7637 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

My guess is keys or access codes of some kind. There’s not much else in those vehicles to cause a security concern.

[Victoria Watcher]

except to simon gruber.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 December 2019 - 10:02 AM.

[Rob Randall]

Seems like they want to halt production of the 737 MAX which is apparently a huge deal for suppliers and others involved. 

 

Eric Lipton of the NYTimes has a very good question:

 

Here is the question I have long had about the 737 Max. What kind of company would even build a plane with engines so big and far forward that by DESIGN it needs to have software to prevent a potential high-speed stall. Why even build such a plane?

 

I write this because for months now there is talk of a struggle for the right software fix for this plane--and the challenging of getting it approved by safety teams. Why is a software fix the solution? Is it a solution. Just wondering.

Edited by Rob Randall, 17 December 2019 - 10:14 AM.

[Rob Randall]

Again I use the example of the Tofino whale watching ship. You stack two decks on top of a fishing trawler and don't understand why it tipped over in heavy seas.

 

The 737 is a 1960s design that's been stretched, stacked and re-engined more times than the Queen of New Westminster.

[Mike K.]

The only similarity between the 1960 design and the modern aircraft is the name only.

We hear that a lot, that the 737 is a 1960 design, but by the same definition a 2020 Mustang coupe is just a Model T coupe that’s been re-jigged.

[Mattjvd]

The only similarity between the 1960 design and the modern aircraft is the name only.

We hear that a lot, that the 737 is a 1960 design, but by the same definition a 2020 Mustang coupe is just a Model T coupe that’s been re-jigged.

Well more like comparing a 2020 Mustang to a 1960 Mustang. They fill the same role and are in the same class, but are obviously completely different vehicles.

[Mike K.]

I guess what I meant was the 737 was the first single isle twin engine mass production jet airliner, the first of its kind, like the Model T was the first mass production passenger car of its kind.

That being said it’s the airlines that drive innovation. Boeing designs what their customers are asking for and the larger engines are a product of the design requirements as airlines want to fit more passengers into smaller aircraft and fly them further than ever before.

Consider that a 1960s 737-100 had a max range of 4300km fully loaded with 115 passengers. Today’s 737s fly up to 7000km with twice as many seats.

[Nparker]

...Consider that a 1960s 737-100 had a max range of 4300 km fully loaded with 115 passengers. Today’s 737s fly up to 7000 km with twice as many seats.

In the same size cabin as the 1967 version. 

[Mike K.]

If by the same size cabin you mean almost 50 feet longer and a wing span over 20 feet wider

 

And seating technology has also changed over the years, requiring less space for the same amount of leg room (in coach).

[shoeflack]

In the same size cabin as the 1967 version. 

 

Not quite. The 737-100 had a 94 ft long fuselage, whereas the 737MAX 10 (which is the one that seats up to double the 737-100), has a fuselage of 144 ft. Still...shows how much passenger comfort has continued to spiral downward over the years!

[Nparker]

When is VV finally going to get a sarcasm font?

[Rob Randall]

You guys are missing the point.

 

If you were to design a plane from scratch with the specifications and power plant of the MAX would you end up with the current profile of the plane? Or would it look different?

 

Because it appears the plane design is inherently off balance, requiring software fixes to keep it from stalling.

 

Follow?

[RFS]

If anyone on VV could design a great plane from scratch I’d be very impressed

[shoeflack]

In case anyone hasn't seen this Vox piece on YouTube, it's worth a watch. Goes over the design challenge (namely, raising the engines above the wings) that required the MCAS system.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=H2tuKiiznsY

[Rob Randall]

^I only had to watch the first half of that video so see it explains exactly my question.

 

They needed a wonky software solution to compensate for the error of putting huge new engines on a 1960s-era plane.

[Victoria Watcher]

if you were to design an internal combustion engine from scratch today it would probably look different than today’s engines. but that’s not how things evolve. you keep fine tuning and tweaking the design in little increments learning from the years of service from engines before. same with a winning plane design.

[Rob Randall]

...same with a winning plane design.

 

 

Or a crashing plane design.

 

Which was my point.

[Bernard]

I guess what I meant was the 737 was the first single isle twin engine mass production jet airliner, the first of its kind, like the Model T was the first mass production passenger car of its kind.

That being said it’s the airlines that drive innovation. Boeing designs what their customers are asking for and the larger engines are a product of the design requirements as airlines want to fit more passengers into smaller aircraft and fly them further than ever before.

Consider that a 1960s 737-100 had a max range of 4300km fully loaded with 115 passengers. Today’s 737s fly up to 7000km with twice as many seats.

The 737 was not the first single aisle two engine mass produced jet jetliner.   The DC 9 went into service three years earlier.  The Sud Aviation Caravelle went into service in 1959.  The difference with the 737 is that it had the engines below the wings and not at the back as almost all the other early 2 engined jetliners did.   An early Russian jetliner had two engines built into the wings and was in service in 1956.

 

The MAX series has engines that are twice as powerful as the 737-100s and 737-200s

Edited by Bernard, 18 December 2019 - 03:07 PM.

[Mike K.]

The DC9 competed with the 727, as did the Corvair.

[North Shore]

The DC9 competed with the 727, as did the Corvair.

Convair?