5 ms·

True, I’ve heard and read that many pilots prefer the cockpit config over the 737. Boeing needs to just start over.

by squirrel6 3y ago

ahoka 3y ago
Yes, because redoing something from scratch usually reduces the amount of problems. Do you really think that?
- sgt101 3y ago
  eerrr... I can only speak from experience with software, but several times I've been in projects trapped with implementations that take months to incrementally update and then seen clean sheet implementations blow them out of the water in a matter of weeks. In one case I saw an implementation of a radio system that met 100% of the technical requirement that a staff engineer wrote as a side project in six weeks. The corporate implementation couldn't meet the spec, had taken 2 years and was being developed by scores of engineers. Interestingly the corporate implementation was supplied to the customer, caused a huge reputational dent and was ulitimately scrapped... while the staff engineer was dismissed!
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >I've been in projects trapped with implementations that take months to incrementally update and then seen clean sheet implementations blow them out of the water in a matter of weeks. Firefox vs. Chrome in a nutshell.
    - ahartmetz 3y ago
      Not the example you are looking for. KHTML -> WebKit (for a while, that was the engine of Chrome!) -> Blink.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  737 might be at point where redoing it from scratch might be sensible. You can only iterate from same starting point that is over 50 year old design so long. At certain point starting from new will make more sense. And it might be now.
- p_l 3y ago
  The problem is that 737 design requires significant redoing to make it inherently safer (either structural redesign, or switch to Fly-By-Wire), with all options involving significant certification hurdles. At some point the question becomes if there aren't bigger wins possible with new airframe. Or at least resurrecting 757 and maybe making a shortened version.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
diggan 3y ago
> Boeing needs to just start over Would that even be possible? How long time would it take them to complete a completely new design? And then how long time from the design is finished until they can start delivering planes?
- plett 3y ago
  The whole reason the 737 Max series exists is to avoid having to start over. By maintaining "backwards compatibility" type approval with the regular 737 then the existing massive pool of 737 pilots can jump straight in it and start flying.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    I always thought that was the most idiotic part that the FAA accepted. Like, I get that there has to be leeway for similar configurations of the same plane so they don't have to go through the process for each. But it's been so clearly abused that it's ridiculous now. This: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323AS_%282896342517%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323A... Is so obviously not this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_737_Max_9.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_7...
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      I'm not sure a simple picture is enough. The Airbus A330 and A350 share the same type rating. (At least some variants; I'm not an expert.)
      - nicole_express 3y ago
        A big advantage Airbus has is their more modern designs are full fly-by-wire, so they're able to more practically compensate for the handling characteristics in software. As far as I know (not a pilot or aeronautics engineer) MCAS was more or less an attempt to do the same to a non-fly-by-wire plane, and we see how that turned out...

True, I’ve heard and read that many pilots prefer the cockpit config over the 737. Boeing needs to just start over.

ahoka 3y ago

Yes, because redoing something from scratch usually reduces the amount of problems. Do you really think that?

sgt101 3y ago
eerrr... I can only speak from experience with software, but several times I've been in projects trapped with implementations that take months to incrementally update and then seen clean sheet implementations blow them out of the water in a matter of weeks. In one case I saw an implementation of a radio system that met 100% of the technical requirement that a staff engineer wrote as a side project in six weeks. The corporate implementation couldn't meet the spec, had taken 2 years and was being developed by scores of engineers. Interestingly the corporate implementation was supplied to the customer, caused a huge reputational dent and was ulitimately scrapped... while the staff engineer was dismissed!
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >I've been in projects trapped with implementations that take months to incrementally update and then seen clean sheet implementations blow them out of the water in a matter of weeks. Firefox vs. Chrome in a nutshell.
  - ahartmetz 3y ago
    Not the example you are looking for. KHTML -> WebKit (for a while, that was the engine of Chrome!) -> Blink.
Ekaros 3y ago
737 might be at point where redoing it from scratch might be sensible. You can only iterate from same starting point that is over 50 year old design so long. At certain point starting from new will make more sense. And it might be now.
p_l 3y ago
The problem is that 737 design requires significant redoing to make it inherently safer (either structural redesign, or switch to Fly-By-Wire), with all options involving significant certification hurdles. At some point the question becomes if there aren't bigger wins possible with new airframe. Or at least resurrecting 757 and maybe making a shortened version.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

diggan 3y ago

> Boeing needs to just start over Would that even be possible? How long time would it take them to complete a completely new design? And then how long time from the design is finished until they can start delivering planes?

plett 3y ago
The whole reason the 737 Max series exists is to avoid having to start over. By maintaining "backwards compatibility" type approval with the regular 737 then the existing massive pool of 737 pilots can jump straight in it and start flying.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  I always thought that was the most idiotic part that the FAA accepted. Like, I get that there has to be leeway for similar configurations of the same plane so they don't have to go through the process for each. But it's been so clearly abused that it's ridiculous now. This: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323AS_%282896342517%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323A... Is so obviously not this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_737_Max_9.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_7...
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    I'm not sure a simple picture is enough. The Airbus A330 and A350 share the same type rating. (At least some variants; I'm not an expert.)
    - nicole_express 3y ago
      A big advantage Airbus has is their more modern designs are full fly-by-wire, so they're able to more practically compensate for the handling characteristics in software. As far as I know (not a pilot or aeronautics engineer) MCAS was more or less an attempt to do the same to a non-fly-by-wire plane, and we see how that turned out...