MAX takes to the skies again

[BoeingBobby]

I expected all kinds of beat up on Boeing comments. What happened?

[Gabriel]

I think that, in general, people in this forum knows better.

I will take Evan as an example, he was relentless cristianizan Boeing, their MCAS design (or that they upgraded the 737 again at all instead of doing a clean-sheet modern design), their business approach, strategy and culture, not to mention their top leadership for whom he wished jail time.

However, even he recognizes the scrutiny that this plane has gone through during the last 2 years, that the technical problems are solved, that the manuals and training issue has been resolved, and that the plane will be (and is now) as safe as any.

I do not think that many people in this forum is in the "MAX no-fly" team.

That said, I think that many of us still think that Boeing did not do a real deep transformation of its culture and leadership as it was needed. It is not clear at this point that they moved the focus back to great engineering and real innovation even if it means looking a bit away of the short-sighted view of the Wall Street bull.

So we can be happy with the MAX going back to operation, willing to take a MAX flight any day, and still unhappy with Boeing.

[BoeingBobby]

And awayyyyyyy we go. Next person in line please.

[Gabriel]

Do you disagree? Would be interesting to know your opinion.

[Evan]

That said, I think that many of us still think that Boeing did not do a real deep transformation of its culture and leadership as it was needed.

Let me put it this way: Challenger --------------------------> Columbia.

You can't assuredly fix anything until you purge the rotten leadership philosophy. It's the same as safety culture within airlines. If that's rotten, the other shoe is going to drop (and drop, and drop...).

I won't shy away from the MAX now that the very essential mods have been made (a.k.a failsafe redundancy). But it will always depress me. It will always be a testament to rotten corporate culture. A 1960's airframe crutched into the 21st century at a cost greater than a 21st century clean-sheet airframe. And at a disgusting human cost.

I feel sorry for all those brilliant minds at Boeing, capable of designing the aircraft of the future, instead made to cobble this nightmare together.

[BoeingBobby]

I knew you couldn't help yourself. Took the bait, hook, line and sinker!

[BoeingBobby]

Do you disagree? Would be interesting to know your opinion.

To quote some asshole that will be moving to my state on January 21st, "It is what it is."

[TeeVee]

To quote some asshole that will be moving to my state on January 21st, "It is what it is."

cuz he's too scared to move back to ny, where he's been quite hated for many decades. now even more so.

[LH-B744]

cuz he's too scared to move back to ny, where he's been quite hated for many decades. now even more so.

All the good "Old" men still exist, who are present here since more than a decade? That at least seems like some sort of good news! 2100 forum entries. That somehow makes me feel as if I had been lazy during all those years. Which wasn't really the case.

I remember one day, when a French jetphotos member came back to this forum after eight years. And I almost exactly remember the words which I told him. Killian? I must have said..
16 forum entries in eight years, that's not so very much, 2 per year..

I'm really glad that when I fulfil my 12 years here on this platform, which somewhen next week should be the case, I own more than 2 forum entries per year..
[next Saturday, December 12th, it will be 12 years for me, so, if you will, 12:12:12, 12 years on the day 12-12]

1352 divided into 12... yes, a little bit more than only 2 per year.

Dear greetings, good to see you here again, Tee Vee.

PS: bobo talks about "some asshole", end of the quotation, in FL, with NYC background .. ? ...
Let me guess, he does not talk about the next President of the United States, he doesn't talk about Mr Biden. No. Biden is a Pennsylvania man. Oh man. I am not guilty, that was only a quotation.

Couldn't we just move the calendar forwards, to, let's say January 24th 2021?

[LH-B744]

I think that, in general, people in this forum knows better.

I will take Evan as an example, he was relentless cristianizan Boeing, their MCAS design (or that they upgraded the 737 again at all instead of doing a clean-sheet modern design), their business approach, strategy and culture, not to mention their top leadership for whom he wished jail time.

However, even he recognizes the scrutiny that this plane has gone through during the last 2 years, that the technical problems are solved, that the manuals and training issue has been resolved, and that the plane will be (and is now) as safe as any.

I do not think that many people in this forum is in the "MAX no-fly" team.

That said, I think that many of us still think that Boeing did not do a real deep transformation of its culture and leadership as it was needed. It is not clear at this point that they moved the focus back to great engineering and real innovation even if it means looking a bit away of the short-sighted view of the Wall Street bull.

So we can be happy with the MAX going back to operation, willing to take a MAX flight any day, and still unhappy with Boeing.

Hello my friend. I agree, Evan is a good example. But he doesn't own more forum entries than you, or does he. In my eyes, more than 5000 entries in less than 13 years are.. quite crazy.

Back on topic, finally. You assume than Evan works in Seattle, WA? Well, who knows. And who would say that would be a bad thing.

they upgraded the 737 again at all instead of doing a clean-sheet modern design

Hm. I know another Boeing a/c type where exactly this decision allowed my favorite airline to celebrate a Golden Jubilee. In the air with jet type 747 since 1970, since half a century. That is, and I know that, quite unimaginable for both of us...!

But I know what you mean. They have tried, so to speak, to use two of the 747-830 engines, type GEnx-2B67, with the respective diameter of 104.7 inches (2 meter 66), under the wings of a 737.

Sometimes I exaggerate, but they really tried to misuse the 737 with a main fan blade diameter which normally would better fit under a 763ER or 773ER . And then they tried to reduce that monster engine with a computer so that you and me are able to fly it in a single-aisle medium haul 737 cockpit?

