3 ms·

Huh, I see. So keeping it around for so long was mostly for avoiding expensive R&D and pilot re-training, and not so much for the 737 being the perfect platform

Huh, I see. So keeping it around for so long was mostly for avoiding expensive R&D and pilot re-training, and not so much for the 737 being the perfect platform to keep iterating on. Interesting.

Gravityloss 3y ago
The aircraft world has its peculiarities. Lots of cases in light aviation where some crashed plane is rebuilt basically from scratch but it's cheaper from regulatory perspective to say it's the same plane, just repaired, ie reuse the tail number.
CaptainZapp 3y ago
A major factor was that Airbus launched the A320 NEO and die hard, lifelong Boeing customers showed interest and even ordered the Airbus offering. Designing a completely new plane (which was considered for quite some time) would have taken far too long and Airbus would gave eaten Boeing's lunch in this important segment. So, Boeing McGivered a solution and updated a 60s airframe for modern use. To not having to recertify the plane they came up with a software hack, which they initially didn't even document and which far exceeded the capability of its original design. This[0] is a fantastic read which will leave you with a "how the fuck could they ever do that"? feeling and makes you wonder why nobody went to jail for that [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-lo...
- tracker1 3y ago
  I'm somewhat curious as to what efforts to design a smaller, better fit engine closer to the original form/size with better fuel economy was tried. Combined with newer materials. It seems like the flight charismatics have changed so much that pilot recertification should have been required anyway. I have worked on eLearning courses for aerospace in the early-mid 00s but have forgotten mostb of what I learned in that domain back then. It was also mostly mechanic/diagnostic interfaces (ECU, etc)

Huh, I see. So keeping it around for so long was mostly for avoiding expensive R&D and pilot re-training, and not so much for the 737 being the perfect platform to keep iterating on. Interesting.

Gravityloss 3y ago

The aircraft world has its peculiarities. Lots of cases in light aviation where some crashed plane is rebuilt basically from scratch but it's cheaper from regulatory perspective to say it's the same plane, just repaired, ie reuse the tail number.

CaptainZapp 3y ago

A major factor was that Airbus launched the A320 NEO and die hard, lifelong Boeing customers showed interest and even ordered the Airbus offering. Designing a completely new plane (which was considered for quite some time) would have taken far too long and Airbus would gave eaten Boeing's lunch in this important segment. So, Boeing McGivered a solution and updated a 60s airframe for modern use. To not having to recertify the plane they came up with a software hack, which they initially didn't even document and which far exceeded the capability of its original design. This[0] is a fantastic read which will leave you with a "how the fuck could they ever do that"? feeling and makes you wonder why nobody went to jail for that [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-lo...

tracker1 3y ago
I'm somewhat curious as to what efforts to design a smaller, better fit engine closer to the original form/size with better fuel economy was tried. Combined with newer materials. It seems like the flight charismatics have changed so much that pilot recertification should have been required anyway. I have worked on eLearning courses for aerospace in the early-mid 00s but have forgotten mostb of what I learned in that domain back then. It was also mostly mechanic/diagnostic interfaces (ECU, etc)