Can you provide a source for this statement?

I'm asking because there are a few posters upstream in this same thread who have said that the 737-10 MAX does indeed have MCAS.

I find it more than a little bit surprising that Boeing placed "737-MAX" titles on the -10s winglet, though it does appear that they may be subtly trying to downplay that through the use of pale gray paint. I wonder how many of the carriers who have ordered the 737-10 MAX are going to specifically ask that no MAX titles be applied to their aircraft?

flipdewaf wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

First, for umpteenth time, it’s an amended TC, nothing is grandfathered. Second, the 707 is a different type certificate from the 727 or 737. Amateurs may be otherwise, but they’re different.

GF

Semantics! It’s launched as if it’s a new plane but gets to use some rules from the 60’s and certificated to standards not acceptable if it were designed today. Call it whatever you want.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Engineering is about accuracy, “grandfathering” and confusing TCs is anything but accurate.

DL747400 wrote:

I find it more than a little bit surprising that Boeing placed "737-MAX" titles on the -10s winglet, though it does appear that they may be subtly trying to downplay that through the use of pale gray paint. I wonder how many of the carriers who have ordered the 737-10 MAX are going to specifically ask that no MAX titles be applied to their aircraft?

As already said on this thread, the aircraft's use of color is consistent with the family wide livery update, see earlier links.

Within the livery they could have chosen to use "737" instead of "737 MAX" but clearly they left it in not just on the winglet but also on the nose.

I don't think people should read too much in to this one way or the other.

This event was for the people who worked on the -10, this was not a media event.

I'm confident we'll get a more definitive statement at some point in the future.

And of course airline customers can paint whatever they want onto their aircraft.

rbavfan wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

This should be a really great transcontinental aircraft. Plenty of space for various configurations. Enough range for any coast to coast route. I think that's where this aircraft will shine.

I don't think we'll see it used much on sub 1000nm routes. The reason is that the long fuselage makes the boarding / deboarding process longer. Which matters less if it's flying longer routes.

Wish you a long and prosperous future, Boeing 737-10.

No it does not. At MDW, DAL if a plane takes longer to load no matter the distance it will cut the number of flights/gate/day.

You're missing the point.

If you're flying 8 legs a day, and boarding/ deboarding time takes X amount of minutes, the aircraft will spend more of it's day boarding/ deboarding than if the same aircraft flies 3-4 legs per day.

JetBuddy wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

This should be a really great transcontinental aircraft. Plenty of space for various configurations. Enough range for any coast to coast route. I think that's where this aircraft will shine.

I don't think we'll see it used much on sub 1000nm routes. The reason is that the long fuselage makes the boarding / deboarding process longer. Which matters less if it's flying longer routes.

Wish you a long and prosperous future, Boeing 737-10.

No it does not. At MDW, DAL if a plane takes longer to load no matter the distance it will cut the number of flights/gate/day.

You're missing the point.

If you're flying 8 legs a day, and boarding/ deboarding time takes X amount of minutes, the aircraft will spend more of it's day boarding/ deboarding than if the same aircraft flies 3-4 legs per day.

Same thing, more aircraft, Gates and crew are required to fly same schedule. Payback may be less flights for same seat capacity, so things somewhat balance out. There maybe fewer flights per gate, but possibly more pax per gate at the same time

lightsaber wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

It's a two engine 720.

Funny, but true. What does it say about me that I understood that statement fully.

Lightsaber

Same here, a while ago I put a 720 model and a 739 of same scale, side by side and they were virtually the same length.

JetBuddy wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

This should be a really great transcontinental aircraft. Plenty of space for various configurations. Enough range for any coast to coast route. I think that's where this aircraft will shine.

I don't think we'll see it used much on sub 1000nm routes. The reason is that the long fuselage makes the boarding / deboarding process longer. Which matters less if it's flying longer routes.

Wish you a long and prosperous future, Boeing 737-10.

No it does not. At MDW, DAL if a plane takes longer to load no matter the distance it will cut the number of flights/gate/day.

You're missing the point.

If you're flying 8 legs a day, and boarding/ deboarding time takes X amount of minutes, the aircraft will spend more of it's day boarding/ deboarding than if the same aircraft flies 3-4 legs per day.

These things still have rear door don't they ? Much faster deplaning If my recent experiences with easyJet are anything to go by ? Of course if everyone expects an airbridge nowadays then we have a problem.

rbavfan wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

flee wrote:

The 737-9 is already a slow seller - how many extra new sales will the new gear bring to justify the additional testing/certification costs for a revised undercarriage? Boeing will probably ask customers to order the 737-10 instead.

Southwest is a big customer. The 737-10 MAX is too large to work for WN at MDW due to the short runways. A 737-9 with taller landing gear could allow better runway performance, a higher takeoff weight, and range for the 737-9. With 200 seats it would maximize the number of passengers 4 flight attendants could serve. It could also allow 200 seats between the west coast and Hawaii.

Southwest would need the new landing gear on the -8 to allow flights from midway to any airport. Currently the -800/8 has range limits due to the short runways.

Sorry bud, that’s completely inaccurate.

The standard 738 can easily operate out of MDW and do so to the west coast.

The SFP isn’t needed, but would certainly help.

The MAX-8 has better performance than the -800NG.

No longer landing gear needed.

DeltaConnection wrote:

Yuck.

Bring back the 757 please.

Yes indeed. 757 is no doubt a better plane. Ironically, they have the same fuselage . Will Boeing crawl out of the hole and see the light ?

DL747400 wrote:

I find it more than a little bit surprising that Boeing placed "737-MAX" titles on the -10s winglet, though it does appear that they may be subtly trying to downplay that through the use of pale gray paint. I wonder how many of the carriers who have ordered the 737-10 MAX are going to specifically ask that no MAX titles be applied to their aircraft?

It's called Fade out. Expect it to completely disappear in the near future.

Revelation wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

I find it more than a little bit surprising that Boeing placed "737-MAX" titles on the -10s winglet, though it does appear that they may be subtly trying to downplay that through the use of pale gray paint. I wonder how many of the carriers who have ordered the 737-10 MAX are going to specifically ask that no MAX titles be applied to their aircraft?

As already said on this thread, the aircraft's use of color is consistent with the family wide livery update, see earlier links.

Within the livery they could have chosen to use "737" instead of "737 MAX" but clearly they left it in not just on the winglet but also on the nose.

I don't think people should read too much in to this one way or the other.

This event was for the people who worked on the -10, this was not a media event.

I'm confident we'll get a more definitive statement at some point in the future.

And of course airline customers can paint whatever they want onto their aircraft.

Eh I think it's a bit of both, you bring up valid points - but they're definitely not trying to draw attention to the title as well. Contrast this with the giant "NEO" plastered all over everything Airbus is doing right now.

If it was a valuable trademark or title, the company would be leveraging it to the fullest extent. For Airbus as a marketing term - it's synonymous with a new era, efficiency, commonality, new routes, ranges, expanded payloads/MTOW. It's an incredibly valuable title that BOTH airlines were supposed to be pitting directly against each other to sell aircraft and be competitive moving forward. For Boeing, 'MAX' is that title, and they're hardly dusting a shadow of the name onto the winglets. I think it's a fair observation actually, regardless of their past liveries - they should be leveraging the "MAX" title as the future of Boeing NB's. That's absolutely no longer the case.

reltney wrote:

DeltaConnection wrote:

Yuck.

Bring back the 757 please.

Yes indeed. 757 is no doubt a better plane. Ironically, they have the same fuselage . Will Boeing crawl out of the hole and see the light ?

No, they don’t have the same fuselage. They have the same cross section depending on where you are in the fuselage (the 757s changes from front to aft of the wings) but parts aren’t interchangeable.

So the -10 sits up higher on the main gear than the other MAX due to levered gear, correct? I recall reading the MAX fwd landing gear minimum height is a few inches greater than the NG. Are there any modifications to the slide sizes on the main cabin doors being this plane is higher off the ground? Also, engine thrust is the same at the -9MAX?

flyboy80 wrote:

So the -10 sits up higher on the main gear than the other MAX due to levered gear, correct? I recall reading the MAX fwd landing gear minimum height is a few inches greater than the NG. Are there any modifications to the slide sizes on the main cabin doors being this plane is higher off the ground? Also, engine thrust is the same at the -9MAX?

The -10 sits the same height above the ground on the tarmac and only raises mid rotation. If you google “max 10 gear” you’ll find some videos no doubt.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flyboy80 wrote:

So the -10 sits up higher on the main gear than the other MAX due to levered gear, correct? I recall reading the MAX fwd landing gear minimum height is a few inches greater than the NG. Are there any modifications to the slide sizes on the main cabin doors being this plane is higher off the ground? Also, engine thrust is the same at the -9MAX?

No, it's the same height as the others. But the gear sits further back, improving ground clearance when rotating. The gear fits into the same wheel wells as the other 737s, so it's an interesting bit of engineering.

I don't believe there are any mods to the slides, since it sits the same height as the others.

And thrust rating is the same as the -9.

flipdewaf wrote:

flyboy80 wrote:

So the -10 sits up higher on the main gear than the other MAX due to levered gear, correct? I recall reading the MAX fwd landing gear minimum height is a few inches greater than the NG. Are there any modifications to the slide sizes on the main cabin doors being this plane is higher off the ground? Also, engine thrust is the same at the -9MAX?

The -10 sits the same height above the ground on the tarmac and only raises mid rotation. If you google “max 10 gear” you’ll find some videos no doubt.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IGl4OizM4

Looks stunning. I was on the last MAX flight in South Africa before the grounding (BA6240, 10 March 2019 PLZ-JNB)

Oykie wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

It's a two engine 720.

Funny, but true. What does it say about me that I understood that statement fully.

Lightsaber

It says experienced

I flew on an Air Rhodesia 720, if you are experienced what does that make me?

JetBuddy wrote:

The gear fits into the same wheel wells as the other 737s, so it's an interesting bit of engineering.

I don't believe there are any mods to the slides, since it sits the same height as the others.

And thrust rating is the same as the -9.

Engine thrust is unchanged - I wonder what the field performance will be like for the 10 Max. With the improved main gear, it should be equal to that of the 9 Max, right?

DL747400 wrote:

I wonder how many of the carriers who have ordered the 737-10 MAX are going to specifically ask that no MAX titles be applied to their aircraft?

From a brief check of the database, it doesn't look like many have MAX written on the aircraft anyways, or when they do, it is small and subtle (see the Norwegian example).

iamlucky13 wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

I wonder how many of the carriers who have ordered the 737-10 MAX are going to specifically ask that no MAX titles be applied to their aircraft?

From a brief check of the database, it doesn't look like many have MAX written on the aircraft anyways, or when they do, it is small and subtle (see the Norwegian example).

I don't know if it is the angle or they only had them on some but Southwest definitely had "MAX" painted on the lower part of the nose of at least 2 MAX 8s. I flew on one and saw another at a gate.

Looks beautiful. Long, sleek, elegant. Can't wait to see it flying.

flipdewaf wrote:

flyboy80 wrote:

So the -10 sits up higher on the main gear than the other MAX due to levered gear, correct? I recall reading the MAX fwd landing gear minimum height is a few inches greater than the NG. Are there any modifications to the slide sizes on the main cabin doors being this plane is higher off the ground? Also, engine thrust is the same at the -9MAX?

The -10 sits the same height above the ground on the tarmac and only raises mid rotation. If you google “max 10 gear” you’ll find some videos no doubt.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if it does not raise, or only on one side?

Relative to other problems, the gears tend to fail quiet often (and this is model or manufacturer independent). From not retracting to collapsing, there is a lot that can go wrong. On top of that they get worked hard and hard landings are not uncommon.

Will the MAX-10 gears have to be checked more often, especially after harder landings?

FluidFlow wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

flyboy80 wrote:

So the -10 sits up higher on the main gear than the other MAX due to levered gear, correct? I recall reading the MAX fwd landing gear minimum height is a few inches greater than the NG. Are there any modifications to the slide sizes on the main cabin doors being this plane is higher off the ground? Also, engine thrust is the same at the -9MAX?

The -10 sits the same height above the ground on the tarmac and only raises mid rotation. If you google “max 10 gear” you’ll find some videos no doubt.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if it does not raise, or only on one side?

Relative to other problems, the gears tend to fail quiet often (and this is model or manufacturer independent). From not retracting to collapsing, there is a lot that can go wrong. On top of that they get worked hard and hard landings are not uncommon.

Will the MAX-10 gears have to be checked more often, especially after harder landings?

My understanding is that its a passive system, effectively an airbag inflated to a given pressure driving a secondary oleo, When the wing increase AoA and so the lift increases during rotation the secondary oleo in unloaded and begins to extend and and this process continues till the oleo is fully extended (I cant remember the max (no pun intended) extension. The only mechanical parts are the additional moving parts when the gear is retracted and extended to make sure the additional oleo is capable of fitting in the the wheel wells. The critical piece of the design is pretty fool proof it seems.

As a piece of problem solving I like it a lot because it manages to deal with a very complex set of constraints without a lot of complexity in the risky areas, the guys that worked on that were clearly working at a level of whole aircraft rather than landing gear level to get the dynamics.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The -10 sits the same height above the ground on the tarmac and only raises mid rotation. If you google “max 10 gear” you’ll find some videos no doubt.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if it does not raise, or only on one side?

Relative to other problems, the gears tend to fail quiet often (and this is model or manufacturer independent). From not retracting to collapsing, there is a lot that can go wrong. On top of that they get worked hard and hard landings are not uncommon.

Will the MAX-10 gears have to be checked more often, especially after harder landings?

My understanding is that its a passive system, effectively an airbag inflated to a given pressure driving a secondary oleo, When the wing increase AoA and so the lift increases during rotation the secondary oleo in unloaded and begins to extend and and this process continues till the oleo is fully extended (I cant remember the max (no pun intended) extension. The only mechanical parts are the additional moving parts when the gear is retracted and extended to make sure the additional oleo is capable of fitting in the the wheel wells. The critical piece of the design is pretty fool proof it seems.

As a piece of problem solving I like it a lot because it manages to deal with a very complex set of constraints without a lot of complexity in the risky areas, the guys that worked on that were clearly working at a level of whole aircraft rather than landing gear level to get the dynamics.

Fred

Seems a really smart solution. So as long as the oleo stays intact nothing can happen as it is a passive system and a broken oleo should be noticed before take off as it would leak a lot of fluid on the tarmac.

FluidFlow wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

What if it does not raise, or only on one side?

Relative to other problems, the gears tend to fail quiet often (and this is model or manufacturer independent). From not retracting to collapsing, there is a lot that can go wrong. On top of that they get worked hard and hard landings are not uncommon.

Will the MAX-10 gears have to be checked more often, especially after harder landings?

My understanding is that its a passive system, effectively an airbag inflated to a given pressure driving a secondary oleo, When the wing increase AoA and so the lift increases during rotation the secondary oleo in unloaded and begins to extend and and this process continues till the oleo is fully extended (I cant remember the max (no pun intended) extension. The only mechanical parts are the additional moving parts when the gear is retracted and extended to make sure the additional oleo is capable of fitting in the the wheel wells. The critical piece of the design is pretty fool proof it seems.

As a piece of problem solving I like it a lot because it manages to deal with a very complex set of constraints without a lot of complexity in the risky areas, the guys that worked on that were clearly working at a level of whole aircraft rather than landing gear level to get the dynamics.

Fred

Seems a really smart solution. So as long as the oleo stays intact nothing can happen as it is a passive system and a broken oleo should be noticed before take off as it would leak a lot of fluid on the tarmac.

Sorry, I shouldn't have called it an additional oleo as I don't think it contains oil (as a damping mechanism anyway) it simply uses an un-dampened spring system (airbag type spring most likely). Not sure on how the pressure would be checked/maintained. It could be a coil spring... I'm not sure on the details...

Fred

Sooner787 wrote:

I just checked Seattle Times website & didn't see story of the rollout posted yet.

Makes me wonder if the 777X first flight will occur without any prior public notice?

I would bet that to be the case. Expect flights to resume 2nd or 3rd week in Jan.

scbriml wrote:

Airliners.net, don't you just love it? Two opposing "factual" statement, neither offering any evidence to support their claim.

CALTECH wrote:

It has MCAS....

Pudelhund wrote:

You are in luck because the -10 doesn’t have MCAS.

So which is it?

MCAS is in all versions of the MAX, don't know why the statement was made that the -10 doesn't have it......

It is in the maintenance manual, read it the other day. 737-7/8/8200/9/10.....

All MAX versions have MCAS, but will it be called that after the fixes are made, is another question.

Elementalism wrote:

The -100 is nearly 50 feet shorter compared to the MAX10. Think the engineers on the -100 project would had ever imagined this model growing to that size?

Is there an option for a door where there arent any windows forward of the engines? Be nice to be able to load this one like the 757.

Maybe that'll be Boeing's FSA: take the ORIGINAL 737 body, remake it in Al-Li to safe costs over CFRP, make the wings from CFRP, make the plane full FBW, and latest engines and call it a day.

Either that or just liquidate all of Embraer's staff minus the best engineers and redo the E2 175-195 since they're a sales disaster and at least Boeing has the scale to produce them more cheaply.