4 ms·

>Though the nose-pusher system's entire existence is due to the aerodynamic design of the entire MAX...which seems to be driven by the other 2 legs of the stool

>Though the nose-pusher system's entire existence is due to the aerodynamic design of the entire MAX...which seems to be driven by the other 2 legs of the stool (i.e. budget and time). Sorry, but this isn't a credible comment. Modern engines run bigger slower fans to reduce fuel consumption and noise. Bigger engines don't fit under the wing. The engine fitment issue has been around since the 737 went from JT8D -> CFM56, hence the punched in the jaw look of most current non MAX 737s. New generation, bigger engines, same form factor. Sure they could've redesigned the half of the plane but then it's not really a 737.

bunderbunder 8y ago
> Sure they could've redesigned the half of the plane but then it's not really a 737. That is exactly the budget and time bit - lots of time and money for Boeing spent designing a new airframe, then the "not really a 737" part means lots more time and money spent by Boeing getting it certified, and lots of time and money for their customers in getting their pilots trained for the new plane.
dan678 8y ago
Isn't that the point? They attempted to save time and money by not designing a new aircraft (as they originally planned) and found a way to mount the new larger engines that necessitated the MCAS system. In addition, the solution they sold did not, by design, utilize both AoA sensors and did not advise pilots if the sensor disagree unless an additional package was purchased. Furthermore, all of this was in effort to sell an aircraft that would not need significant pilot re-training, resulting in pilots not being familiar enough with the failure mode that resulted in many deaths.
- aunty_helen 8y ago
  'Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion' A factor of 10 cost difference 'if they had only done x' isn't realistic. Completely agree with your additional point though, the competition was the A320neo and the us vs them economics look better if you don't have to pay pilots to sit in a simulator and re cert. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-disputes-737-max-development-cost-report-367504/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-disputes-7...
- salawat 8y ago
  Keep in mind a double failure is also possible if the AoA vanes are not treated as high priority maintenance items.

bunderbunder 8y ago

> Sure they could've redesigned the half of the plane but then it's not really a 737. That is exactly the budget and time bit - lots of time and money for Boeing spent designing a new airframe, then the "not really a 737" part means lots more time and money spent by Boeing getting it certified, and lots of time and money for their customers in getting their pilots trained for the new plane.

dan678 8y ago

Isn't that the point? They attempted to save time and money by not designing a new aircraft (as they originally planned) and found a way to mount the new larger engines that necessitated the MCAS system. In addition, the solution they sold did not, by design, utilize both AoA sensors and did not advise pilots if the sensor disagree unless an additional package was purchased. Furthermore, all of this was in effort to sell an aircraft that would not need significant pilot re-training, resulting in pilots not being familiar enough with the failure mode that resulted in many deaths.

aunty_helen 8y ago
'Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion' A factor of 10 cost difference 'if they had only done x' isn't realistic. Completely agree with your additional point though, the competition was the A320neo and the us vs them economics look better if you don't have to pay pilots to sit in a simulator and re cert. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-disputes-737-max-development-cost-report-367504/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-disputes-7...
salawat 8y ago
Keep in mind a double failure is also possible if the AoA vanes are not treated as high priority maintenance items.