The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Boeing 737 MAX+

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Sat Jan 11, 2020 3:42 pm

cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25593
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby cyprusgrump » Sat Jan 11, 2020 3:56 pm

Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...
User avatar
cyprusgrump
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Pissouri, Cyprus

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:11 pm

cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...


I'm just trying to provide some perspective on the likelihood of Boeing staff leaking sensitive information such as emails making allegations that Boeing executives tried to pull the wool over the FAA. Individuals who probably have a high clearance level.

Firstly, your average Boeing worker would not have access so if someone leaked such information, then its someone at the pointy end of the corporation who does have access. Secondly, such an individual would be placing themselves at great risk if they released such emails. Because where do the leaks stop. Presuming such an individual had access to sensitive emails such as is alleged, then what other access do they have?

Boeing isn't a company where such individuals could do such a thing so easily. And why did they take so long to reveal the emails? Sounds extremely suspicious to me - click bait?

Sorry but I need some salt and a huge shovel let alone taking a small pinch.
Last edited by Paphitis on Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25593
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby cyprusgrump » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:15 pm

Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...


I'm just trying to provide some perspective on the likelihood of Boeing staff leaking sensitive information such as emails making allegations that Boeing executives tried to pull the wool over the FAA. Individuals who probably have a high clearance level.

Firstly, your average Boeing worker would not have access so if someone leaked such information, then its someone at the pointy end of the corporation who does have access. Secondly, such an individual would be placing themselves at great risk if they released such emails. Because where do the leaks stop. presuming such an individual had access to sensitive emails such as is alleged, then what other access do they have?

Boeing isn't a company where such individuals could do such a thing so easily. And why did they take so long to reveal the emails? Sounds extremely suspicious to me - click bait?

Sorry but I need some salt and a huge shovel let alone taking a small pinch.


My post had nothing to do with that... You are confused... :?

Read it again and respond to what was posted on my forum... :wink:
User avatar
cyprusgrump
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Pissouri, Cyprus

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pm

cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...


I'm just trying to provide some perspective on the likelihood of Boeing staff leaking sensitive information such as emails making allegations that Boeing executives tried to pull the wool over the FAA. Individuals who probably have a high clearance level.

Firstly, your average Boeing worker would not have access so if someone leaked such information, then its someone at the pointy end of the corporation who does have access. Secondly, such an individual would be placing themselves at great risk if they released such emails. Because where do the leaks stop. presuming such an individual had access to sensitive emails such as is alleged, then what other access do they have?

Boeing isn't a company where such individuals could do such a thing so easily. And why did they take so long to reveal the emails? Sounds extremely suspicious to me - click bait?

Sorry but I need some salt and a huge shovel let alone taking a small pinch.


My post had nothing to do with that... You are confused... :?

Read it again and respond to what was posted on my forum... :wink:


I read the post above and yes, the B737 Max is in direct competition to the A320 neo family. And an extremely worthy competitor in my opinion as well. Maybe not right now, but when it starts flying again, things will get back on track very quickly.

I remain to be convinced that Boeing deceived the authorities in any way. Far more likely they had no clue about what was going to happen and that they genuinely believed they had their bases all covered with a very safe aircraft. Maybe they were a bit too complacent over the training of MAX pilots given the differing flight characteristics.

But the flight characteristics are not a first by any means. There are types still flying today that have to rely on MCAS under certain AoA. The RAF and RAAF have been flying KC-135s for many years.

These Flight Characteristics and MCAS will not keep the MAX grounded.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25593
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby cyprusgrump » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:26 pm

Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...


I'm just trying to provide some perspective on the likelihood of Boeing staff leaking sensitive information such as emails making allegations that Boeing executives tried to pull the wool over the FAA. Individuals who probably have a high clearance level.

Firstly, your average Boeing worker would not have access so if someone leaked such information, then its someone at the pointy end of the corporation who does have access. Secondly, such an individual would be placing themselves at great risk if they released such emails. Because where do the leaks stop. presuming such an individual had access to sensitive emails such as is alleged, then what other access do they have?

Boeing isn't a company where such individuals could do such a thing so easily. And why did they take so long to reveal the emails? Sounds extremely suspicious to me - click bait?

Sorry but I need some salt and a huge shovel let alone taking a small pinch.


