4 ms·
That's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that just accidentally or by design looks like 737.
by onetimeuse92304 3y ago
That's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that just accidentally or by design looks like 737. It IS 737, with slightly different behaviour because of the fact it is lengthened and it has engines moved.
And the story of the MCAS is that Boeing needed this system to make 737 MAX to behave in entire envelope. But introducing new major system would require re-certifying pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed importance of it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Retric 3y agoThe point is they could have called it “Blueberry” instead of “737 MAX” and have it still share the same type rating as the 737. Which is perfectly reasonable as changing the branding alone isn’t particularly meaningful from a safety, airworthiness, or training perspective.
- Dylan16807 3y ago> 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. That wasn't under dispute. The question you responded to is whether they had to use the 737 brand. And personally, I think that once you lengthen it and move the engine, it would not be weird at all to give it a different number. Even just 738 would give it better distinction than "MAX".
- zirgs 3y ago> But introducing new major system would require re-certifying pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed importance of it. Is it typical to hide critical systems from pilots in the aviation industry? Or is only Boeing doing that?
- throwaheyy 3y agoNo, what parent said is true: they could have changed the model number if they so chose to, and kept the same type rating. The 757 and 767 have the same type rating for example. Whether they call it 737, 737 Max, 73Seven, 838 or whatever else is just marketing and has no bearing on keeping training compatibility. Only the type rating matters for that.