Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2817
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:17 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
A -9 with -10 landing gear might be interesting. It would allow for better field performance than the current -900. It might allow WN to fly to any airport from MDW with 200 passengers to any airport where they operate in the contiguous United States. It would allow upgauging some west coast to Hawaii flights without having to add an additional flight attendant compared to the -8.

Or, they could just get the -10 for all the above, and save Boeing the bother.

Boeing let the original 737-900 fall by the wayside when they developed a better option. Nothing says they can't do so again, with the -9.


Why would the -10 be a better option for WN? If WN could get 200 seats in a -9 with almost the same pitch as the -8 how would having 2 additional rows of seats be beneficial to WN? That would be 212 seats which would require a fifth flight attendant. The better field performance of the -9 with -10 landing gear may be enough to make the -9 viable at MDW. The -10 might not be.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10971
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:28 pm

On the other MAX-10 thread they have the link below, maybe they are not calling it synthetic, but 2 years from first flight to final certification is long for a derivative, just wondering how much more complicated a actual third sensor would be, perhaps the main delay is not the sensor but the other human / machine interface? Unfortunately for Boeing, the longer it takes to get this bird to market the more its existing clients take on the A321.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... irst-time/
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14182
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:40 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
A -9 with -10 landing gear might be interesting. It would allow for better field performance than the current -900. It might allow WN to fly to any airport from MDW with 200 passengers to any airport where they operate in the contiguous United States. It would allow upgauging some west coast to Hawaii flights without having to add an additional flight attendant compared to the -8.

Or, they could just get the -10 for all the above, and save Boeing the bother.

Boeing let the original 737-900 fall by the wayside when they developed a better option. Nothing says they can't do so again, with the -9.


Why would the -10 be a better option for WN? If WN could get 200 seats in a -9 with almost the same pitch as the -8 how would having 2 additional rows of seats be beneficial to WN? That would be 212 seats which would require a fifth flight attendant. The better field performance of the -9 with -10 landing gear may be enough to make the -9 viable at MDW. The -10 might not be.

You're basing the premise of that question on a theoretical (though still possible) world where a -9 gets all the advantages of a -10 while retaining its lower weight. That world does not yet exist, if indeed it ever will.

I'm positing that in the current reality, where the -10 may outperform the -9 at similar costs, it may be better for WN to spread their 200 seats over that model, taking advantage of the potentially greater performance and higher cargo capacity, and it could very well be a wash if not an advantage for them. All while at the same time placing WN in a favorable negotiable position with Boeing, who may be able to let the -9 go, and incur whatever savings may be inherent there, despite the sunk costs.

Obviously just a theory and nothing more, but a plausible one.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:02 pm

How many more rows can WN put in the 9 over the 8, 3? That would be 175 pax + 18 at 193. The 10 might hold 205 in a similar density to the -8, but maybe add a fourth lav reduces the space to 200 pax. 150 on the 7, 175 on the 8, and 200 on the 10 would be equal increments. The -8 being 13' longer than the -7, and the -10 being 14' longer than the -8.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:12 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
A -9 with -10 landing gear might be interesting. It would allow for better field performance than the current -900. It might allow WN to fly to any airport from MDW with 200 passengers to any airport where they operate in the contiguous United States. It would allow upgauging some west coast to Hawaii flights without having to add an additional flight attendant compared to the -8.

Or, they could just get the -10 for all the above, and save Boeing the bother.

Boeing let the original 737-900 fall by the wayside when they developed a better option. Nothing says they can't do so again, with the -9.


I still think the 9 could have a future as the 737 MAX LR variant. MAX 10 landing gear and MTOW, optional second ACT this should be enough to come close to A321LR range. Good for transatlantic flights from the northeast to north/western Europe with up to around 8 hours flying time (westbound).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:51 pm

par13del wrote:
On the other MAX-10 thread they have the link below, maybe they are not calling it synthetic, but 2 years from first flight to final certification is long for a derivative just wondering how much more complicated a actual third sensor would be, perhaps the main delay is not the sensor but the other human / machine interface? Unfortunately for Boeing, the longer it takes to get this bird to market the more its existing clients take on the A321.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... irst-time/

Comparisons to previous programs don't apply. As your link suggests a lot of the delay is a function of the current regulatory climate, and most people would say they are okay with that.

The ST article stumbles around the synthetic sensor issue a bit but more technical sources such as FG and some posts from Boeing employees here tell us they are doing enhanced AoA rather than 787-style synthetic AoA, and EASA is quoted as saying synthetic AoA is not a requirement.

