Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 15
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:59 pm

744SPX wrote:
The concept of the Max is itself fundamentally flawed. Trying to cram LEAP's on an aircraft designed for JT8D's was a decision (mistake) whose only justification came down to satisfying shareholders and other short-term financial goals when the harder (but correct) decision was to build NSA.

Too bad Boeing didn't consider doing a NSA instead of MAX back in 2011...

Oh wait, they did, and realized doing NSA would pretty much take them out of the narrowbody market for 4-6 years then they would have spent $billions on a difficult to build and expensive product to try to sell against the entrenched A320 family.

The tragic fatalities in the first crash came from Boeing engineers choosing to rely on the "industry standard" three second rule rather than doing their homework and analyzing exactly what would happen should a faulty AoA sensor send inaccurate data to the MCAS algorithm. The second crash is on Boeing managers deciding to gamble on the fix being deployed before a second AoA sensor would go bad, allegedly using faulty math while doing so.

You should keep in mind that these same people would be the ones working on your 2011 NSA, pushing for minimal testing, etc.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
744SPX
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:10 pm

Well, Boeing would more or less be in the same position Airbus was when they built the A320. Actually better in many ways.

I won't deny that the 2011 NSA could have had major issues because of the same Boeing culture, but I would hope that at the very least the requirements of a new type certificate would mitigate that.
 
Aviator34ID
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:34 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:12 pm

744SPX wrote:
This is the problem. The design is fundamentally flawed. The only way to actually "fix" it is to design a new engine that is the same weight and form factor as the CFM56-7b. That's not going to happen. The design has been pushed too far. The plane is a Frankenstein and needs to be put out of its misery.


I believe I read that prior to the grounding the aircraft made around 140,000 flights in North America without incident . If this is so it doesn't sound like an inherently unstable aircraft.
 
Chemist
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:24 am

744SPX wrote:
Chemist wrote:
744SPX wrote:
This is the problem. The design is fundamentally flawed. The only way to actually "fix" it is to design a new engine that is the same weight and form factor as the CFM56-7b. That's not going to happen. The design has been pushed too far. The plane is a Frankenstein and needs to be put out of its misery.


What is your definition of "fundamentally flawed"?
IMHO this is typical overreaction and hysteria.
Boeing did a horrible job of compensating for an edge-case handling quirk and it killed a bunch of people.
That's not a fundamental flaw in the aircraft. Many aircraft have handling quirks for edge cases and do just fine. The MAX's problem was a poorly designed and implemented solution to that handling quirk. If it had been done correctly then the MAXes would still be flying and would have never had this problem.


The concept of the Max is itself fundamentally flawed. Trying to cram LEAP's on an aircraft designed for JT8D's was a decision (mistake) whose only justification came down to satisfying shareholders and other short-term financial goals when the harder (but correct) decision was to build NSA.

I'm sorry, did the A320 -need its nose gear raised?
-need its engine BPR reduced to fit the aircraft?
-need its nacelles pushed out and up so far that it changed CG and stall characteristics?
-Its tail cone redesigned ?
-Special ugly-as-sin advanced winglets?

Airbus paid its price when it built the original A320. Boeing tried to cheat with the Max. They thought they could get away with not having to build a 737NG replacement for another generation. 346 people paid for that with their lives, and now Boeing is saying the Max will last for a generation? No.


You and I have different definitions of "fundamentally flawed".
By your definition, they DID cram engines below the 737-300 and NG, and those cowls even were flattened on the bottom to make it fit. They only had like 18 inches of ground clearance and those engines are way bigger than the engines on the original Jurassic 737s. So why isn't the 737-300 for example, "fundamentally flawed"?

Tailcone is not reevant, now you are all over the place.
BPR is designed for an aircraft, not sure how that is relevant, either. Plenty of derivatives have newer engines on them with different BPRs.
Ugly (a subjective term) is not relevant, either.
I don't really know where you're going here but those are not good arguments.
Are you saying the A320 should not have winglets now? Or are they ok because you don't think they're ugly?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7073
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:41 am

Aviator34ID wrote:
I believe I read that prior to the grounding the aircraft made around 140,000 flights in North America without incident.

If you read that, then you read wrong. The MAX made roughly 250,000 revenue flights world wide, of which 40-50,000 were in NA.

But it is totally irrelevant whether a potentially catastrophic issue surfaces every 40,000 or 140,000 flights. We live in 21st century, and potentially catastrophic issues shall be countered by ample redundancies.

Aviator34ID wrote:
If this is so it doesn't sound like an inherently unstable aircraft.

The MAX isn't grounded because it is unstable. It is grounded because an artificial system (MCAS) is unreliable and in failure mode severely affects controllability. An artificial system which is needed to improve controllability (some call stability) in order to meet current minimum requirements by the regulators.

