4 ms·

Hopefully this is this beginning of the end to the entire 737 family. The MAX has revealed to me just how dated and obsolescent this aircraft is, in all its fo

Hopefully this is this beginning of the end to the entire 737 family. The MAX has revealed to me just how dated and obsolescent this aircraft is, in all its forms. It persists because it allows airlines to shamble on without investing in the changes necessary to adopt better designs. Perhaps they'll be forced to do so as the MAX and possibly the rest of the 737 family finally get phased out of first world passenger service, the latter if for no other reason as they are not competitive in their non-MAX form. The original 737 is a fine 60's design. It is long past time for the industry to break out the capital crowbar and pry some funds from the industry tuches to support some evolution. As the cost of that appears in ticket prices people will have to think harder before obligating themselves to bounce around the world. I care not.

jacquesm 7y ago
Interestingly, the MAX is a completely new aircraft. If Boeing had just admitted that and certified it as such that would have had significant effect on the required training and certification costs but it would have at least recognized the truth. The 737MAX is much less of a 737 than the NG.
- apexalpha 7y ago
  I think that even though the engines are bigger a lot of things are still really old. I read that starting the plane requires 7 steps, where in Airbus you press a button and the computer does it for you. Also in Airbus the computer tells you what is wrong and in the 737-max you get an error code that you need to look up in a book. All to make sure pilots need as little additional training.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Also in Airbus the computer tells you what is wrong and in the 737-max you get an error code that you need to look up in a book. All to make sure pilots need as little additional training. Of interest the P-8 Poseidon has EICAS but none of the other 737s do.
- mhandley 7y ago
  The problem is it's not quite enough of a new aircraft. If they'd fitted longer landing gear (along with all the changes that imples), they could have put the new larger engines under the wing, where they should have been in the first place, rather than stuck out in front of it, and then they wouldn't have needed MCAS.
  - Tsiklon 7y ago
    I could imagine for many carriers the shorter landing gear is a feature of the design; I believe some using this airframe choose to disembark passengers direct to the tarmac using the system's ladders, rather than involve a flight of stairs or an articulated gangway, lessening airport fees. Edit: not to lessen any of the other points you made - this absolutely should have gone through approval as a new model.
    - chawco 7y ago
      The design predates broad availability of jetways at airports. The concept, in the 1960s, was that by being able to use stairs they'd be able to service many smaller airports. By the 1970s this was clearly the wrong choice -- smaller airports just installed jetways too. This was a design decision that didn't even last the decade, but was brought forward for the next 50 years because changes would mean a recertification. That is why the landing gear is short. There are essentially no operators who make use of the low height of the aircraft, and there hasn't been for longer than most of us have been alive.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        I can't count the number of times that I've boarded 737's by stairways.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    >(along with all the changes that imples) You just put designing an entirely new airplane in a parenthetical. New landing gear means modifications to the wing. Modifying the wing isn't much less work than just designing a new one. By the time you've designed a brand new wing, you've 75% of the way to a new clean sheet design anyway.
- topspin 7y ago
  > Interestingly, the MAX is a completely new aircraft. For some value of 'completely new.' The design isn't new. A new design would accommodate modern, large diameter high by-pass turbo fans without compromising pitch behavior. The 737 was designed to be powered by much smaller diameter low-bypass engines that prevailed in the 60's. Also, the cockpit is deliberately designed not to require changes in training; the now ancient controls and instruments are significant contributors to the 737 MAX problems. I used the term 'design' several times because I do indeed understand there is much new in the 737 MAX, but the fundamental design is obsolescent.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    So, in aircraft circles the conventional wisdom goes something like this: change the engines->change the wing; Change the wing->it's a new aircraft. The fact that it doesn't look like a new aircraft and that Boeing did what they could to make it look like a 737 has as much to do with the customer demands and the regulatory hoops they were trying to jump through without re-certifying it as a new aircraft. Now, if they had done a complete redesign from the ground up without these restrictions then it would have no doubt been a better plane in many ways, but it would not have sold so fast in these numbers, which for Boeing was very important. So think of it as a 'new plane trying to masquerade as an old one' and you're pretty close to where it's at.
    - topspin 7y ago
      > which for Boeing was very important More important than maintaining its reputation for safe designs, apparently. This is covered ground. They whys and wherefores of how Boeing ended up ruining its track record are well understood. My point -- my only point -- is that I hope the halt of 737 MAX they are now being made to contemplate ultimately carries over to the rest of the 737 family, and I've seen nothing that dissuades me from that hope. I'll add that if the Boeing business model (and the airlines etc.) is not viable without forever reworking an obsolescent 50+ year old product then perhaps the thing that really needs rework is the business itself. Keeping dysfunctional bubbles inflated is the source of some of the greatest evils.