DLHAM wrote:
I still think the 9 could have a future as the 737 MAX LR variant. MAX 10 landing gear and MTOW, optional second ACT this should be enough to come close to A321LR range. Good for transatlantic flights from the northeast to north/western Europe with up to around 8 hours flying time (westbound).

United Airlines signed up for 100 MAX-10s and FR is asking for 100 MAX-10s. If similar orders emerge for the -9 size rather than the -10 size there's no reason it can't happen, but the fact they wanted the -10 size should suggest it's not about range it's about capacity.

One person here talks a lot about how most airline flights are 2 hours or less when they want to push ecological concepts. Guess what, it applies even when we're not talking about ecological concepts.
 
KarlB737
Posts: 2949
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:42 am

Courtesy: Airways Magazine

Boeing Completes First 737 Max 10 Flight (+Photos)

https://airwaysmag.com/industry/boeing/boeing-first-737-max-10-flight/
 
planecane
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:54 am

par13del wrote:
On the other MAX-10 thread they have the link below, maybe they are not calling it synthetic, but 2 years from first flight to final certification is long for a derivative, just wondering how much more complicated a actual third sensor would be, perhaps the main delay is not the sensor but the other human / machine interface? Unfortunately for Boeing, the longer it takes to get this bird to market the more its existing clients take on the A321.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... irst-time/

From the article, "We looked at an enhancement to the air data indication system” that provides alerts to the crew, Deal said. “We are working on that as we speak.”

That's not a synthetic AoA. They aren't doing that anymore.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 7:04 am

The physical part of adding a third system, if that should be what is coming, can't be too difficult for Boeing. Then what does take so long to get certified? The first flight looked pretty routine, the new gear seems to work well, but they need two years of flight test?
So the existing modified data display system of the recent build MAXes is not considered good enough by one or more certification authorities. It's still some issue to solve with given cockpit hardware. This might be why they are still shy.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:40 am

LAX772LR wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
A -9 with -10 landing gear might be interesting. It would allow for better field performance than the current -900. It might allow WN to fly to any airport from MDW with 200 passengers to any airport where they operate in the contiguous United States. It would allow upgauging some west coast to Hawaii flights without having to add an additional flight attendant compared to the -8.

Or, they could just get the -10 for all the above, and save Boeing the bother.

Boeing let the original 737-900 fall by the wayside when they developed a better option. Nothing says they can't do so again, with the -9.


The -10 landing gear is expensive afaics.
Significant developement effort.
Many more parts.
Higher weight due to more parts and ~double the loads in the oleo gear leg.
Higher maintenance due to more (+moving) parts, higher loads.

Interest in the -10 hasn't really gone overboard, has it ?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:30 pm

Noshow wrote:
The physical part of adding a third system, if that should be what is coming, can't be too difficult for Boeing.

A third system is NOT coming.

It IS difficult due to the "legacy independent federated system architecture of the Boeing 737".

Enhanced AoA integrity is coming.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

Noshow wrote:
Then what does take so long to get certified? The first flight looked pretty routine, the new gear seems to work well, but they need two years of flight test?

Are you suggesting there should be pressure on Boeing and FAA to do a shorter flight test?

Isn't that the exact kind of thing that could lead to problems if not catastrophes in the future?

Noshow wrote:
So the existing modified data display system of the recent build MAXes is not considered good enough by one or more certification authorities. It's still some issue to solve with given cockpit hardware. This might be why they are still shy.

Both EASA and FAA did a deep review of the certification of the flight control system of the 737 MAX and both certified it complies with regulations.

It IS good enough.

That doesn't mean it can't be made better.

WIederling wrote:
The -10 landing gear is expensive afaics.
Significant developement effort.
Many more parts.
Higher weight due to more parts and ~double the loads in the oleo gear leg.
Higher maintenance due to more (+moving) parts, higher loads.

Interest in the -10 hasn't really gone overboard, has it ?

Wiki isn't 100% accurate but it says there are 483 total MAX-10 orders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries ) just as first flight has occurred, and many in the unknown category (Boeing is not breaking out orders any more) and many conversion possibilities from MAX-8 or MAX-9.

I'd say it's doing well relative to expectations unless your expectations were overboard...

KarlB737 wrote:
Courtesy: Airways Magazine

Boeing Completes First 737 Max 10 Flight (+Photos)

https://airwaysmag.com/industry/boeing/boeing-first-737-max-10-flight/

My first impression was "man, those photos are awesome!" and then I saw who authored the article... ;)
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2817
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:11 pm

WIederling wrote:
The -10 landing gear is expensive afaics.
Significant developement effort.
Many more parts.
Higher weight due to more parts and ~double the loads in the oleo gear leg.
Higher maintenance due to more (+moving) parts, higher loads.