My post had nothing to do with that... You are confused... :?

Read it again and respond to what was posted on my forum... :wink:


I read the post above and yes, the B737 Max is in direct competition to the A320 neo family. And an extremely worthy competitor in my opinion as well. Maybe not right now, but when it starts flying again, things will get back on track very quickly.

I remain to be convinced that Boeing deceived the authorities in any way. Far more likely they had no clue about what was going to happen and that they genuinely believed they had their bases all covered with a very safe aircraft. Maybe they were a bit too complacent over the training of MAX pilots given the differing flight characteristics.

But the flight characteristics are not a first by any means. There are types still flying today that have to rely on MCAS under certain AoA. The RAF and RAAF have been flying KC-135s for many years.

These Flight Characteristics and MCAS will not keep the MAX grounded.


What do you think of this...?

14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA...
User avatar
cyprusgrump
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Pissouri, Cyprus

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:33 pm

cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...


I'm just trying to provide some perspective on the likelihood of Boeing staff leaking sensitive information such as emails making allegations that Boeing executives tried to pull the wool over the FAA. Individuals who probably have a high clearance level.

Firstly, your average Boeing worker would not have access so if someone leaked such information, then its someone at the pointy end of the corporation who does have access. Secondly, such an individual would be placing themselves at great risk if they released such emails. Because where do the leaks stop. presuming such an individual had access to sensitive emails such as is alleged, then what other access do they have?

Boeing isn't a company where such individuals could do such a thing so easily. And why did they take so long to reveal the emails? Sounds extremely suspicious to me - click bait?

Sorry but I need some salt and a huge shovel let alone taking a small pinch.


My post had nothing to do with that... You are confused... :?

Read it again and respond to what was posted on my forum... :wink:


I read the post above and yes, the B737 Max is in direct competition to the A320 neo family. And an extremely worthy competitor in my opinion as well. Maybe not right now, but when it starts flying again, things will get back on track very quickly.

I remain to be convinced that Boeing deceived the authorities in any way. Far more likely they had no clue about what was going to happen and that they genuinely believed they had their bases all covered with a very safe aircraft. Maybe they were a bit too complacent over the training of MAX pilots given the differing flight characteristics.

But the flight characteristics are not a first by any means. There are types still flying today that have to rely on MCAS under certain AoA. The RAF and RAAF have been flying KC-135s for many years.

These Flight Characteristics and MCAS will not keep the MAX grounded.


What do you think of this...?

14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA...


If you want to believe these forums.

The MAX Flight Characteristics are by no means unprecedented.

The RAAF's A330 MRTT, which carries our Prime Minister doubles as a Tanker and is fitted with MCAS for the same reasons because of the fuel load.
Last edited by Paphitis on Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25593
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby cyprusgrump » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:34 pm

Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...


I'm just trying to provide some perspective on the likelihood of Boeing staff leaking sensitive information such as emails making allegations that Boeing executives tried to pull the wool over the FAA. Individuals who probably have a high clearance level.

Firstly, your average Boeing worker would not have access so if someone leaked such information, then its someone at the pointy end of the corporation who does have access. Secondly, such an individual would be placing themselves at great risk if they released such emails. Because where do the leaks stop. presuming such an individual had access to sensitive emails such as is alleged, then what other access do they have?

Boeing isn't a company where such individuals could do such a thing so easily. And why did they take so long to reveal the emails? Sounds extremely suspicious to me - click bait?

Sorry but I need some salt and a huge shovel let alone taking a small pinch.


My post had nothing to do with that... You are confused... :?

Read it again and respond to what was posted on my forum... :wink:


I read the post above and yes, the B737 Max is in direct competition to the A320 neo family. And an extremely worthy competitor in my opinion as well. Maybe not right now, but when it starts flying again, things will get back on track very quickly.

I remain to be convinced that Boeing deceived the authorities in any way. Far more likely they had no clue about what was going to happen and that they genuinely believed they had their bases all covered with a very safe aircraft. Maybe they were a bit too complacent over the training of MAX pilots given the differing flight characteristics.

But the flight characteristics are not a first by any means. There are types still flying today that have to rely on MCAS under certain AoA. The RAF and RAAF have been flying KC-135s for many years.

These Flight Characteristics and MCAS will not keep the MAX grounded.


What do you think of this...?

14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA...


If you want to believe these forums.

The MAX Flight Characteristics are by no means unprecedented.

The RAAF's A330, which carries our Prime Minister doubles as a KC-135 and it has MCAS for the exact same reasons as the MAX.


Another Straw Man post... :roll:
User avatar
cyprusgrump
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Pissouri, Cyprus

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:36 pm

cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:An interesting post from my own forum...

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.


The idea of Boeing going under Chapter 11 is fantasy. It won't happen.

Just the sheer volume of civil and military sales worth Billions each year. Boeing is secure.

The MAX is an excellent design as well.

the idea that Boeing techs and pilots are monkeys is a bit far fetched looking at the cutting edge technologies they are responsible for such as the EW-18G.

This industry is so heavily guarded. Just to put things into perspective. The US Government cancelled Turkey's 16 Billion contract to purchase 100 F-35s because they took delivery of the S400. The reason was because the Americans feared that the Russians are able to use some form of telemetry to obtain information about the capability of the S400 radar to detect the F35. An extremely valuable piece of information for the Russians and a disastrous outcome for the US and other allies who are part of the F-35 program. There is no doubt that the S400 can detect the F35, but only within a certain range.

It was a unanimous decision not just from the US alone, but other countries like Denmark, Israel, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and others which also applied pressure on the US Government.

The whole point of the EW-18G, A Boeing company product is to specifically seek out and destroy S400 before the F-35s and F-22s get anyway near S400 radars. A program with several Billions in development alone. the EW-18G is a potent piece of kit. Coupled with the F-35 and F-22 it's virtually impossible to beat.

that's the reason why Australia has chosen the F-35, and the EW-18G.



Straw Man alert! :roll:

With all due respect, your last post has absolutely fuck all to do with the 737-MAX...


I'm just trying to provide some perspective on the likelihood of Boeing staff leaking sensitive information such as emails making allegations that Boeing executives tried to pull the wool over the FAA. Individuals who probably have a high clearance level.

Firstly, your average Boeing worker would not have access so if someone leaked such information, then its someone at the pointy end of the corporation who does have access. Secondly, such an individual would be placing themselves at great risk if they released such emails. Because where do the leaks stop. presuming such an individual had access to sensitive emails such as is alleged, then what other access do they have?

Boeing isn't a company where such individuals could do such a thing so easily. And why did they take so long to reveal the emails? Sounds extremely suspicious to me - click bait?

Sorry but I need some salt and a huge shovel let alone taking a small pinch.


My post had nothing to do with that... You are confused... :?

Read it again and respond to what was posted on my forum... :wink:


I read the post above and yes, the B737 Max is in direct competition to the A320 neo family. And an extremely worthy competitor in my opinion as well. Maybe not right now, but when it starts flying again, things will get back on track very quickly.

I remain to be convinced that Boeing deceived the authorities in any way. Far more likely they had no clue about what was going to happen and that they genuinely believed they had their bases all covered with a very safe aircraft. Maybe they were a bit too complacent over the training of MAX pilots given the differing flight characteristics.

But the flight characteristics are not a first by any means. There are types still flying today that have to rely on MCAS under certain AoA. The RAF and RAAF have been flying KC-135s for many years.

These Flight Characteristics and MCAS will not keep the MAX grounded.


What do you think of this...?

14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA...


If you want to believe these forums.

The MAX Flight Characteristics are by no means unprecedented.

The RAAF's A330, which carries our Prime Minister doubles as a KC-135 and it has MCAS for the exact same reasons as the MAX.


Another Straw Man post... :roll:


Why? What is it that makes the MAX a poorly designed aircraft?
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25593
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby cyprusgrump » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:42 pm

Paphitis wrote:Why? What is it that makes the MAX a poorly designed aircraft?


Respond to the points made and not just post some random crap about what the PM flies in... :roll:

Would the MAX be approved as a new aircraft today or not...? Have Boeing played the system to get a years old design through approval thus saving themselves $$$$$$$$$s...? Was the existence of MCAS kept quiet to get it through approval...? etc.?

Sadly (and not for the first time), you find yourself defending the indefensible...
User avatar
cyprusgrump
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Pissouri, Cyprus

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests