3 ms·

It's controls designed in the 60s grandfathered in for many decades because of common type ratings that simply don't make any sense anymore. More modern clean s

It's controls designed in the 60s grandfathered in for many decades because of common type ratings that simply don't make any sense anymore. More modern clean sheet plane designs do not have the issue of literally not being able to apply enough force to adjust the trim! I think the mismatch may be that these are all-manual designs, and the 737 is much larger now than when it was first designed, plus the first design didn't have automated systems counteracting your inputs.

kayfox 7y ago
Boeing was looking to do a clean sheet design, the airlines wanted to keep the same type rating. The presentation micharacterizes that bit of history, but that's what was going on. This follows what made the A320neo popular, Airbus took a older venerable design and re-engined it for higher efficiency. The 777 got a similar upgrade that did include a new wing design. Ultimately Boeing is looking to introduce an all-composites design that fills the 737 and 757 roles, but airlines desires for crew commonality might push that back.
- gsnedders 7y ago
  > This follows what made the A320neo popular, Airbus took a older venerable design and re-engined it for higher efficiency. Though note the A320 is a newer design than the 737; the A320neo as a result didn't have the big problem of the 737 MAX: because its landing gear was always longer, because it was always designed for high-bypass turbofans, it could easily fit the larger engines under its wings without having to relocate the engine mounting. The 737 MAX is a world away from the original 737 (hell, the shortest 737 MAX is 6.6m/23% longer than the original 737 design!), whereas the A320neo is much, much closer to the original design. The 737 MAX has ~80% parts commonality with the previous-generation 737 NG, yet alone the original 737; the A320neo has 95% with its predecessor, which _is_ the original design.
tyingq 7y ago
"It's controls designed in the 60s" Probably even earlier. The trim wheels in the Boeing 707 look pretty similar to the 737.
- Aloha 7y ago
  So did the B-17, basic airplane controls have not changed in a considerable period of time.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    B-17 cockpit pictures aren't showing me the same resemblance with the big trim wheels you see in the 707, 727, 737, etc. I do see them in the KC-135, Dehavilland Comet, etc. There's a very obvious shared design between the 707 and 737 cockpit that goes beyond anything you could attribute to general cockpit design. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/67/96/1b67964cc0e7c178bb8b76d17a589637.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/67/96/1b67964cc0e7c178bb8b... (707) https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/22047_1484863414.jpg https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/22047_1484863414.jpg (737-200)
    - kayfox 7y ago
      A300: https://airbus-h.assetsadobe2.com/is/image/content/dam/channel-specific/website-/company/history_milestones/A300-cockpit.jpg?wid=1000&qlt=85,0 https://airbus-h.assetsadobe2.com/is/image/content/dam/chann... It has trimwheels.
      - tyingq 7y ago
        Sure. This all rolls up to me saying that the design of the 737 might have dated back further than the 1960's. I feel like the 707 is evidence that it dates back to the 1950's. It shares more in common than the 737 than just the trim wheels. That was just an obvious call out since there's an MCAS tie in there. For example, the 707, 727, 737, and 757 all have the same fuselage circumference.
        kjs3 7y ago
        As I recall, the 707-727-737 are a direct evolutionary line serving the same niche, and the 757 was intended as a 'stretch 727', so yeah, I think you're right. Similarly, when I consulted with one of the major airlines (although not in flight operations) I was told that many of the physical specifications of airplanes were driven/limited by airport gates. That is, wingspans, fuselage curvature, door height, etc. need to be within certain ranges so that it could use existing gates unmodified. This was one of the biggest issues with adoption of the Airbus A380...airports had to build new gates just to support them. I understand that is an issue with the 737-MAX: to place the much larger engines in a place that wouldn't screw up the balance (e.g. under the wings instead of out in front of them) would make the plane inconveniently high off the ground.

kayfox 7y ago

Boeing was looking to do a clean sheet design, the airlines wanted to keep the same type rating. The presentation micharacterizes that bit of history, but that's what was going on. This follows what made the A320neo popular, Airbus took a older venerable design and re-engined it for higher efficiency. The 777 got a similar upgrade that did include a new wing design. Ultimately Boeing is looking to introduce an all-composites design that fills the 737 and 757 roles, but airlines desires for crew commonality might push that back.

gsnedders 7y ago
> This follows what made the A320neo popular, Airbus took a older venerable design and re-engined it for higher efficiency. Though note the A320 is a newer design than the 737; the A320neo as a result didn't have the big problem of the 737 MAX: because its landing gear was always longer, because it was always designed for high-bypass turbofans, it could easily fit the larger engines under its wings without having to relocate the engine mounting. The 737 MAX is a world away from the original 737 (hell, the shortest 737 MAX is 6.6m/23% longer than the original 737 design!), whereas the A320neo is much, much closer to the original design. The 737 MAX has ~80% parts commonality with the previous-generation 737 NG, yet alone the original 737; the A320neo has 95% with its predecessor, which _is_ the original design.

tyingq 7y ago

"It's controls designed in the 60s" Probably even earlier. The trim wheels in the Boeing 707 look pretty similar to the 737.

Aloha 7y ago
So did the B-17, basic airplane controls have not changed in a considerable period of time.
- tyingq 7y ago
  B-17 cockpit pictures aren't showing me the same resemblance with the big trim wheels you see in the 707, 727, 737, etc. I do see them in the KC-135, Dehavilland Comet, etc. There's a very obvious shared design between the 707 and 737 cockpit that goes beyond anything you could attribute to general cockpit design. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/67/96/1b67964cc0e7c178bb8b76d17a589637.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/67/96/1b67964cc0e7c178bb8b... (707) https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/22047_1484863414.jpg https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/22047_1484863414.jpg (737-200)
  - kayfox 7y ago
    A300: https://airbus-h.assetsadobe2.com/is/image/content/dam/channel-specific/website-/company/history_milestones/A300-cockpit.jpg?wid=1000&qlt=85,0 https://airbus-h.assetsadobe2.com/is/image/content/dam/chann... It has trimwheels.
    - tyingq 7y ago
      Sure. This all rolls up to me saying that the design of the 737 might have dated back further than the 1960's. I feel like the 707 is evidence that it dates back to the 1950's. It shares more in common than the 737 than just the trim wheels. That was just an obvious call out since there's an MCAS tie in there. For example, the 707, 727, 737, and 757 all have the same fuselage circumference.
      - kjs3 7y ago
        As I recall, the 707-727-737 are a direct evolutionary line serving the same niche, and the 757 was intended as a 'stretch 727', so yeah, I think you're right. Similarly, when I consulted with one of the major airlines (although not in flight operations) I was told that many of the physical specifications of airplanes were driven/limited by airport gates. That is, wingspans, fuselage curvature, door height, etc. need to be within certain ranges so that it could use existing gates unmodified. This was one of the biggest issues with adoption of the Airbus A380...airports had to build new gates just to support them. I understand that is an issue with the 737-MAX: to place the much larger engines in a place that wouldn't screw up the balance (e.g. under the wings instead of out in front of them) would make the plane inconveniently high off the ground.