Interest in the -10 hasn't really gone overboard, has it ?


Boeing already had experience developing a levered landing gear for the 777-300ER.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:39 pm

WIederling wrote:
The -10 landing gear is expensive afaics.
Significant developement effort.
Many more parts.
Higher weight due to more parts and ~double the loads in the oleo gear leg.
Higher maintenance due to more (+moving) parts, higher loads.

Interest in the -10 hasn't really gone overboard, has it ?


It would be useful to quantify those, rather than just raise them as objections. Otherwise it might just be unsubstantiated F.U.D. Like you. I want the MAX replaced as well (though I sense your displeasure extends to nearly all Boeing family members and US centric manufacturers. At times, your bias can be hard to overlook when you make concerned statements. That said, I really enjoy your insights and well thought out contributions, sans the aforementioned disdain that sometimes accompanies them. ). Back to gear cost and complexity, its sunk cost and they need to reap a bit of cash flow from the program in the short-term (Again, I'm hoping very short term! The MAX family needs replacing!)

Regarding this telescoping, pivoting gear, I take a different approach than you and see this is a rather clever, relatively simple, and somewhat inexpensive solution to a very big problem that has plagued every 737 larger than the 800; poor take off performance due to limited rotation angle. If this gear improves the 10's runway performance such that it is better than the 900, 900ER and 9MAX, that opens up 10MAX sales for routes where those planes may have been deemed unsuitable, due to shorter runways. Even the A321 can take a bit of runway (per Airbus Tech docs) to lift off with a good load despite a more favorable gear lenght / rotation angle. Maybe this gear is bringing the 10MAX to near par with it as well?

If Boeing is honest about 540+ 10MAX sales then we are going to have lots of opportunities to see this gear's suitability to task, cost impact, maintenance requirements, reliability and longevity. Yes, MAX needs to be replaced, but in the meantime Boeing needs cash if it is going to pursue such a program soon. 600 or so sales of the 10, the most expensive and probably most profitable MAX variant, might just do that.

I look forward to further testing of the 10MAX so that we gain more insight into the benefits of this gear..
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14619
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:56 pm

Perspectives, lengths:

737-8 : 39.52 m
737-9 : 42.16 m
737-10: 43.8 m

A320 : 37.57 m
A321 : 44.51 m

The 737 MAX's are relatively close together, all in between A320 and A321.
 
Naincompetent
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:20 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:06 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Higher weight due to more parts and ~double the loads in the oleo gear leg.
Higher maintenance due to more (+moving) parts, higher loads


Back to gear cost and complexity, its sunk cost and they need to reap a bit of cash flow from the program in the short-term (Again, I'm hoping very short term! The MAX family needs replacing!)

Regarding this telescoping, pivoting gear, I take a different approach than you and see this is a rather clever, relatively simple, and somewhat inexpensive solution to a very big problem


Only the development is sunken cost.
The maintenance will be most certainly more expensive because of the added complexity.
By how much and will it be significant? Impossible to say for now, but it will be probably be worth it in regards to the additional performances it provides on the - 10.
Will it be worth it to adapt it back on the - 9? Again, too soon to say but the question is far from being stupid and although the development cost of the gear itself is already sunken, the operational cost/benefit question remains.

You see this as a somewhat inexpensive solution and I could return you the same point you raised "it would be useful to quantify those", it is still an added expense and complexity. Worth it? Probably, maybe, need to wait for numbers...
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:10 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Boeing already had experience developing a levered landing gear for the 777-300ER.


They don't have anything in common.
.. well beyond some wheels attached and an oleo leg.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:14 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
The -10 landing gear is expensive afaics.
Significant developement effort.
Many more parts.
Higher weight due to more parts and ~double the loads in the oleo gear leg.
Higher maintenance due to more (+moving) parts, higher loads.

Interest in the -10 hasn't really gone overboard, has it ?


Boeing already had experience developing a levered landing gear for the 777-300ER.


Telescopic gear and semi levered gear are not the same thing. However, I don't think its as expensive as the other guy says it is.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:20 pm

keesje wrote:
Perspectives, lengths:

737-8 : 39.52 m
737-9 : 42.16 m
737-10: 43.8 m

A320 : 37.57 m
A321 : 44.51 m

The 737 MAX's are relatively close together, all in between A320 and A321.


This is interesting, never looked at it this way. On the other hand Airbus does not have anything to offer in the whole area between 37,50m and 44,50m.
By the MAX8s ability to seat up to 210 (theoretically) the 8 moves even higher up/closer to the 9. MAX8/200: 210, MAX9: 220, MAX10: 230. They are all only 10 seats apart. Makes the MAX9 kind of obsolete IMO, except for those who need the range.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:21 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Telescopic gear and semi levered gear are not the same thing. However, I don't think its as expensive as the other guy says it is.


