2 ms·
Safety order of Boeing equipment (safest first): - 737-[1-5]xx "Classic" - 757 - 777 - 787 - 767 --- Threshold of stupidity - 737-[6-9]xx "NG" * - 737 M
by 1letterunixname 3y ago
Safety order of Boeing equipment (safest first):
- 737-[1-5]xx "Classic"
- 757
- 777
- 787
- 767
--- Threshold of stupidity
- 737-[6-9]xx "NG" *
- 737 MAX 9
- 737 MAX 8 / MAX 200
- 737 MAX 10
- 737 MAX 7 ??
* Manufacturing inconsistency since the late '90's led to variance in bear strap and structural component quality (e.g., handmade parts out of tolerance yet marked "airworthy") and installation technique (e.g., beating parts to fit).
** 7[0124]7 are no longer widely flown (passenger) commercially but some are seen in small airlines in remote areas. 717 has 0 hull losses.
- kennethrc 3y ago> 737 So, everyone's forgotten about that uncommanded rudder hard-over issue from a couple of decades ago? I can only wonder what kind of noise that would have made were it happening now, as that root cause was far harder to track down.
- burnerthrow008 3y agoFirst, I’m not sure why you rank the original and classic 737 so high, given the fatal rudder issues, which Boeing tried to hide in a similar way as the -max saga. Second, the 717 is actually just a renamed DC-9, and DC-9’s (and the MD-80 series, which are also renamed DC-9’s) certainly have had hull losses and fatalities. They all share the same type certificate, so it’s a bit meaningless to slice out the accidental statistics of 717’s from the rest of the production. A major reason the 717 had so few accidents is that relatively few of them were sold as “717”s and the design was fairly mature and thoroughly debugged by the time they were marketed as 717’s.