Toronto Passions
Ashley Madison

Good analysis on Boeing 737 Max failures

Previous Thread Next Thread
J

Johnny Utah

Active member
Jun 9, 2017
593
62
28
I read that same one. Spot on.

There usually are many large systemic errors that with luck, causes an accident of this magnitude.
 
J

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,069
3,966
113
It was needed because the MAX’s much larger engines had to be placed farther forward on the wing, changing the airframe’s
Click to expand...
The above is the 5000 pound gorilla in the room.

This is the massive massive problem that Boeing has with this plane.

This is a 60 year old plane that has been stretched on 2 occasions and pushed way beyond its original design limitations because it's all Boeing has. The beancounters have forced the engineers to put a plane on the market they knew didn't fit the bill. The market demanded smaller more fuel efficient planes and Boeing had just finished betting the farm on the 787 and guess what? It was a new plane that was already obsolete by 20 years and no-one wants to buy it.

So it's back to the future for Boeing. Dust off the linens for the 737 because it's the closest thing that Boeing had to fitting the bill. Only problem it's a 60 year old design that was designed when John F Kennedy was president, the Beatles were playing the bar circuit in Hamburg, by guys using slide rules. No worries say the beancounters, you engineering types will figure it out. Just make it go. What do mean it won't work? Why not? The engines aren't powerful enough? Put bigger engines on it then.

What do you mean bigger engines won't work? Why not?

What do you mean "laws of physics" . You propeller heads are always telling us why things can't be done. Just fucking do it. You're the fucking engineer, not me.

Look, you don't get it, we don't have 1O years and billions of dollars to engineer a new plane to fit the bill, so you need to figure out how the fuck to make this 60 year old plane fit the market.
 
P

poorboy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,268
105
63
james t kirk said:
The above is the 5000 pound gorilla in the room.

This is the massive massive problem that Boeing has with this plane.

This is a 60 year old plane that has been stretched on 2 occasions and pushed way beyond its original design limitations because it's all Boeing has. The beancounters have forced the engineers to put a plane on the market they knew didn't fit the bill. The market demanded smaller more fuel efficient planes and Boeing had just finished betting the farm on the 787 and guess what? It was a new plane that was already obsolete by 20 years and no-one wants to buy it.

So it's back to the future for Boeing. Dust off the linens for the 737 because it's the closest thing that Boeing had to fitting the bill. Only problem it's a 60 year old design that was designed when John F Kennedy was president, the Beatles were playing the bar circuit in Hamburg, by guys using slide rules. No worries say the beancounters, you engineering types will figure it out. Just make it go. What do mean it won't work? Why not? The engines aren't powerful enough? Put bigger engines on it then.

What do you mean bigger engines won't work? Why not?

What do you mean "laws of physics" . You propeller heads are always telling us why things can't be done. Just fucking do it. You're the fucking engineer, not me.

Look, you don't get it, we don't have 1O years and billions of dollars to engineer a new plane to fit the bill, so you need to figure out how the fuck to make this 60 year old plane fit the market.
Click to expand...
You reading the right article?

The article I read had to do about certification shortcuts, lack of training, poor oversight and modern software glitches.

There are now hundreds of articles written on the 737 MAX. I've yet to run across an article saying the airframe was the problem in this incident. All signs are pointing to software and sensor problems.

Lots of airframes have been stretched and re engined over the years. EVERYONE does it.

The Lockheed C130 Hercules has been in continuous production for 60 years, and has been stretched in two areas and re engined.

The Boeing 747 has been in continuous production for almost 50 years, and has been both shortened and stretched and had it's second deck stretched as well as re engined several times.

Every Boeing has had stretch variants, from the 707 to the 787. All have had different engine choices over the years.

Same with Airbus. They are already thinking about stretching the A220 and A350.

The Bombardier Dash 8 was introduced in 1984 and has been stretched multiple times, and is now the Q400. Also different engines.

EVERYONE does it. It is commercially viable. They even stretch and re engine helicopters.

There are 80 year old DC3's that are being stretched ahead of the wing and reengined by Basler at this moment. The airframe will still be flying at 100 years old.

https://www.baslerturbo.com/

As well, where are you getting the information that no one wants the 787?

As of 2019, there are 1421 orders and 800 deliveries.

Cancellation rates average 5 to 6% and the 787 is at 4%.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4229662-boeing-787-cancellations-nightmare?page=2

The plane nobody wants is the ultra modern A380 whose production run will be less than 15 years with less than 300 sold.
 
Last edited:
J

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
P

poorboy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,268
105
63
P

poorboy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,268
105
63
Hope both Boeing and the FAA get charged and there's a shakeup in the aviation industry.

Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows it's a bad idea to let someone self police themselves when massive profits are involved.

Federal Government should be charged too as they were responsible for underfunding the FAA. They got complacent because the accident rate was so low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom