Originally posted by Gabriel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lion Air 737-Max missing, presumed down in the sea near CGK (Jakarta)
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
Up to 430 unknown visitors who read every single forum entry, that's also 'a new quality'. But they'll never dare to write one single forum entry won't they. Back on topic.
Ahm. You know that I admire jetphotos members who are longer here than me. But what else than a completely new type license has been the 737 max compared to
e.g. the KLM-B737-800 fleet ?
I asked Gabriel exactly that question. He said, for the 737 max 8 you need one type license, and for the 737-800, which btw both are
exactly 39,47 meters long,
you need another type licence.
Gabe, correct me when I do not say what you said.
And. Probably it was only luck that KLM completed their 737 order before the 737 max happened. I like to confirm, KLM owns a fleet without MCAS, and LH owns a fleet without MCAS.
I'm not able to tell you how happy I am that until today not a single 747 needs MCAS! Joseph Sutter, in his function as a Boeing 747 chief engineer, was strong enough to always prefer the engineer solution.
J. Sutter invented the 747 with 'long legs', so that since 50 years all jet engine manufacturers on this planet find enough space below a 747 wing, the 747-800 passage jet included.
In my eyes, Sutter is an American National Hero, with a very rare understanding for what pilots like. 'She's ridiculously easy to fly.' That's what a 747 test pilot said in 1969.
50 years later, she hasn't lost a bit of that quality. But I admit, I'm not quite objective. I the 747.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostWhat would it have cost to build a new, appropriate airframe?
707: 1958. $1.3 billion
747: 1970. $3.7 billion
777: 1995. $7.0 billion
787: 2012. $13.4 billion
Source: Bowen J, The Economic Geography of Air Transportation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
Assuming the question wasn't rhetorical, here are the approximate development costs for recent Boeing passenger airframes. All figures are inflation-corrected to 2004 dollars to provide a common baseline for comparison:
707: 1958. $1.3 billion
747: 1970. $3.7 billion
777: 1995. $7.0 billion
787: 2012. $13.4 billion
Source: Bowen J, The Economic Geography of Air Transportation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post... Boeing could now be offering a new single-aisle aircraft with cockpit commonality to the 787 and with lower operating costs than either the 737 or the A320 well into the 2050's.Please support my compies here: https://www.patreon.com/jibbscompilationsSeven seasons worth of The Next Generation "Make it so."Watch more compilations here...
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
I think, when you factor in leveraging all the 787 R&D to a smaller airframe, it would have been less costly and ultimately more profitable than the 737M will prove to be. By comparison, the four airframes you listed were all groundbreaking designs. Boeing could now be offering a new single-aisle aircraft with cockpit commonality to the 787 and with lower operating costs than either the 737 or the A320 well into the 2050's.
With the loss of sales, let alone all of the litigation and settlements, it would have been cheaper.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
What is that old saying about hindsight?
With the loss of sales, let alone all of the litigation and settlements, it would have been cheaper.
Boeing is having just a wonderful year. The Starliner capsule botched its first visit to the ISS today. The reason being given to the press? A clock was set wrong. Ouch.
In classic form, Boeing pointed out that if the capsule had carried a live crew, they would have sorted it out. It doesn't seem like they've learned much about redundancy...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostWhat's that old saying about FORESIGHT?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Post
That I bet a good bit of money that a LOT of foresight went into the re (and re re, and re re re and re re re re) birth of the 737
Interestingly, all of Boeing's Wikipedia pages have recently been edited to remove all trace of the early history of Y1. Now that is REALLY interesting...
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostInterestingly, all of Boeing's Wikipedia pages have recently been edited to remove all trace of the early history of Y1. Now that is REALLY interesting...
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI think, when you factor in leveraging all the 787 R&D to a smaller airframe, it would have been less costly and ultimately more profitable than the 737M will prove to be.
The human tragedy of these accidents can't be overstated. I don't want to deflect attention away from the seriousness of those two horrible events for a moment. But there's an economic tragedy here, for which Boeing's senior management must bear responsibility. And it's much more serious than just not having foresight. Their strategy was short term cashflow in exchange for lowered R&D spend, while their primary European competitor was doing the exact opposite. That decision affected all of us, whether or not we hold BA stock. It has a measurable impact on US GDP and on the major market indexes: https://www.ft.com/content/443d08fa-...a-30afa498db1b
Ultimately, all of us with savings, indexed investments, or 401(k)s, are paying part of the cost for this mistake.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
All except, of course the one in the entry titled: Boeing Yellowstone Project
Clicking on the Y1 link takes you to that page, but it only lists developments from 2015 onward.
Yellowstone was announced in 2003. The 737 replacement was Y1. The 787 (the 7E7) was Y2. Only the 787 was announced publicly and was subsequently produced.
WIkipedia's 737-MAX page still tells us this:
In 2006, Boeing started considering the replacement of the 737 with a "clean-sheet" design that could follow the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.[15]
This is a 2007 article partly reporting on the progression of Y1 (and the 737RS).
https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-.../66022.article
This is a 2006 article about the secrecy surrounding Y1 and 737RS:
https://www.flightglobal.com/the-737.../65317.article
Originally posted by FlightGlobalAccording to industrial sources, Boeing has accelerated the pace of the 737RS study effort and even plans to make its initial pass on prospective supplier teams by mid-2006. The RS/Y1 concept is based around an all-composite 787-like structure, fly-by-wire, more-electric system architecture, EVS-integrated avionics flightdeck, and a cabin cross-section “wider than A320”. Aerodynamic improvements include a longer span wing, single-slotted flaps, raked and blended-winglet wingtip options, blended fin root and 787-like Section 41 (nose and flightdeck).
Originally posted by FlightGlobalUntil today Boeing has kept 737 replacement elements of its "Project 20XX" studies (which also resulted in the Sonic Cruiser and 787 initial technology studies) under wraps.
Comment
-
Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
No doubt. And at the risk of stating the obvious, the whole point of incurring R&D costs for a new airframe is to recover those costs from the discounted cash flow of future profits from the sale of the developed aircraft. In comparison, the $5bn set-aside is hard cost. It's non-recoverable, short of a miracle. And it'll probably go higher.
The human tragedy of these accidents can't be overstated. I don't want to deflect attention away from the seriousness of those two horrible events for a moment. But there's an economic tragedy here, for which Boeing's senior management must bear responsibility. And it's much more serious than just not having foresight. Their strategy was short term cashflow in exchange for lowered R&D spend, while their primary European competitor was doing the exact opposite. That decision affected all of us, whether or not we hold BA stock. It has a measurable impact on US GDP and on the major market indexes: https://www.ft.com/content/443d08fa-...a-30afa498db1b
Ultimately, all of us with savings, indexed investments, or 401(k)s, are paying part of the cost for this mistake.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
What's that old saying about FORESIGHT?
Boeing is having just a wonderful year. The Starliner capsule botched its first visit to the ISS today. The reason being given to the press? A clock was set wrong. Ouch.
In classic form, Boeing pointed out that if the capsule had carried a live crew, they would have sorted it out. It doesn't seem like they've learned much about redundancy...
Comment
-
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
Comment