You are correct, even I described it incorrectly as a telescoping gear.... Semi-Levered is more correct.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:25 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Telescopic gear and semi levered gear are not the same thing. However, I don't think its as expensive as the other guy says it is.

You are correct, even I described it incorrectly as a telescoping gear.... Semi-Levered is more correct.

It seems the "other guy" can't quantify his comments. Clearly MAX10 has more elements in the gear but it's not clear how often these need maintenance and/or replacement and what that would do to the overall economics of the airplane, which I'd suggest in the great scheme of things is negligible.

As for terminology, if I am following correctly 777 is semi-levered gear ( https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-semi-le ... ed-in-B777 ) whereas MAX10 is telescoping, yet both Boeing's text ( see below ) and video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IGl4OizM4 ) refer to a lever being used during extension and a "shrinking mechanism" aka the "shrink link" being used during retraction.

What makes this landing gear so unique? It has two key features that are critical for the longer design of the MAX 10: A lever that allows the landing gear to grow taller upon takeoff, and a shrinking mechanism that helps the gear retract to fit into the existing wheel well.

Ref: https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/08 ... 08-18.page

Overall though I'd say it's appropriate to go with semi-levered for 777 and telescoping for MAX-10.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:28 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Telescopic gear and semi levered gear are not the same thing. However, I don't think its as expensive as the other guy says it is.


You are correct, even I described it incorrectly as a telescoping gear.... Semi-Levered is more correct.


"trailing link" is the generic name:
http://www.b737.org.uk/images/max10mlg.jpg
borrowed from http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm ( imu the patent image )

lever has 3 attachment points:
C: rear: wheel axle ( force from below )
B: middle ( well 55..60% ) attachment and counter force of the oleo leg from above.
A: front linkage to the static part of the oleo leg. ( ignore the shortening mechanism for folding )
lever rotates about the front.
oleo leg load is wheel loading * ( A-C ) / (B-C)
AC = 100%, BC ~= 55..60%
oleo leg load is 1.8 .. 1.7 times the wheel loading.
higher forces mandate more beefy design and thus increased weight.
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:49 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Avgeek21 wrote:
Do we know the LEAP thrust rating for these MAX 10’s? I’ve read several figures and don’t know which one’s correct.


I too am curious about this, Is there enough in the -1B to increase thrust for the -10 vs the -9? Or are they banking on the gear solving the takeoff distance issue alone. I also figure that the -10 has a higher MTOW but it might not be very significant.


MTOW on the -8 is 82,190 Kgs and the -9 is 88,314 kgs with both versions having a LEAP 1B thrust rating of 28K with a thrust bump option. I believe I read somewhere the -10 is around 92,0 +/- with a thrust rating of 29,317 lbf. The LEAP 1A on the A321 Neo for comparison has 33,100 lbf I believe. That Neo is only around 1,5 tonnes heavier. That is a big difference in thrust.

Can anyone confirm the MAX 10 thrust rating and MTOW?
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:14 pm

Nnaeto87 wrote:
https://twitter.com/photoJDL/status/1405939508361658371?s=20

This shot gives you a good idea of how long the gear is compared to other 737s


An explanation of how it works versus other thirty-sevens.

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

Forgive me if it's been posted already.
 
Captaincurious
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:31 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 7:49 pm

How long is first test flight from certification
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:28 pm

Avgeek21 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Avgeek21 wrote:
Do we know the LEAP thrust rating for these MAX 10’s? I’ve read several figures and don’t know which one’s correct.


I too am curious about this, Is there enough in the -1B to increase thrust for the -10 vs the -9? Or are they banking on the gear solving the takeoff distance issue alone. I also figure that the -10 has a higher MTOW but it might not be very significant.


MTOW on the -8 is 82,190 Kgs and the -9 is 88,314 kgs with both versions having a LEAP 1B thrust rating of 28K with a thrust bump option. I believe I read somewhere the -10 is around 92,0 +/- with a thrust rating of 29,317 lbf. The LEAP 1A on the A321 Neo for comparison has 33,100 lbf I believe. That Neo is only around 1,5 tonnes heavier. That is a big difference in thrust.

Can anyone confirm the MAX 10 thrust rating and MTOW?