But don't worry. The authorities of nine countries plus the EU - the JATR - representing all current MAX operators - will approve flights to be resumed when the MAX has been modified to meet certification criteria.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Aviator34ID
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:34 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:48 am

"The MAX isn't grounded because it is unstable. It is grounded because an artificial system (MCAS) is unreliable and in failure mode severely affects controllability. An artificial system which is needed to improve controllability (some call stability) in order to meet current minimum requirements by the regulators."

Exactly. My comment about instability was in response to a post that said the aircraft is unstable.
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:14 am

Chemist wrote:
.. So why isn't the 737-300 for example, "fundamentally flawed"?


because there is not a international regulator (JATR) stating it.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2817
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:20 am

Aviator34ID wrote:
"The MAX isn't grounded because it is unstable. It is grounded because an artificial system (MCAS) is unreliable and in failure mode severely affects controllability. An artificial system which is needed to improve controllability (some call stability) in order to meet current minimum requirements by the regulators."

Exactly. My comment about instability was in response to a post that said the aircraft is unstable.

An instability at the edge of envelope is countered by software patch. Nothing really wrong with that, but no reason to grasp to "it is totally stable" fairy tale.
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:51 am

New analysis on possible production ramp-up as posted by https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8485532672

Image
Good moaning!
 
planecane
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:16 am

744SPX wrote:
Well, Boeing would more or less be in the same position Airbus was when they built the A320. Actually better in many ways.


Airbus was in a better position when they built the A320. First, they had no choice but to build a clean sheet if they wanted to be in the 737/MD80 size market so there was no debate on which path would be better. Second, the launch aid made it an easy decision to make the investment as they weren't risking shareholder capital to do it.

Without knowing the fiasco that would happen, it would have been insane, from a financial/ROI perspective, for Boeing to do a clean sheet in 2011. If MCAS hadn't had a severe logic flaw, the MAX would have had a FAR better ROI than a clean sheet over 15 years vs. a clean sheet even if it only got 40%-45% of the market vs. the NEO.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:19 am

What about a proper risk analysis, though?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:20 am

With this schedule Boeing is around 1000 aircraft behind with deliveries not including the already stored ones.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:48 am

planecane wrote:
Second, the launch aid made it an easy decision to make the investment as they weren't risking shareholder capital to do it.


Oh please. 25% of development costs in repayable launch aid, at rates marginally better than the open market, and that requires royalty payments to this day. It might tip the balance on a marginal decision, but to say they "weren't risking shareholder capital to do it" is nonsense.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:25 pm

"Boeing’s plans to return to the pre-grounding production rate of 52/mo will take until 2022. Plans to boost the rate won’t be fulfilled until 2023—four years later than planned."

"Boeing CEO David Calhoun said it will take 18 months for Boeing to clear the inventory, or an average of 22 airplanes a month."
https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/05/boein ... our-years/

This is making assumptions regarding the various regulators giving the 737MAX the all clear.. Spirit have laid off a lot of staff so won't be simple to restart the supply chain.

There is also the situation in China to throw into the mix, the economic downturn, Corona virus.. and the possible reluctance of the Chinese regulator to approve the 737MAX RTS.. possibly for political reasons?

The article also mentions production rate reductions for the 787 and the 777X.

Maybe the new Boeing CEO is kicking some butt? Hard to tell what's going on.

Looks like the grounding may last over a year.
 
planecane
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:22 pm

BaconButty wrote:
planecane wrote:
Second, the launch aid made it an easy decision to make the investment as they weren't risking shareholder capital to do it.


Oh please. 25% of development costs in repayable launch aid, at rates marginally better than the open market, and that requires royalty payments to this day. It might tip the balance on a marginal decision, but to say they "weren't risking shareholder capital to do it" is nonsense.

If the A320 had failed do you really think that launch aid would have been repaid? The existence of that aid made the business case much easier.

Sorry I triggered you. I didn't say they couldn't have done the A320 without aid. I said it was part of what made it a completely different case than Boeing doing a clean sheet instead of the MAX in 2011.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:41 pm

Chemist wrote:
. . . why isn't the 737-300 for example, "fundamentally flawed"?

Because it didn’t have the same issue, didn’t require MCAS, and didn’t kill 346 people as a result. It has its own issues, many of which were fixed.
Chemist wrote:
By your definition, they DID cram engines below the 737-300 and NG, and those cowls even were flattened on the bottom to make it fit. They only had like 18 inches of ground clearance and those engines are way bigger than the engines on the original Jurassic 737s.

No it’s not the same and the pervious 737s are a bad comparison because while they did “cram” the engines under the wing it was not nearly to the same degree that it was done in the MAX. More so to the point, the engines were crammed in front of the wing which is a big part of the problem. Many of us said this would be a bad design, but I don’t think we knew just how bad.
Chemist wrote:
BPR is designed for an aircraft, not sure how that is relevant, either. Plenty of derivatives have newer engines on them with different BPRs.

Explain this because I’m not picking up what you’re laying down here. BPR is designed to reach a certain level of efficiency. They figured with the MAX they’d need to get it up to a point that would be competitive, but the plane is not designed to handle engines like that. That BPR wasn’t designed for an aircraft. Other aircraft have room for such thing to not be placed in an awkward mounting position.

It’s hard to say something is fundamentally flawed when only parts of the whole are and when many parts of the whole are grandfathered. With MCAS functioning in its pre-grounding state, the 737 MAX is pretty flawed. What is fundamentally flawed is the philosophy that designed the MAX and the philosophy that governed and evidently still governs Boeing, the total disregard of risk to human lives in the name of profit; unfortunately, that is and will continue to be the way of the free market. So yes, in that context, you could say that the 737 MAX as an engineering and certification process was fundamentally flawed as well as part of its design.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
planecane
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:41 pm

767333ER wrote:
Chemist wrote:
. . . why isn't the 737-300 for example, "fundamentally flawed"?

Because it didn’t have the same issue, didn’t require MCAS, and didn’t kill 346 people as a result. It has its own issues, many of which were fixed.
Chemist wrote:
By your definition, they DID cram engines below the 737-300 and NG, and those cowls even were flattened on the bottom to make it fit. They only had like 18 inches of ground clearance and those engines are way bigger than the engines on the original Jurassic 737s.

No it’s not the same and the pervious 737s are a bad comparison because while they did “cram” the engines under the wing it was not nearly to the same degree that it was done in the MAX. More so to the point, the engines were crammed in front of the wing which is a big part of the problem. Many of us said this would be a bad design, but I don’t think we knew just how bad.


Look at a picture of a 737-200 and a 737-300. The engines were moved significantly more forward between the Jurassic and the Classic than they were from NG to MAX. On the -200, the furthest forward point of the cowling reaches just about to the 5th window forward of the over wing exit. On the -300 it reaches the 8th window from the same reference. From the NG to the MAX looks like the engines moved about 1 frame forward.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2715
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:49 pm

767333ER wrote:
No it’s not the same and the pervious 737s are a bad comparison because while they did “cram” the engines under the wing it was not nearly to the same degree that it was done in the MAX. More so to the point, the engines were crammed in front of the wing which is a big part of the problem. Many of us said this would be a bad design, but I don’t think we knew just how bad.


You need to take a look at where they mounted the Engines on the 787 and 777X from the side - Very MAX like. They got a nice Aero benefit out of this placement.
 
bar11
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:47 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
767333ER wrote:
No it’s not the same and the pervious 737s are a bad comparison because while they did “cram” the engines under the wing it was not nearly to the same degree that it was done in the MAX. More so to the point, the engines were crammed in front of the wing which is a big part of the problem. Many of us said this would be a bad design, but I don’t think we knew just how bad.


You need to take a look at where they mounted the Engines on the 787 and 777X from the side - Very MAX like. They got a nice Aero benefit out of this placement.


787 and 77X are both FBW and using more than one AOA sensor in all parts of the flight envelope. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Last edited by bar11 on Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Chemist
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:01 pm

767333ER wrote:
Chemist wrote:
. . . why isn't the 737-300 for example, "fundamentally flawed"?

Because it didn’t have the same issue, didn’t require MCAS, and didn’t kill 346 people as a result. It has its own issues, many of which were fixed.
Chemist wrote:
By your definition, they DID cram engines below the 737-300 and NG, and those cowls even were flattened on the bottom to make it fit. They only had like 18 inches of ground clearance and those engines are way bigger than the engines on the original Jurassic 737s.

No it’s not the same and the pervious 737s are a bad comparison because while they did “cram” the engines under the wing it was not nearly to the same degree that it was done in the MAX. More so to the point, the engines were crammed in front of the wing which is a big part of the problem. Many of us said this would be a bad design, but I don’t think we knew just how bad.
Chemist wrote:
BPR is designed for an aircraft, not sure how that is relevant, either. Plenty of derivatives have newer engines on them with different BPRs.

Explain this because I’m not picking up what you’re laying down here. BPR is designed to reach a certain level of efficiency. They figured with the MAX they’d need to get it up to a point that would be competitive, but the plane is not designed to handle engines like that. That BPR wasn’t designed for an aircraft. Other aircraft have room for such thing to not be placed in an awkward mounting position.

It’s hard to say something is fundamentally flawed when only parts of the whole are and when many parts of the whole are grandfathered. With MCAS functioning in its pre-grounding state, the 737 MAX is pretty flawed. What is fundamentally flawed is the philosophy that designed the MAX and the philosophy that governed and evidently still governs Boeing, the total disregard of risk to human lives in the name of profit; unfortunately, that is and will continue to be the way of the free market. So yes, in that context, you could say that the 737 MAX as an engineering and certification process was fundamentally flawed as well as part of its design.


I was responding to the OP's points on why the MAX is fundamentally flawed; he started with the crammed engines and then descended (pun intended) into even more ridiculous reasons.
He claimed part of the fundamental flaw was a different BPR than before. But of course the NG had a different BPR than the previous versions of the 737, too. BPR was designed for the aircraft in the sense that this variant of the engine was specifically made with a fan diameter to accommodate the MAX design, and that affects the BPR. The engine was designed at that variant specificially for the MAX.

The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous because it was only MCAS that was poorly designed and implemented. If MCAS had been done correctly the MAX would still be flying and would have had a comparable safety record to all other recent 737s and nobody would be saying the aircraft was flawed. It's my understanding that the 767 also as MCAS-like functionality and nobody is saying that it is fundamentally flawed. The original argument for "fundamentally flawed" is nice revisionist history now that the poster can look back at what happened. But the reality is not that the A/C itself is fundamentally flawed, it is that MCAS was a disastrously bad implementation and that is what was the fundamental problem with this aircraft.
 
bar11
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:47 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:18 pm

Chemist wrote:
The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous because it was only MCAS that was poorly designed and implemented. If MCAS had been done correctly...


MCAS (1.0) was flawed therefore MAX is flawed. MCAS (1.0) wasn't done properly. 346 people perished. MAX got grounded.
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:27 pm

planecane wrote:
Without knowing the fiasco that would happen, it would have been insane, from a financial/ROI perspective, for Boeing to do a clean sheet in 2011.


If Boeing could do a clean sheet widebody at that time (787), why wouldn't they be able to manage a clean sheet narrowbody?
Good moaning!
 
Elementalism
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:32 pm

VS11 wrote:
Boeing expects the 737 MAX grounding to cost $18.6b
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/busi ... e=Homepage


This is going taught as a case study in project mismanagement and risk assessment for decades to come. They could had built a clean sheet with that money and done it in about the same time frame.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:45 pm

planecane wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
planecane wrote:
Second, the launch aid made it an easy decision to make the investment as they weren't risking shareholder capital to do it.


Oh please. 25% of development costs in repayable launch aid, at rates marginally better than the open market, and that requires royalty payments to this day. It might tip the balance on a marginal decision, but to say they "weren't risking shareholder capital to do it" is nonsense.

If the A320 had failed do you really think that launch aid would have been repaid? The existence of that aid made the business case much easier.

Sorry I triggered you. I didn't say they couldn't have done the A320 without aid. I said it was part of what made it a completely different case than Boeing doing a clean sheet instead of the MAX in 2011.

At the time A320 was launched Airbus was a loose consortium of largely government held entities.

We've seen Airbus dodge full repayment on A340-600 and A380 and squeeze the governments for reductions in the A320 payback and renegotiate fundamental A400M terms and conditions.

Meanwhile despite what people say about the tanker deal, Boeing paid for all overruns and USAF is withholding a percentage of payment due to remaining defects.

If Boeing could get Airbus's RLI deal they would take it in a minute, even at market rates. It signals to the markets that the governments are all in on the program and if things go pear shaped like they did on A400M there will be a renegotiation since Airbus is now the government's partner and can hold the specter of failure or job loss to influence the government.

In turn, Airbus would take advantage of customary US subsidies. In fact Airbus did take advantage of customary subsidies at MOB such as local government providing road, water and sewer improvements and providing tax rebates.

So each has various incentives available to them, and both are happy to take advantage of them.

Personally I think getting 25% of the program cost up front before any metal is cut and making the government a business partner is a far better deal then rebates for taxes you've already paid, but that's just me.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Elementalism wrote:
They could had built a clean sheet with that money and done it in about the same time frame.

This is a false narrative. You are forgetting to include the cost of the time machine that would have told you that Boeing's engineers were going to FUBAR the MCAS implementation, and the loss of market you'd suffer after you ask your customers wait an extra 4-6 years for their new NSAs.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:49 pm

planecane wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
planecane wrote:
Second, the launch aid made it an easy decision to make the investment as they weren't risking shareholder capital to do it.


Oh please. 25% of development costs in repayable launch aid, at rates marginally better than the open market, and that requires royalty payments to this day. It might tip the balance on a marginal decision, but to say they "weren't risking shareholder capital to do it" is nonsense.

If the A320 had failed do you really think that launch aid would have been repaid? The existence of that aid made the business case much easier.

Sorry I triggered you. I didn't say they couldn't have done the A320 without aid. I said it was part of what made it a completely different case than Boeing doing a clean sheet instead of the MAX in 2011.

How is it possible to try and deny what you clearly stated, in writing, in a public forum? Your statement that shareholder capital was not risked is wrong and off-topic.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
Personally I think getting 25% of the program cost up front before any metal is cut and making the government a business partner is a far better deal then rebates for taxes you've already paid, but that's just me.


That might sound good at the outset of a single programme.

But as the programmes roll forward, the picture flips into reverse.
In Airbus's case it gets saddled with a load of royalty payments on the current programmes which put a drag on revenue to take from those programmes and put into a new one.

Conversely, Boeing get to keep the $8Bn or so of tax not paid on the 787 Programme, and apply it to the 777X
In years to come they get to add the next $8Bn of tax not paid on the 777X onto NMA, or FSA or whatever.
And get virtually a free Programme development built on the tax not paid in previous years/decades

The long term outcome is completely different, and is reflected in the financials of both companies.

That's not how it gets messaged on here though, presumably because it doesn't fit the A-net weltanschaunng :scratchchin:

I know which one I would want

Rgds
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:11 pm

planecane wrote:
Sorry I triggered you. I didn't say they couldn't have done the A320 without aid. I said it was part of what made it a completely different case than Boeing doing a clean sheet instead of the MAX in 2011.


Boeing would have received some form of 'launch aid' for NSA in the form of subsidies/tax breaks/other incentives as part of the competition from various locations to produce it.
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
planecane
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:22 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
planecane wrote:
Sorry I triggered you. I didn't say they couldn't have done the A320 without aid. I said it was part of what made it a completely different case than Boeing doing a clean sheet instead of the MAX in 2011.


Boeing would have received some form of 'launch aid' for NSA in the form of subsidies/tax breaks/other incentives as part of the competition from various locations to produce it.


Tax breaks are NOT subsidies. A tax is an expense. A tax break reduces that expense. A subsidy is income.

For example, if South Carolina has a hypothetical 5% tax and Renton has a 10% tax for the same thing but Renton makes a deal with Boeing to reduce the tax to 5%, Renton didn't "give" Boeing anything. In addition, taxes are mostly based on profit (except real estate) so if Boeing gets a tax break and the program fails, they don't save anything.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:27 pm

astuteman wrote:
In Airbus's case it gets saddled with a load of royalty payments on the current programmes which put a drag on revenue to take from those programmes and put into a new one.

We might be able to have a discussion on the size of the "saddle", but the amount paid on each aircraft is a closely guarded secret ( ref: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... al-launch/ ).

If the deal was unfavorable to Airbus they'd simply not apply for it, yet we know they have every program, including A350.

The "drag on revenue" clearly is acceptable given the gain of getting 25% of the program funded up front by a benevolent lender who literally can print money if things should go poorly.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
planecane
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:41 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
planecane wrote:
Without knowing the fiasco that would happen, it would have been insane, from a financial/ROI perspective, for Boeing to do a clean sheet in 2011.


If Boeing could do a clean sheet widebody at that time (787), why wouldn't they be able to manage a clean sheet narrowbody?


They could have managed it. From the perspective of ROI it wouldn't have made sense. A clean sheet narrowbody in 2011 would have been using the same engines as the NEO. They may have gotten slightly more efficiency from aerodynamic improvements but it wouldn't have been enough to be able to charge a significant premium over the NEO and win sales. However, it would have cost $18 billion more than the MAX (or NEO) to develop.

Even if it would have allowed Boeing to have a hair more market share, they wouldn't have sold enough units more than the MAX to justify the additional cost. They'd basically have to be price equivalent to the NEO.

The 787 had to be a clean sheet because the 767 couldn't be turned into an A330 competitor with a simple re-engine. I can guarantee that if the 767 was an 8 abreast cross section, we would have had the 767 MAX and the A330NEO in that market space. Airbus may or may not have launched the A350.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2715
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:58 pm

bar11 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
767333ER wrote:
No it’s not the same and the pervious 737s are a bad comparison because while they did “cram” the engines under the wing it was not nearly to the same degree that it was done in the MAX. More so to the point, the engines were crammed in front of the wing which is a big part of the problem. Many of us said this would be a bad design, but I don’t think we knew just how bad.


You need to take a look at where they mounted the Engines on the 787 and 777X from the side - Very MAX like. They got a nice Aero benefit out of this placement.


787 and 77X are both FBW and using more than one AOA sensor in all parts of the flight envelope. You're comparing apples to oranges.


I'm quite aware of that - but that has nothing to do with where the engines are. If MCAS had been done correctly the engine placement is no big thing.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:24 pm

morrisond wrote:
If MCAS had been done correctly the engine placement is no big thing.


The fact that MCAS had to be included at all means that engine placement on this particular airplane was a big thing.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2715
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:37 pm

hivue wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If MCAS had been done correctly the engine placement is no big thing.


The fact that MCAS had to be included at all means that engine placement on this particular airplane was a big thing.


No bigger than the issues that FBW systems can cover up.
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
Oh wait, they did, and realized doing NSA would pretty much take them out of the narrowbody market for 4-6 years then they would have spent $billions on a difficult to build and expensive product to try to sell against the entrenched A320 family.


But then Boeing would have an all new narrowbody on the market leaving Airbus with a 30-year old airframe with newer bits attached. All they had to do was announce they were developing a new aircraft after they got "blindsided" by the NEO, and airlines would have waited for them if they felt a 797 was a better option long-term than an optimized A320.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:03 pm

morrisond wrote:
hivue wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If MCAS had been done correctly the engine placement is no big thing.


The fact that MCAS had to be included at all means that engine placement on this particular airplane was a big thing.


No bigger than the issues that FBW systems can cover up.


Correct (although I would say "mitigate" rather than "cover up"), but THIS particular airplane, unfortunately, is not FBW.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:07 pm

Cdydatzigs wrote:
and airlines would have waited for them if they felt a 797 was a better option long-term than an optimized A320.