jacquesm 7y ago

Interestingly, the MAX is a completely new aircraft. If Boeing had just admitted that and certified it as such that would have had significant effect on the required training and certification costs but it would have at least recognized the truth. The 737MAX is much less of a 737 than the NG.

apexalpha 7y ago
I think that even though the engines are bigger a lot of things are still really old. I read that starting the plane requires 7 steps, where in Airbus you press a button and the computer does it for you. Also in Airbus the computer tells you what is wrong and in the 737-max you get an error code that you need to look up in a book. All to make sure pilots need as little additional training.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Also in Airbus the computer tells you what is wrong and in the 737-max you get an error code that you need to look up in a book. All to make sure pilots need as little additional training. Of interest the P-8 Poseidon has EICAS but none of the other 737s do.
mhandley 7y ago
The problem is it's not quite enough of a new aircraft. If they'd fitted longer landing gear (along with all the changes that imples), they could have put the new larger engines under the wing, where they should have been in the first place, rather than stuck out in front of it, and then they wouldn't have needed MCAS.
- Tsiklon 7y ago
  I could imagine for many carriers the shorter landing gear is a feature of the design; I believe some using this airframe choose to disembark passengers direct to the tarmac using the system's ladders, rather than involve a flight of stairs or an articulated gangway, lessening airport fees. Edit: not to lessen any of the other points you made - this absolutely should have gone through approval as a new model.
  - chawco 7y ago
    The design predates broad availability of jetways at airports. The concept, in the 1960s, was that by being able to use stairs they'd be able to service many smaller airports. By the 1970s this was clearly the wrong choice -- smaller airports just installed jetways too. This was a design decision that didn't even last the decade, but was brought forward for the next 50 years because changes would mean a recertification. That is why the landing gear is short. There are essentially no operators who make use of the low height of the aircraft, and there hasn't been for longer than most of us have been alive.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      I can't count the number of times that I've boarded 737's by stairways.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  >(along with all the changes that imples) You just put designing an entirely new airplane in a parenthetical. New landing gear means modifications to the wing. Modifying the wing isn't much less work than just designing a new one. By the time you've designed a brand new wing, you've 75% of the way to a new clean sheet design anyway.
topspin 7y ago
> Interestingly, the MAX is a completely new aircraft. For some value of 'completely new.' The design isn't new. A new design would accommodate modern, large diameter high by-pass turbo fans without compromising pitch behavior. The 737 was designed to be powered by much smaller diameter low-bypass engines that prevailed in the 60's. Also, the cockpit is deliberately designed not to require changes in training; the now ancient controls and instruments are significant contributors to the 737 MAX problems. I used the term 'design' several times because I do indeed understand there is much new in the 737 MAX, but the fundamental design is obsolescent.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  So, in aircraft circles the conventional wisdom goes something like this: change the engines->change the wing; Change the wing->it's a new aircraft. The fact that it doesn't look like a new aircraft and that Boeing did what they could to make it look like a 737 has as much to do with the customer demands and the regulatory hoops they were trying to jump through without re-certifying it as a new aircraft. Now, if they had done a complete redesign from the ground up without these restrictions then it would have no doubt been a better plane in many ways, but it would not have sold so fast in these numbers, which for Boeing was very important. So think of it as a 'new plane trying to masquerade as an old one' and you're pretty close to where it's at.
  - topspin 7y ago
    > which for Boeing was very important More important than maintaining its reputation for safe designs, apparently. This is covered ground. They whys and wherefores of how Boeing ended up ruining its track record are well understood. My point -- my only point -- is that I hope the halt of 737 MAX they are now being made to contemplate ultimately carries over to the rest of the 737 family, and I've seen nothing that dissuades me from that hope. I'll add that if the Boeing business model (and the airlines etc.) is not viable without forever reworking an obsolescent 50+ year old product then perhaps the thing that really needs rework is the business itself. Keeping dysfunctional bubbles inflated is the source of some of the greatest evils.