When comparing A320CEO/NEO and 737NG/MAX its good to keep in mind that the '37 does have the advantage of a newer wing that is more efficient (generates more lift, holds more fuel, etc..)... I know, I know, you want me to quantify it... I can't. Guilty as charged. But it is fair to say the -37 needs a bit less thrust to get a similar weight airborne when compared to the A320. Again, I can't quantify how much, but others can. So, It might not be surprising to see a 10 at 92k Kg needing 29.5lbs of thrust and an A321 at 93.2k Kg needing 33lbs of thrust. This might explain the better performance in general of the 737 over the A320 on shorter (less than 1000 nmi) trips.... It takes a bit of distance at cruise for the A320 to make up for the disadvantage at take-off. I'm just reporting what I've gleaned from A.net after 17 years of membership... but I don't have the documented evidence in front of me. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to take the chance of repeating anecdotes...
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:38 pm

Captaincurious wrote:
How long is first test flight from certification


That is totally hard to predict. We don't know the impact of the FAA's Pilot Response/Cockpit Design study yet. There may come a point when testing must pause as those interfaces are settled upon.... or perhaps the impact of those studies will be small.... As aviation fans, I don't think we know yet.... We will have to wait for experts or better informed contributors to answer that for us...
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:13 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
When comparing A320CEO/NEO and 737NG/MAX its good to keep in mind that the '37 does have the advantage of a newer wing that is more efficient (generates more lift, holds more fuel, etc..)... I know, I know, you want me to quantify it... I can't. Guilty as charged. But it is fair to say the -37 needs a bit less thrust to get a similar weight airborne when compared to the A320.


The 737 range needs less thrust because it only has to conform to 1960ties one engine out / obstacle clearance rules.

More fuel in the wings is about all the advantage of the NG wing there is.

MAX OEW weights seem to now be well beyond comparable A320 numbers ( where the last published ones had A3 and NG matched. )
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:17 am

MAX OEW weights seem to now be well beyond comparable A320 numbers ( where the last published ones had A3 and NG matched. )


Sorry, in English this means? Lot’s of us are non native speakers.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:34 am

Avgeek21 wrote:
MAX OEW weights seem to now be well beyond comparable A320 numbers ( where the last published ones had A3 and NG matched. )


Sorry, in English this means? Lot’s of us are non native speakers.


me neither :-)

In short: the MAX has gained quite some weight. :-)
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:35 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

When comparing A320CEO/NEO and 737NG/MAX its good to keep in mind that the '37 does have the advantage of a newer wing that is more efficient (generates more lift, holds more fuel, etc..)... I know, I know, you want me to quantify it... I can't. Guilty as charged. But it is fair to say the -37 needs a bit less thrust to get a similar weight airborne when compared to the A320. Again, I can't quantify how much, but others can. So, It might not be surprising to see a 10 at 92k Kg needing 29.5lbs of thrust and an A321 at 93.2k Kg needing 33lbs of thrust. This might explain the better performance in general of the 737 over the A320 on shorter (less than 1000 nmi) trips.... It takes a bit of distance at cruise for the A320 to make up for the disadvantage at take-off. I'm just reporting what I've gleaned from A.net after 17 years of membership... but I don't have the documented evidence in front of me. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to take the chance of repeating anecdotes...


I really didn't want to bring this up someone else did and for the most part it was ignored on this thread, but now I have to ask and put a spot light on this.

Last week while Denver baked in the 95+F / 35+C degree summer heat we had multiple MAX 9s operating DEN-IAD complete full at 179 total passengers with over 180 bags. The MAX9 with it's newer wing had to make fuel stops just like it 739ER counterpart.

I know the MAX 9 is more fuel efficient than the 739ER we saw this prior to the grounding where during the pineapple express a 739ER can't operate LAX/SFO-Hawaii with a full passenger cabin (179 passengers) but UA's MAX 9s could operate the route fully loaded.

However from an airport like DEN when it is excessively warm do to the height of the airport the MAX 9 is just as useless as the 739ER trying to lift all that weight off the ground. So I guess the advantage the MAX has depends on the airport location and the temperature because United's Airbus's had no problems getting out of DEN during the heat.
 
User avatar
PixelPilot
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:04 pm

Can't believe it's Monday and there are no videos of landing and stuff like that.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:50 pm

jayunited wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

When comparing A320CEO/NEO and 737NG/MAX its good to keep in mind that the '37 does have the advantage of a newer wing that is more efficient (generates more lift, holds more fuel, etc..)... I know, I know, you want me to quantify it... I can't. Guilty as charged. But it is fair to say the -37 needs a bit less thrust to get a similar weight airborne when compared to the A320. Again, I can't quantify how much, but others can. So, It might not be surprising to see a 10 at 92k Kg needing 29.5lbs of thrust and an A321 at 93.2k Kg needing 33lbs of thrust. This might explain the better performance in general of the 737 over the A320 on shorter (less than 1000 nmi) trips.... It takes a bit of distance at cruise for the A320 to make up for the disadvantage at take-off. I'm just reporting what I've gleaned from A.net after 17 years of membership... but I don't have the documented evidence in front of me. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to take the chance of repeating anecdotes...