What the airlines actually felt was that a more fuel efficient "new" 737 needing no sim time for transition was better for their bottom line now than an A320NEO.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:13 pm

Cdydatzigs wrote:
But then Boeing would have an all new narrowbody on the market leaving Airbus with a 30-year old airframe with newer bits attached. All they had to do was announce they were developing a new aircraft after they got "blindsided" by the NEO, and airlines would have waited for them if they felt a 797 was a better option long-term than an optimized A320.

Boeing asked the airlines and was told they would not wait for a NSA.

morrisond wrote:
hivue wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If MCAS had been done correctly the engine placement is no big thing.

The fact that MCAS had to be included at all means that engine placement on this particular airplane was a big thing.

No bigger than the issues that FBW systems can cover up.

It's not even that big. Despite Boeing's gaming the system, if the initial implementation of MCAS 1.0 was the 2.0 implementation the gamesmanship would have been moot. Unfortunately for them, they were so focused on gaming the system the engineers seemed to forget that they still had to produce competent designs and implementations. They are playing the price for focusing on gaming the system, not for choosing a particular engine placement.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:52 pm

737 MAX grounding approaching the COMET 1 timeline now
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
In Airbus's case it gets saddled with a load of royalty payments on the current programmes which put a drag on revenue to take from those programmes and put into a new one.

We might be able to have a discussion on the size of the "saddle", but the amount paid on each aircraft is a closely guarded secret ( ref: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... al-launch/ ).

If the deal was unfavorable to Airbus they'd simply not apply for it, yet we know they have every program, including A350.

The "drag on revenue" clearly is acceptable given the gain of getting 25% of the program funded up front by a benevolent lender who literally can print money if things should go poorly.


We also know that Boeing are equally eligible for RLI, but don't go down that route.
If it were that favourable I'm sure they would have clamoured for it.
Instead they press to receive huge tax breaks, which they obviously find to be more advantageous.
Otherwise why would they do it?
:)

Rgds
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:28 pm

astuteman wrote:
We also know that Boeing are equally eligible for RLI..

We don't. Do tell.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19097
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
We also know that Boeing are equally eligible for RLI..

We don't. Do tell.


Oh we do! RLI was defined in the 1992 Large Aircraft Agreement between the USA and EU. Boeing was as eligible for RLI as Airbus. That Boeing never requested it is by the by.

The USA subsequently unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and started the whole WTO lawyer enrichment program.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4965
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:45 am

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
We also know that Boeing are equally eligible for RLI..

We don't. Do tell.


Oh we do! RLI was defined in the 1992 Large Aircraft Agreement between the USA and EU. Boeing was as eligible for RLI as Airbus. That Boeing never requested it is by the by.

The USA subsequently unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and started the whole WTO lawyer enrichment program.


If anyone would like to confirm that, the text of that agreement is here - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 17%2801%29
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:01 am

morrisond wrote:
You need to take a look at where they mounted the Engines on the 787 and 777X from the side - Very MAX like. They got a nice Aero benefit out of this placement.

Nope. We discussed this one years ago and those in the know told us that putting a big honking engine nacelle up in front of the leading edge of the wing as high as that is suboptimal and is just a trade off for not wanting to spend time and money extending the gear. Your statement just seems ignorantly biased to me boiling down to “Only Boeing does it this way, but because they are doing it it must be better”. At least that’s how it sounds.
Chemist wrote:
I was responding to the OP's points on why the MAX is fundamentally flawed; he started with the crammed engines and then descended (pun intended) into even more ridiculous reasons.
He claimed part of the fundamental flaw was a different BPR than before. But of course the NG had a different BPR than the previous versions of the 737, too. BPR was designed for the aircraft in the sense that this variant of the engine was specifically made with a fan diameter to accommodate the MAX design, and that affects the BPR. The engine was designed at that variant specificially for the MAX.

The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous because it was only MCAS that was poorly designed and implemented. If MCAS had been done correctly the MAX would still be flying and would have had a comparable safety record to all other recent 737s and nobody would be saying the aircraft was flawed. It's my understanding that the 767 also as MCAS-like functionality and nobody is saying that it is fundamentally flawed. The original argument for "fundamentally flawed" is nice revisionist history now that the poster can look back at what happened. But the reality is not that the A/C itself is fundamentally flawed, it is that MCAS was a disastrously bad implementation and that is what was the fundamental problem with this aircraft.

But the size of the fan (a product of seeking a higher BPR) is too big for the design as it is and poses an issue that they failed miserably in trying to fix. Had the fan been smaller it’s quite possible this wouldn’t ever have happened as the engine could be mounted in a better place, but then the aircraft is less efficient. There were two designs of the LEAP-1B that were drawn up before the MAX itself was fully designed and they opted for the larger size, then the engine mounting was designed around this after the dimensions were selected.

