Boeing Max.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Boeing Max.
It is coming up on six months since it was grounded.
I wonder if they will keep on making them when it is returned to service?
I wonder if they will keep on making them when it is returned to service?
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:52 pm
- Location: CYVR
- Contact:
Re: Boeing Max.
There are currently over 5000 outstanding orders on the books for the 737-MAX of all types with nothing to replace them with. Airbus is failing to meet order dates in the 320 NEO so to go to the back of the line is not an option to expand A new narrow body would take a decade or so to get certified. So yes they have to in my mind.
Cheers,
200hr Wonder
200hr Wonder
Re: Boeing Max.
I watched on youtube and found that there is a basic design flaw in MAX, i.e. the engines are not placed as they should be, height of max plane is too low as compare to neo and then they had problems installing engine that low so they moved engine little bit higher than the wing causing nose move upward during take off leading to a stall, so boeing tried to fix this design flaw by software causing death to people, I will always avoid flying in that plane.200hr Wonder wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:23 pm There are currently over 5000 outstanding orders on the books for the 737-MAX of all types with nothing to replace them with. Airbus is failing to meet order dates in the 320 NEO so to go to the back of the line is not an option to expand A new narrow body would take a decade or so to get certified. So yes they have to in my mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
regards
Re: Boeing Max.
That is my feelings on the Max also, they placed the engines in a position that changed the flying characteristics when changing power.I watched on youtube and found that there is a basic design flaw in MAX, i.e. the engines are not placed as they should be, height of max plane is too low as compare to neo and then they had problems installing engine that low so they moved engine little bit higher than the wing causing nose move upward during take off leading to a stall, so boeing tried to fix this design flaw by software causing death to people, I will always avoid flying in that plane.
For sure it is going to be very costly for Boeing by the time the court settlements are finished.
Re: Boeing Max.
The answer has nothing to do with outstanding orders or how long a replacement would take to come online. The answer is whether the public will fly on it again. If enough people refuse to book a trip on one the model will be cancelled.
Re: Boeing Max.
You give the travelling public too much credit. $600 billion on the order book will be cancelled by the travelling public's opinion? Wrong...
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Re: Boeing Max.
It will be the safest plane ever known to man after this is all over.
So safe they should change the name to the 737-SFR
So safe they should change the name to the 737-SFR
- Old fella
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2399
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
Re: Boeing Max.
Majority of the travelling public couldn’t tell the difference between aircraft types, in any event if the price is right there will be no problem with butts in the seats.
Re: Boeing Max.
It will be back once the regulators decide it's safe to fly.
Until then, boeing has to deal with all the fallout and legal cases.
Until then, boeing has to deal with all the fallout and legal cases.
Re: Boeing Max.
Because youtube knows better than aeronautic engineers.....imcool wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:37 pmI watched on youtube and found that there is a basic design flaw in MAX, i.e. the engines are not placed as they should be, height of max plane is too low as compare to neo and then they had problems installing engine that low so they moved engine little bit higher than the wing causing nose move upward during take off leading to a stall, so boeing tried to fix this design flaw by software causing death to people, I will always avoid flying in that plane.200hr Wonder wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:23 pm There are currently over 5000 outstanding orders on the books for the 737-MAX of all types with nothing to replace them with. Airbus is failing to meet order dates in the 320 NEO so to go to the back of the line is not an option to expand A new narrow body would take a decade or so to get certified. So yes they have to in my mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
regards
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am
Re: Boeing Max.
Even when it flies again, the troubles for Boeing will be far from over. They have significant internal culture problems that can't be fixed by putting the MAX back in the sky. A serious shake-up is in order. Not to mention the billions in compensation they will be paying both to victims families and to to all the airlines who've had to park airplanes and slash flight schedules.
Re: Boeing Max.
It's one of the facts of underslung engines. Overshoot without the autopilot in a 73 classic and you get the picture. The new aircraft and the modern automatics are designed to compensate this. All aircraft with this engine mounting has the characteristic. Airbus is no different and they also had a history of software bugs. The max is likely a good aircraft but pressed into service too s soon, just like the DC10. Training was lacking with poor oversight and couple that with certain crew demographics we end up with today's mess.
Boeing certainly dropped the ball and should share the blame and certainly was selling the Coolaide when it came to conversion training and the whole package. The fact remains that the crew did not comply with procedures and in the last case never reduced thrust. We all know the the elephant in the room is the quality of flight crews in certain parts of the world but that has been swept under the rug. Yes, I say again, Boeing has to take responsibility but what comes out of this, as stated, will be the best of the best as well be as safe as it can possibly be.
Boeing certainly dropped the ball and should share the blame and certainly was selling the Coolaide when it came to conversion training and the whole package. The fact remains that the crew did not comply with procedures and in the last case never reduced thrust. We all know the the elephant in the room is the quality of flight crews in certain parts of the world but that has been swept under the rug. Yes, I say again, Boeing has to take responsibility but what comes out of this, as stated, will be the best of the best as well be as safe as it can possibly be.
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
http://www.blackair.ca
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1983
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am
Re: Boeing Max.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5822698/boei ... ess-parts/
Boeing already talking about ramping up production to record levels.
Aug. 22: Shares of Boeing jumped on Thursday after Reuters reported that the planemaker plans to ramp-up production of its grounded 737 MAX jet to record levels by June 2020, as it anticipates regulatory approval.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:55 pm
Re: Boeing Max.
I have seen the Max's parked on West Jets ramp in YYC. They have removed the Max name from the side of the fuselage. It now shows Boeing 737-8.
Re: Boeing Max.
They have always said 737-8. Just look at photos taken before the grounding.flyer 1492 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:00 am I have seen the Max's parked on West Jets ramp in YYC. They have removed the Max name from the side of the fuselage. It now shows Boeing 737-8.
For example:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5114794
Or:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/WestJet ... P1SZO6o%3D
- Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
Re: Boeing Max.
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
Re: Boeing Max.
Yes, we can all find lovely videos on YouTube full of junk science.
This isn't even physically possible. Raising the engine alone, could only cause the nose to move *down* with an increase in power. And only if the engine gets raised above the C-of-G....so they moved engine little bit higher than the wing causing nose move upward during take off...
Re: Boeing Max.
If it costs $300 for a ticket from A-B on a Max and $320 on an A320, the Max will get filled first. Most people are cheap and will always seek the cheapest price. Isn't that why airlines like Swoop exist?
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Boeing Max.
Yes. The engines needed to be moved up because they are larger. In order to move them up, they had to be moved forward. The combination of larger engine nacelles and being further forward will make the aircraft more prone to pitching up at high angles of attack.AirFrame wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:34 amYes, we can all find lovely videos on YouTube full of junk science.
This isn't even physically possible. Raising the engine alone, could only cause the nose to move *down* with an increase in power. And only if the engine gets raised above the C-of-G....so they moved engine little bit higher than the wing causing nose move upward during take off...
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?