I really didn't want to bring this up someone else did and for the most part it was ignored on this thread, but now I have to ask and put a spot light on this.

Last week while Denver baked in the 95+F / 35+C degree summer heat we had multiple MAX 9s operating DEN-IAD complete full at 179 total passengers with over 180 bags. The MAX9 with it's newer wing had to make fuel stops just like it 739ER counterpart.

I know the MAX 9 is more fuel efficient than the 739ER we saw this prior to the grounding where during the pineapple express a 739ER can't operate LAX/SFO-Hawaii with a full passenger cabin (179 passengers) but UA's MAX 9s could operate the route fully loaded.

However from an airport like DEN when it is excessively warm do to the height of the airport the MAX 9 is just as useless as the 739ER trying to lift all that weight off the ground. So I guess the advantage the MAX has depends on the airport location and the temperature because United's Airbus's had no problems getting out of DEN during the heat.


When i spoke of advantage/disadvantage... I was only talking about fuel burn from to takeoff to altitude. Not performance. That's a non-starter... We all know there is a big performance 'disadvantage' when talking 900/900ER/9MAX. I wouldn't describe the MAX9 as useless... just not optimal for extreme HOT and HIGH. The Fuel stop was probably because they couldn't put the full amount of fuel with the pax/bags at their limit on an extremely hot day from a high airport. Maybe the 10's increased rotation angle will improve that... who knows? Perhaps we will see the 10 fly out of Denver on a hot day as part of the testing campaign..... You can report your observations for us!

I'm not sure anyone was defending the 9MAX 'performance' on this thread about the 10MAX flight campaign. But feel free to join the others who've come here to throw shade on the NG/MAX programs instead of just talking about the 10MAX flight campaign.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:53 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
A -9 with -10 landing gear might be interesting. It would allow for better field performance than the current -900. It might allow WN to fly to any airport from MDW with 200 passengers to any airport where they operate in the contiguous United States. It would allow upgauging some west coast to Hawaii flights without having to add an additional flight attendant compared to the -8.

Or, they could just get the -10 for all the above, and save Boeing the bother.

Boeing let the original 737-900 fall by the wayside when they developed a better option. Nothing says they can't do so again, with the -9.


Why would the -10 be a better option for WN? If WN could get 200 seats in a -9 with almost the same pitch as the -8 how would having 2 additional rows of seats be beneficial to WN? That would be 212 seats which would require a fifth flight attendant. The better field performance of the -9 with -10 landing gear may be enough to make the -9 viable at MDW. The -10 might not be.


I think -9 is the path of least resistance for Southwest. The -10 brings issues that they will have to decide if it's worth the trade-off.

- Gate Space... Some gates in their system are already at capacity with the -8. There is no more physical room to restripe to accommodate 9 foot longer plane let alone a 14-foot longer plane. Not saying this is a deal-breaker but has to be considered for trade-off value.

- At 200 seats you will end up with excess space on the Max 10 upstairs. That could be filled with 4th lav or even storage space for flight attendants, which in turn would open up more overhead space for passengers. Downstairs in theory it would be an extra 5 1/2 feet of cargo space over the Max 9

-Range should not be much of an issue with either model, it seems that 2500nm is enough range to cover most of N. America from HOU,DAL & MDW. Whether they can get that range from those runway lengths is a different story as I don't know the answer to that.

Southwest will have an interesting decision to make in regards to the Max 9 or 10. This revolves around if the Max 9 gets the Max 10s gear, I believe it to be inevitable. I also see Boeing offering the landing gear as a retrofit for older Max 9s which would boost the performance of existing operators.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:09 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Or, they could just get the -10 for all the above, and save Boeing the bother.

Boeing let the original 737-900 fall by the wayside when they developed a better option. Nothing says they can't do so again, with the -9.


Why would the -10 be a better option for WN? If WN could get 200 seats in a -9 with almost the same pitch as the -8 how would having 2 additional rows of seats be beneficial to WN? That would be 212 seats which would require a fifth flight attendant. The better field performance of the -9 with -10 landing gear may be enough to make the -9 viable at MDW. The -10 might not be.


I think -9 is the path of least resistance for Southwest. The -10 brings issues that they will have to decide if it's worth the trade-off.

- Gate Space... Some gates in their system are already at capacity with the -8. There is no more physical room to restripe to accommodate 9 foot longer plane let alone a 14-foot longer plane. Not saying this is a deal-breaker but has to be considered for trade-off value.

- At 200 seats you will end up with excess space on the Max 10 upstairs. That could be filled with 4th lav or even storage space for flight attendants, which in turn would open up more overhead space for passengers. Downstairs in theory it would be an extra 5 1/2 feet of cargo space over the Max 9

-Range should not be much of an issue with either model, it seems that 2500nm is enough range to cover most of N. America from HOU,DAL & MDW. Whether they can get that range from those runway lengths is a different story as I don't know the answer to that.

Southwest will have an interesting decision to make in regards to the Max 9 or 10. This revolves around if the Max 9 gets the Max 10s gear, I believe it to be inevitable. I also see Boeing offering the landing gear as a retrofit for older Max 9s which would boost the performance of existing operators.

I believe it is inevitable that the -9 receives the -10 gear. I concur, if offered, WN is very likely to buy it. As will many other airlines. It seems like a natural winner.

Lightsaber
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:51 pm

Avgeek21 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Avgeek21 wrote:
Do we know the LEAP thrust rating for these MAX 10’s? I’ve read several figures and don’t know which one’s correct.


I too am curious about this, Is there enough in the -1B to increase thrust for the -10 vs the -9? Or are they banking on the gear solving the takeoff distance issue alone. I also figure that the -10 has a higher MTOW but it might not be very significant.


MTOW on the -8 is 82,190 Kgs and the -9 is 88,314 kgs with both versions having a LEAP 1B thrust rating of 28K with a thrust bump option. I believe I read somewhere the -10 is around 92,0 +/- with a thrust rating of 29,317 lbf. The LEAP 1A on the A321 Neo for comparison has 33,100 lbf I believe. That Neo is only around 1,5 tonnes heavier. That is a big difference in thrust.

Can anyone confirm the MAX 10 thrust rating and MTOW?


The highest weight version of the -10 MTOW is 89.765 kg (197,900lbs). Barely enough increase from the -9 to cover higher OEW. Far from the 92,0 mention.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:10 pm

http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm

They claim around 92 tons as well. Typically a very well informed site.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10036
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:41 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Nnaeto87 wrote:
I am assuming it allow it better runway performance than the 9?

If it does, which I'm also assuming to be the case, then the value proposal for the -9 becomes even more dubious than it is now.

Unless either (A) the airline is a dedicated 737 operator to the point of not even considering the A321N, or (B) Boeing demands some crazy premium for the -10 over the -9; it really seems questionable what a lower-capacity and comparatively sluggish -9 would bring to the table for a carrier over the alternative.


A -9 with -10 landing gear might be interesting. It would allow for better field performance than the current -900. It might allow WN to fly to any airport from MDW with 200 passengers to any airport where they operate in the contiguous United States. It would allow upgauging some west coast to Hawaii flights without having to add an additional flight attendant compared to the -8.

There are recent examples of U.S. carriers adding the extra FA for seven seats or nine seats to narrow bodies, let alone 12. It's all about FA labor dollar productivity against forecasted incremental revenue.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14182
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:40 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
There are recent examples of U.S. carriers adding the extra FA for seven seats or nine seats to narrow bodies, let alone 12.

Which one of them were LoCos though?
(honest question)
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:01 pm

Noshow wrote:
http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm

They claim around 92 tons as well. Typically a very well informed site.


I think I will stay with Boeing’s own official documents for such information, rather than an enthusiast site however well qualified he is.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/737MAX_RevF.pdf#page23
 
planecane
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:13 pm

keesje wrote:
Perspectives, lengths:

737-8 : 39.52 m
737-9 : 42.16 m
737-10: 43.8 m

A320 : 37.57 m
A321 : 44.51 m

The 737 MAX's are relatively close together, all in between A320 and A321.


How late long is the MAX 7? Also, do you know the cabin length of these aircraft?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:18 pm

planecane wrote:
keesje wrote:
Perspectives, lengths:

737-8 : 39.52 m
737-9 : 42.16 m
737-10: 43.8 m

A320 : 37.57 m
A321 : 44.51 m

The 737 MAX's are relatively close together, all in between A320 and A321.


How late long is the MAX 7? Also, do you know the cabin length of these aircraft?

The MAX7 fuselage is 35.20 m long.
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:40 pm

arcticcruiser wrote:
Noshow wrote:
http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm

They claim around 92 tons as well. Typically a very well informed site.


I think I will stay with Boeing’s own official documents for such information, rather than an enthusiast site however well qualified he is.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/737MAX_RevF.pdf#page23


Thanks for the document. I did notice there is a difference between my companies 737-8 MTOW and Boeing’s figure. Ours is lower. The 737-9 weights are identical.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:37 pm

Preliminary anyway.
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:45 pm

Noshow wrote:
Preliminary anyway.


How so? You think Boeing is going to try to see how heavy they can get it into the air during certification and decide the MTOW from that? That is not how it works.
Among my other duties is analysis for Fleet Planning. I worked on the 737 MAX analysis from launch, while it was still a paper airplane. The MTOWs of the -8 and -9 were decided at the launch stage. Same goes for the -10 that offers 3 weight variants. It´s long decided and will not change.
There is nothing "preliminary" about those numbers.
This airplane suffers in many ways. From lack of thrust and lack of wing. Two really limiting factors. The gear/rotation issue was solved with a strange but ingenious fix. It will do ok on short sectors. That is what is is designed for.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:17 pm

737-10 INFORMATION IS PRELIMINARY


This is printed on the document you linked.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:25 pm

arcticcruiser wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Preliminary anyway.


How so? You think Boeing is going to try to see how heavy they can get it into the air during certification and decide the MTOW from that? That is not how it works.
Among my other duties is analysis for Fleet Planning. I worked on the 737 MAX analysis from launch, while it was still a paper airplane. The MTOWs of the -8 and -9 were decided at the launch stage. Same goes for the -10 that offers 3 weight variants. It´s long decided and will not change.
There is nothing "preliminary" about those numbers.
This airplane suffers in many ways. From lack of thrust and lack of wing. Two really limiting factors. The gear/rotation issue was solved with a strange but ingenious fix. It will do ok on short sectors. That is what is is designed for.

Every page says 737-10 Info is Preliminary in your link
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:31 am

Noshow wrote:
http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm

They claim around 92 tons as well. Typically a very well informed site.


A bit like the link you posted in reply 186 says "Approx 92,000kg", no?

Slightly higher MTOW, approx 92,000kg


Why anyone would want to use an "approximate" figure from an enthusiasts website over an official figure from the manufacturer, no matter how preliminary, is a bit of a mystery to me.

When Boeing update the preliminary figure, I'll believe it.

Rgds
 
Noshow
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:35 am

The second quote is not mine. The site I mentioned is less enthusiast than this.
The MAX 10 just recently entered flight test. Finally Boeing will let us know the certified data.
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:40 am

arcticcruiser wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Preliminary anyway.


How so? You think Boeing is going to try to see how heavy they can get it into the air during certification and decide the MTOW from that? That is not how it works.
Among my other duties is analysis for Fleet Planning. I worked on the 737 MAX analysis from launch, while it was still a paper airplane. The MTOWs of the -8 and -9 were decided at the launch stage. Same goes for the -10 that offers 3 weight variants. It´s long decided and will not change.
There is nothing "preliminary" about those numbers.
This airplane suffers in many ways. From lack of thrust and lack of wing. Two really limiting factors. The gear/rotation issue was solved with a strange but ingenious fix. It will do ok on short sectors. That is what is is designed for.


Thanks for your inputs. You state a 'lack of thrust'. Why is that? The LEAP 1A and 1B are very similar. Is the difference in max thrust output mainly due to the larger bypass ratio on the 1A? Can the 1B be 'bumped' up by software to 30k lbs?

Does anyone know how the wingarea on the MAX 8 compares to the A320Neo?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:35 am

Avgeek21 wrote:
arcticcruiser wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Preliminary anyway.


How so? You think Boeing is going to try to see how heavy they can get it into the air during certification and decide the MTOW from that? That is not how it works.
Among my other duties is analysis for Fleet Planning. I worked on the 737 MAX analysis from launch, while it was still a paper airplane. The MTOWs of the -8 and -9 were decided at the launch stage. Same goes for the -10 that offers 3 weight variants. It´s long decided and will not change.
There is nothing "preliminary" about those numbers.
This airplane suffers in many ways. From lack of thrust and lack of wing. Two really limiting factors. The gear/rotation issue was solved with a strange but ingenious fix. It will do ok on short sectors. That is what is is designed for.


Thanks for your inputs. You state a 'lack of thrust'. Why is that? The LEAP 1A and 1B are very similar. Is the difference in max thrust output mainly due to the larger bypass ratio on the 1A? Can the 1B be 'bumped' up by software to 30k lbs?

Does anyone know how the wingarea on the MAX 8 compares to the A320Neo?

Yes, it is primarily a limitation of the lower bypass ratio from the smaller fan.

The 737’s wing is slightly larger than the A320neo’s wing. The A321neo has a slight area increase (although still around size of 737 wing at most) but has things like double slotted flaps, not found on the MAX 10, to help low speed lift. Both (MAX 10 and A321) could really benefit from new larger wings though.

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