I repeat myself, but one year ago I have said that I'm very glad "my 747" has never been raped like that during the last 50 years. The 747-830 has four different and stronger engines than the 747-430, but somebody took care that neither the bigger length of the 830 nor the stronger engines made 'my baby' uncontrollable. If you go high enough there is only one man, and for the 747-830 that afaik still was Chief Engineer Joe Sutter with his experience in aviation since the 1960s. Sutter achieved, that 'his baby', the 747, stays what it always has been,
'ridiculously easy to fly', also in the -830 version.

Wasn't there such a man, such a brilliant chief engineer, such a father who took care of the 737 max? These are the numbers for the 737:

more than 69 inch or 1 meter 76 fan diameter for the 737 max8 .

61 inch or 1 meter 55 fan diameter for the CFM56-7 engines in a 737-800, which is an a/c type which afaik runs perfectly without MCAS.

You are 69 inches high? Then try to stand next to a person who is 1 meter 55 high, or 61 inches. Then you know the difference.

One year ago, I wondered how that is possible without that you set the 737 max8 on 8 inch high stilts.


PS: Good that there still are one or two men who take care of the 747. I don't like my 747 on stilts.
And sorry again for this rather Gabriel long forum entry, but sometimes I like to show what it means to fly Randazzos LH-B744, completely without MCAS.
It feels really good!

[BoeingBobby]

You never let me down!

[Evan]

Sometimes I exaggerate, but they really tried to misuse the 737 with a main fan blade diameter which normally would better fit under a 763ER or 773ER . And then they tried to reduce that monster engine with a computer so that you and me are able to fly it in a single-aisle medium haul 737 cockpit?

I repeat myself, but one year ago I have said that I'm very glad "my 747" has never been raped like that during the last 50 years. The 747-830 has four different and stronger engines than the 747-430, but somebody took care that neither the bigger length of the 830 nor the stronger engines made 'my baby' uncontrollable. If you go high enough there is only one man, and for the 747-830 that afaik still was Chief Engineer Joe Sutter with his experience in aviation since the 1960s. Sutter achieved, that 'his baby', the 747, stays what it always has been,
'ridiculously easy to fly', also in the -830 version.

Wasn't there such a man, such a brilliant chief engineer, such a father who took care of the 737 max? These are the numbers for the 737:

more than 69 inch or 1 meter 76 fan diameter for the 737 max8 .

61 inch or 1 meter 55 fan diameter for the CFM56-7 engines in a 737-800, which is an a/c type which afaik runs perfectly without MCAS.

The 737 was developed in the turbojet era for operation in regional airports including those without airstairs (jetways had not yet arived). Thus ground clearance above the minimum was only an issue with respect to the deck height.

The 747 was developed for the turbofan era using the revolutionary new JT9D, a high-bypass turbofan initially developed for the high-winged C5 Galaxy. Boeing thusly provided the 747 with generous ground clearance not only for the 92" fans of the JT9D but also for future evolutions. It would be serviced by large airports with jetways. By the 1970's, engineers had realized that the future would involve increasing bypass ratios and thus larger fans. Every subsequent Boeing airframe could accomodate them. The 767 could carry the same diameter CF-6's used by the 747 (as could the A300 and the DC-10). The 757 could carry the 78" fans of the PW20XX. The GEnx on the 748 carries a 111" fan, yet still fits safely below the 747 wingspan. Even the A200 can comfortably carry 73" fans.

The 737-Max struggles to handle 69" fans. They must be mounted forward of the wing in a configuration that compromises stability at the edge of the envelope. It should never have been considered as a viable 21st century aircraft.

Efficiency will always determine commercial airframe design. Environmental sustainability will hopefully also drive design decisions. The CFM56 might be a fine machine but it has to go the way of the steam engine. Boeing designers knew this long ago. The new era of ultra-high-bypass engines began to take form in the mid-1990's. Any production turbofan-powered airliner unable to handle them should have been retired ten years ago.

When it comes to fans, bigger is better, right up to that line where the drag penalty defeats them. Emerging technology keeps pushing the line further out. Airframers have to keep up.

[Gabriel]

Evan is a good example. But he doesn't own more forum entries than you, or does he.

I don't know or care. I don't look at number of post or age to judge if what is being said is sound or not. I focus more in what is being said itself.
There are enough old, highly experienced, well credentialed, mediocre people.

(And I don't meant anything at all against old, highly experienced, or well credentialed people. It's just that there are people of all kinds of qualities in all subsets of the population).

You assume than Evan works in Seattle, WA?

I don't.

I know another Boeing a/c type where exactly this decision allowed my favorite airline to celebrate a Golden Jubilee. In the air with jet type 747 since 1970, since half a century.

The 747 is a totally different beast than the 737 which was not even a clean sheet design since it leverages the fuselage and some systems from the 707 which was designed in the early 50s!!!. The 747 was truly 100% new design with a much modern view (Evan explained it very well). AND... it is ending production a decade earlier than the 737 too.

There is nothing wrong with updating an existing design, but all has its limits and the 737 has clearly reached its limits (and the 747 too).

[kent olsen]

Back in the 90's when Boeing was building the 767 or maybe it was the 777, and engineer wanted to drain the oil out of that big P&W. Well he thought he could crank the engine to pull the last of the oil out of the sump. Wrong, P&W called and said they can't do that and send the engine back east to their shop. I took one of our 74's and picked it up in Seattle and took it back east. Well I'm 70" tall and I took a picture, now disappeared, of me standing in the inlet reaching UP to the inside top of the cowling. Incredible!!!!

[BoeingBobby]

The 747 was developed for the turbofan era using the revolutionary new JT9D, a high-bypass turbofan initially developed for the high-winged C5 Galaxy.

Where did you come up with this B S.?
The C-5 originally had GE TF-39 engines. All left flying have now been converted to GE CF6-80's