The problem is one of philosophy here. MCAS has shown to be fundamentally flawed. The only version of the 737 that reached certification and was signed off as airworthy had this catastrophic system. This as it stands in paperwork is the only 737 MAX that has existed so far. The 737 MAX has flown around with this fundamentally flawed system that has a catastrophic failure model. This system is powerful enough to cause a loss of hull with 100% of people involved dying. This version of the 737 MAX is fundamentally flawed in that respect. Part of it fails and it kills people and destroys the plane. If they built a plane that was just like a 737 but didn’t have a nose gear, sure most of the plane is a totally ok design, but it is fundamentally flawed because it’s missing a nose gear. This however is a problem that won’t kill 100% of people involved most of the times it is encountered. A car with 3 wheels? Yeah fundamentally flawed. But if that’s fundamentally flawed despite the engine being good and everything but the lack of the one wheel, why is something that kills 346 people by design not fundamentally flawed. A machine is all of its components working together, if one fails the machine does not work correctly and is flawed. You might not see it this way but I do.

Also, the 767... only a specific version of it has a system like this and unlike MCAS it is implemented because of a different cause and is implemented like any other flight augmentation is (the correct way), again, unlike MCAS.

You are correct that the OP is being ridiculous and going on with fallacy. Like seriously who uses aesthetics as an reason for something being flawed?
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
2175301
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:03 am

767333ER wrote:
The problem is one of philosophy here. MCAS has shown to be fundamentally flawed. The only version of the 737 that reached certification and was signed off as airworthy had this catastrophic system. This as it stands in paperwork is the only 737 MAX that has existed so far. The 737 MAX has flown around with this fundamentally flawed system that has a catastrophic failure model.

Also, the 767... only a specific version of it has a system like this and unlike MCAS it is implemented because of a different cause and is implemented like any other flight augmentation is (the correct way), again, unlike MCAS.


I disagree with these statements: There is nothing fundamentally flawed about the concept of MCAS for envelope protection at the edges. As you indicate the more modern versions of the 767 has a version of it. The key difference is that the 767 has a more modern computer system with a lot more capability. The past threads have also indicated that there are FBW aircraft with similar edge of envelope protection programmed into the FBW computer systems.

To get MCAS implemented in the 737 computer system they had to use much more limited computer resources (and is not a FBW system so you could not just code in the needed adjustments), and the programming is thus much simpler and shorter.

What was flawed was not the concept of MCAS (or edge of envelope protection system); as other aircraft uses them successfully. But how MCAS was implemented on the 737Max. V1 was very poorly done (and Boeing deserves the blame for that). Had the 737Max had what is now known as V2 (tested in June 2019 - with no publicly stated issues of the revised MCAS programing), or something similar; then none of us probably would have ever heard of MCAS.... as the crashes, had they occurred, would not have had a primary link to MCAS.

The big goof up was at the safety assessment level of the system. Had that been done correctly then Boeing would have been forced up front into something like what we now know as MCAS V2.

Have a great day,
 
Chemist
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:09 am

767333ER wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You need to take a look at where they mounted the Engines on the 787 and 777X from the side - Very MAX like. They got a nice Aero benefit out of this placement.

Nope. We discussed this one years ago and those in the know told us that putting a big honking engine nacelle up in front of the leading edge of the wing as high as that is suboptimal and is just a trade off for not wanting to spend time and money extending the gear. Your statement just seems ignorantly biased to me boiling down to “Only Boeing does it this way, but because they are doing it it must be better”. At least that’s how it sounds.
Chemist wrote:
I was responding to the OP's points on why the MAX is fundamentally flawed; he started with the crammed engines and then descended (pun intended) into even more ridiculous reasons.
He claimed part of the fundamental flaw was a different BPR than before. But of course the NG had a different BPR than the previous versions of the 737, too. BPR was designed for the aircraft in the sense that this variant of the engine was specifically made with a fan diameter to accommodate the MAX design, and that affects the BPR. The engine was designed at that variant specificially for the MAX.

The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous because it was only MCAS that was poorly designed and implemented. If MCAS had been done correctly the MAX would still be flying and would have had a comparable safety record to all other recent 737s and nobody would be saying the aircraft was flawed. It's my understanding that the 767 also as MCAS-like functionality and nobody is saying that it is fundamentally flawed. The original argument for "fundamentally flawed" is nice revisionist history now that the poster can look back at what happened. But the reality is not that the A/C itself is fundamentally flawed, it is that MCAS was a disastrously bad implementation and that is what was the fundamental problem with this aircraft.

But the size of the fan (a product of seeking a higher BPR) is too big for the design as it is and poses an issue that they failed miserably in trying to fix. Had the fan been smaller it’s quite possible this wouldn’t ever have happened as the engine could be mounted in a better place, but then the aircraft is less efficient. There were two designs of the LEAP-1B that were drawn up before the MAX itself was fully designed and they opted for the larger size, then the engine mounting was designed around this after the dimensions were selected.

The problem is one of philosophy here. MCAS has shown to be fundamentally flawed. The only version of the 737 that reached certification and was signed off as airworthy had this catastrophic system. This as it stands in paperwork is the only 737 MAX that has existed so far. The 737 MAX has flown around with this fundamentally flawed system that has a catastrophic failure model. This system is powerful enough to cause a loss of hull with 100% of people involved dying. This version of the 737 MAX is fundamentally flawed in that respect. Part of it fails and it kills people and destroys the plane. If they built a plane that was just like a 737 but didn’t have a nose gear, sure most of the plane is a totally ok design, but it is fundamentally flawed because it’s missing a nose gear. This however is a problem that won’t kill 100% of people involved most of the times it is encountered. A car with 3 wheels? Yeah fundamentally flawed. But if that’s fundamentally flawed despite the engine being good and everything but the lack of the one wheel, why is something that kills 346 people by design not fundamentally flawed. A machine is all of its components working together, if one fails the machine does not work correctly and is flawed. You might not see it this way but I do.

Also, the 767... only a specific version of it has a system like this and unlike MCAS it is implemented because of a different cause and is implemented like any other flight augmentation is (the correct way), again, unlike MCAS.

You are correct that the OP is being ridiculous and going on with fallacy. Like seriously who uses aesthetics as an reason for something being flawed?


There's no doubt that MCAS 1.0 was fundamentally flawed. If you take that as part of the MAX then MAX 1.0 was fundamentally flawed. However the OP was insuating that the entire aircraft needs to be scrapped because its fundamentally flawed, which is ridiculous. MCAS 2.0 assuming it is well designed should solve the problem. In fact, the two crashes would not have occurred if MCAS had not existed, because the non-conforming approach to stall behavior a) didn't occur in those flights; b) probably would have been corrected by the pilots even if that condition DID occur as the stall warning and the stick shaker would have been activated. The fundamental flaw in the A/C was MCAS 1.0 and that should be rectified in v2.0 as the regulators are going to be all over that.

It's a shame that a "safety system" (MCAS) actually caused all those deaths as it was a crap system. We all know that and Boeing is paying a huge price. Unfortunately not as huge a price as the affected passengers.
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:21 am

PepeTheFrog wrote:
planecane wrote:
Without knowing the fiasco that would happen, it would have been insane, from a financial/ROI perspective, for Boeing to do a clean sheet in 2011.


If Boeing could do a clean sheet widebody at that time (787), why wouldn't they be able to manage a clean sheet narrowbody?


I used to have a YouTube video in my Favourite’s List that gave a presentation by “analysts” as to why Boeing were doing the Max in lieu of a new, clean sheet design. Unfortunately it has been removed otherwise I’d share it.

But basically the major reasons not to do a new plane were:
- Overall Cost (Upgrade is cheaper),
- Time (Faster to market/airlines)
- Depressed Sales (If there’s a 6+ year wait, customers may move to the competitor. Heavily discounting the current model NG to sustain sales would not be viewed favourably by shareholders)
- Depressed Resale Values (P*ssing Off customers, especially lessors).

So the discussion agreed it was down to economic rationale in favour of the business and clients.

If they knew then what they know now, maybe the economics of the situation may not have been such an influence. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Rgds,
C1973
Cheers,
C1973


B707, B717, B727, B734, B737, B738, B743, B77W, A300, A320, A332, A333, A339, A388, BAe146, Cessna 206.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:44 am

When Airbus launched the NEO it was too late for a clean sheet. The critical period was around 2006 when Airbus launched the A320 Enhanced and openly talked about adding new engines to it in the second half of the next decade. This was also the time when the GTF closed in one the first test runs and 5 years after the demonstrator engine did successfully run. It was also around that time that CFM started the LEAP56 program. But we all know what kept Boeing busy at the time.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9300
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:44 am

morrisond wrote:
I'm quite aware of that - but that has nothing to do with where the engines are. If MCAS had been done correctly the engine placement is no big thing.


That is setting a very big task.
High control amplification over single AoA is not the only design error in the tasked problem domain.
Using a controltool for "slow reaction to slow changes" ( the workings of speed trim )
to fix a potentially fast upcoming AoA problem was the wrong path to begin with.
Making MCAS more aggressive does not overcome the introduced even larger phase error in the control path.

The MAX crashes exposed the basic problem of the 737 line.
It is all in the domain of the "too small bedspread"
However you pull it to cover up an exposed limb:
elsewhere another limb gets exposed. no full coverage possible.
( reminds me of Atari and its ST(E) line of computers and why they failed in the market.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:52 pm

The sad part about this whole $20 billion and growing debacle is that they could have been flight testing (or close to it) an entirely new narrowbody by now for about the same amount of money. It’s been 9-years since launch already and the new narrow had an estimated development cost around $15-20 billion.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 15

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Block, bmibaby737, cylw, EssentialPowr, GLANKG, jashah, Laulau, Noshow, portola2727, pspfan, ra132914, ROSSIGNOL, ryanov, seat1a, Spacepope, sprxUSA, SueD, travelgirl and 330 guests

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