Boeing Max.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Boeing Max.

Post by C.W.E. » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:43 pm

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?
---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy » Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:13 pm

Umm....yes
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
200hr Wonder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2167
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: CYVR
Contact:

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by 200hr Wonder » 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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Cheers,

200hr Wonder

imcool
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by imcool » Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:37 pm

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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
regards
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by C.W.E. » Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:56 pm

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.
That is my feelings on the Max also, they placed the engines in a position that changed the flying characteristics when changing power.


For sure it is going to be very costly for Boeing by the time the court settlements are finished.
---------- ADS -----------
  

John Bull
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by John Bull » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:54 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by telex » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:16 pm

John Bull wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:54 pm
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.
You give the travelling public too much credit. $600 billion on the order book will be cancelled by the travelling public's opinion? Wrong...
---------- ADS -----------
  

FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by FICU » Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:50 pm

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
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1908
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Old fella » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:27 am

John Bull wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:54 pm
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.
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Heliian » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:45 am

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
pilotbzh
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:33 am
Location: yyz

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by pilotbzh » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:52 am

imcool wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:37 pm
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
regards
Because youtube knows better than aeronautic engineers..... :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Mapleflt » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:58 am

It's most likely safe to fly now. However the "regulator" is also deal with the perception of having let the "inmates run the asylum". Boeing is just the manufacturer that got caught, don't think for one minute that the others don't have similar skeletons in their closet.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Capt. Underpants
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Capt. Underpants » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:59 am

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

valleyboy
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by valleyboy » Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:05 am

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Mapleflt » Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:12 am

The myth of the common type rating, sold to the regulator as viable process and a marketing ploy disguised as cost savings by a simple "difference" course for the operator.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1590
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by goingnowherefast » Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:01 am

C.W.E. wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:43 pm
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?
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

flyer 1492
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:55 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by flyer 1492 » 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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tps8903
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by tps8903 » Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:10 am

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.
They have always said 737-8. Just look at photos taken before the grounding.

For example:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5114794

Or:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/WestJet ... P1SZO6o%3D
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Flying Low » Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:19 am

---------- ADS -----------
  
"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."

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by AirFrame » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:34 am

imcool wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:37 pm
I watched on youtube...
Yes, we can all find lovely videos on YouTube full of junk science.
...so they moved engine little bit higher than the wing causing nose move upward during take off...
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
JasonE
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by JasonE » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:41 am

John Bull wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:54 pm
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.
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?
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright

User avatar
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7750
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by iflyforpie » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:25 am

AirFrame wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:34 am
imcool wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:37 pm
I watched on youtube...
Yes, we can all find lovely videos on YouTube full of junk science.
...so they moved engine little bit higher than the wing causing nose move upward during take off...
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.
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy » Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:25 am

MCAS was in the Max since the beginning. It's primary purpose was - and still is - load alleviation

It wasn't until late in flight testing that the plane was found to have this problem of the nose staying up at high angles of attack and low speed - so the easy thing to do was add a stick pusher subsystem into the MCAS software.

Load alleviation and stick pushers have been in aircraft for decades.
Where they went wrong was only tying it to one AOA sensor.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2229
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by digits_ » Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:34 am

boeingboy wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:25 am
MCAS was in the Max since the beginning. It's primary purpose was - and still is - load alleviation

It wasn't until late in flight testing that the plane was found to have this problem of the nose staying up at high angles of attack and low speed - so the easy thing to do was add a stick pusher subsystem into the MCAS software.

Load alleviation and stick pushers have been in aircraft for decades.
Where they went wrong was only tying it to one AOA sensor.
And giving it too much authority, too much of a nose down moment when it activated.
But it needed that amount of authority to properly recover... Yet it moved too much to get certified, but needed to move that much to be certified. oh-oh...
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7189
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by photofly » Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:48 am

The on-again off-again aspect of MCAS seems unusual. Stick pushers, stick feel adjustment systems, load alleviation systems - isn't it unusual for them to run for 5 seconds, then shut down for 10 seconds, then magically start up again? Wouldn't they be either active at a given point in the flight envelope or inactive? Anyone know?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”