Will you ever fly the 737 MAX?

[Jacques Vert]

i suppose we all got back on the DC-10.

Yeah, I did. But I was much younger and sillier then

 

[Bundy Bear]

I will get around to flying on the 737Max, not going to rush it though.

 

[pauly7]

Well, it will definitely interesting to see which way Qantas jumps with the 737 replacement program which has to be starting in the next couple of years....

We might all be flying Jetstar....

Haha... luckily (for QF) they don’t need to make a quick decision and will really be in the drivers seat to pick and choose what they want. They have deep experience flying both in their group and already have a significant order book open for A320’s... so suspect they won’t be in any rush to commit to a replacement.

VA on the other hand will be sweating bullets... even if they do the software upgrade and it’s suddenly ‘safe’, in the people’s court will it be safe? Doubt it. Could be a PR disaster and I’m sure some counter PR will be running in stealth mode against them should they stick to their launch timeframe.... you can read the story headlines from here.

As has been stated before I wouldn’t be surprised if the new VA CEO uses this awful disaster to wriggle out / significantly delay this order as many analysts said it was an indulgent waste of money by JB upgrading the fleet so soon anyway...

And no I won’t be flying the MAX, at least until they have ‘settled in’ - whatever that means to me at the time

 

[OATEK]

i suppose we all got back on the DC-10. But then that was a beautiful aircraft. The 737... not so much

I waited a decade after AA191 before flying on one. So maybe I will try the 737MAX in 2029.

 

[wandering_fred]

I flew a JL 787 in Jan 2013 a couple of days before all the 787s were "grounded". Ah, the innocence of youth. Still prefer those windows to the A350s.... I'll probably pass on the 737MAX series until it has had a couple of software releases working on commercial flights.

Wonder if the F35 flight software had better beta testing?

Just wandering
Fred

 

[auskiwiflyer]

jb747 nailed it when he said "...but I don’t like the reason it’s there in the first place."

THIS is the issue most, including the media, are overlooking. WHY did Boeing need to introduce this automatic correction to angle of attack of the stabilizer (MCAS), when every other 737 has not needed it? Because the Max is aerodynamically flawed due to engines that are too large and positioned too far forward from the centre of lift, due to lack of ground clearance, due to being a design from the early 60's when jet engines were not high bypass (so much smaller outside diameter).

The 737 is ancient and its origins can be traced back to the Boeing 367-80 prototype from 1954. The basic design was then adapted to the 707, and later 727 (with tail mounted engines). It was at the end of its life in the 80s and Boeing knew this which is why they developed the 757. They didn't want to make the same mistake with the short landing gear on the 757 so you will note it has extremely long landing gear!!

Issue was too many airlines were reluctant to switch type (737 > 757) because of associated costs and Boeing kept producing the 737 alongside the 757. We wouldn't be in this mess if they simply stopped producing the 737.

According to Boeing's own incident data, you are 5.7x more likely to be in a hull loss incident in a 737 than an A320. Data says A320 0.29% hull loss VERSUS 1.65% for 737 (all types). This is why even prior to this incident; I have been boycotting the 737 (all types) for years.

Finally, another question that no one has been asking - WHY is the rotational range of movement on the horizontal stabilizer so great on the 737-Max that it can pitch the nose so far down that the pilots actions on the elevator can not still induce some nose up attitude? Surely there is never a situation in flight where you would ever need or want such a great angle of trim. Think about that, even with MCAS and the software failure, if there wasn't such a huge range of motion on stabilizer trim, the pilots in both Lion and Ethiopian would more likely have had a) less work to do to manually wind the trim wheels to get it back to normal angle of attack and b) been able to sooner induce a positive rate of climb by pulling back on the yoke.

My theory, and I am interested in pilot's views here, is that because the stabilizer was developed in 60s when the 737-100 was only say 29m long it needed "x" angle range of motion. Now that the fuselage has been lengthened to 44m (1.5x longer) with the max-8 that same range of motion on the stabilizer trim will have much greater effect due to the mechanical advantage of the longer distance to the stabilizer from the centre of lift/pitch rotation of the air frame. I wonder was Boeing negligent in not reducing the mechanical limits on the stabilizer range of motion with these longer variants of the 737?

Having said all that, and I have restrained myself from talking about the square window apertures, window position too low, non ability to take containers in hold, comprised landing speeds, the 737 is a flawed aircraft and airlines should not be supporting it now or for the last say the last decade.

I won't fly the Max, and as I mentioned I give massive preference to airlines that operate the A320 (limiting exposure to any 737). Tiger & Jetstar in Australia, Jetblue and American (check aircraft type carefully) in USA and Easyjet in Europe.

Boeing needs to develop a new narrow body airliner and pronto.

 

[jb747]

I flew a JL 787 in Jan 2013 a couple of days before all the 787s were "grounded". Ah, the innocence of youth. Still prefer those windows to the A350s.... I'll probably pass on the 737MAX series until it has had a couple of software releases working on commercial flights.

You won’t ever know how many software releases there are....so how will you be able to tell when it’s time to go?

Wonder if the F35 flight software had better beta testing?

Well, it isn’t Boeing for a start.

There are so few examples of aircraft systems, that I doubt that the software could ever be considered to even reach alpha stage, much less beta. There have been examples of FBW fighters having control software issues (there’s video of a Gripen and an F22 running amok), but fighter pilots have a way out that does not exist in airliners. Fully FBW systems have now been around for so long, that they are quite reliable...it’s systems that are a mix, and therefore are not building on what came before, that seem to be the problem.[/QUOTE]

Issue was too many airlines were reluctant to switch type (737 > 757) because of associated costs and Boeing kept producing the 737 alongside the 757. We wouldn't be in this mess if they simply stopped producing the 737.

Sad...whilst the 757 would be getting long in the tooth now, it’s still decades younger than the 737, and overcame all of the limitations of the 737. A later version of the 757 would be a good competitor for the 320/321 NEO. It still wouldn’t let Boeing off the hook re designing a new aircraft, but it would have taken the urgency away.

Finally, another question that no one has been asking - WHY is the rotational range of movement on the horizontal stabilizer so great on the 737-Max that it can pitch the nose so far down that the pilots actions on the elevator can not still induce some nose up attitude? Surely there is never a situation in flight where you would ever need or want such a great angle of trim. Think about that, even with MCAS and the software failure, if there wasn't such a huge range of motion on stabilizer trim, the pilots in both Lion and Ethiopian would more likely have had a) less work to do to manually wind the trim wheels to get it back to normal angle of attack and b) been able to sooner induce a positive rate of climb by pulling back on the yoke.

My theory, and I am interested in pilot's views here, is that because the stabilizer was developed in 60s when the 737-100 was only say 29m long it needed "x" angle range of motion. Now that the fuselage has been lengthened to 44m (1.5x longer) with the max-8 that same range of motion on the stabilizer trim will have much greater effect due to the mechanical advantage of the longer distance to the stabilizer from the centre of lift/pitch rotation of the air frame. I wonder was Boeing negligent in not reducing the mechanical limits on the stabilizer range of motion with these longer variants of the 737.

The ability to trim beyond the capability of the elevator to counter it exists in virtually all aircraft. It exists because the range of trim positions required varies enormously, with speed and power setting. Engines are placed forward in part to remove as much of the dangerous structure as possible from their turbine disintegration areas....that results in strong pitch movements with power changes, especially go arounds. The centre of pressure moves with changing mach number. IAS and configuration changes cause dramatic trim movements. Cargo and passenger loading, as well as fuel (which of course varies through the flight) also move the trim.

There are aircraft that gave the pilot the same amount of control as the trim, by using the entire tail as the flying surface. These are mechanically difficult, and subject to overcontrolling....civil pilots simply don’t need that much control effectiveness. I doubt that it could be done in a large airliner. Flying tails are widespread across fighter aircraft.

 

[juddles]

.....

Boeing needs to develop a new narrow body airliner and pronto....

I utterly concur...

 

[Blinky]

jb747 nailed it when he said "...but I don’t like the reason it’s there in the first place."

THIS is the issue most, including the media, are overlooking. WHY did Boeing need to introduce this automatic correction to angle of attack of the stabilizer (MCAS), when every other 737 has not needed it? Because the Max is aerodynamically flawed due to engines that are too large and positioned too far forward from the centre of lift, due to lack of ground clearance, due to being a design from the early 60's when jet engines were not high bypass (so much smaller outside diameter).

The 737 is ancient and its origins can be traced back to the Boeing 367-80 prototype from 1954. The basic design was then adapted to the 707, and later 727 (with tail mounted engines). It was at the end of its life in the 80s and Boeing knew this which is why they developed the 757. They didn't want to make the same mistake with the short landing gear on the 757 so you will note it has extremely long landing gear!!

Issue was too many airlines were reluctant to switch type (737 > 757) because of associated costs and Boeing kept producing the 737 alongside the 757. We wouldn't be in this mess if they simply stopped producing the 737.

According to Boeing's own incident data, you are 5.7x more likely to be in a hull loss incident in a 737 than an A320. Data says A320 0.29% hull loss VERSUS 1.65% for 737 (all types). This is why even prior to this incident; I have been boycotting the 737 (all types) for years.

Finally, another question that no one has been asking - WHY is the rotational range of movement on the horizontal stabilizer so great on the 737-Max that it can pitch the nose so far down that the pilots actions on the elevator can not still induce some nose up attitude? Surely there is never a situation in flight where you would ever need or want such a great angle of trim. Think about that, even with MCAS and the software failure, if there wasn't such a huge range of motion on stabilizer trim, the pilots in both Lion and Ethiopian would more likely have had a) less work to do to manually wind the trim wheels to get it back to normal angle of attack and b) been able to sooner induce a positive rate of climb by pulling back on the yoke.

My theory, and I am interested in pilot's views here, is that because the stabilizer was developed in 60s when the 737-100 was only say 29m long it needed "x" angle range of motion. Now that the fuselage has been lengthened to 44m (1.5x longer) with the max-8 that same range of motion on the stabilizer trim will have much greater effect due to the mechanical advantage of the longer distance to the stabilizer from the centre of lift/pitch rotation of the air frame. I wonder was Boeing negligent in not reducing the mechanical limits on the stabilizer range of motion with these longer variants of the 737?

Having said all that, and I have restrained myself from talking about the square window apertures, window position too low, non ability to take containers in hold, comprised landing speeds, the 737 is a flawed aircraft and airlines should not be supporting it now or for the last say the last decade.

I won't fly the Max, and as I mentioned I give massive preference to airlines that operate the A320 (limiting exposure to any 737). Tiger & Jetstar in Australia, Jetblue and American (check aircraft type carefully) in USA and Easyjet in Europe.

Boeing needs to develop a new narrow body airliner and pronto.

Oh wow. What an informative post. Yes I get how Boeing would stick with the same general design which has delivered for decades (I flew to Fiji on a 707 in 1971), but didn’t realise the compromises that had to be made to keep newer models competitive. I will now avoid a Max. Even if it’s the most economical, I’ll pay more to stay clear.

 

[albatross710]

I'm thinking that the 737-Max model will be deleted from the product range and orders moved to a deceptively similar model the 737-Plus, 737-Ultra or 737-Platinum. The plane stays much the same and the public will forget the issues of the Max.

 

[oz_mark]

But you make an excellent point. Two deadly crashes within a short timeframe of each other and people don't forget. So even if Boeing did make major changes to the MAX - they will suffer from the 'Malaysia Airlines' effect.

Didn't hep that from a 'crisis management' point of view, the two companies were equally as bad as each other.

I will get around to flying on the 737Max, not going to rush it though.

You'll be on the Australian Domestic inaugural

 

[auskiwiflyer]

THIS is the issue most, including the media, are overlooking. WHY did Boeing need to introduce this automatic correction to angle of attack of the stabilizer (MCAS), when every other 737 has not needed it? Because the Max is aerodynamically flawed due to engines that are too large and positioned too far forward from the centre of lift, due to lack of ground clearance, due to being a design from the early 60's when jet engines were not high bypass (so much smaller outside diameter).

Ok it looks like the media are finally looking into the right aspects... We need more of this type of coverage so the flying public knows the history and ancient nature of the 737.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-the-current-environment-20190410-p51cl8.html

 

[oz_mark]

Ok it looks like the media are finally looking into the right aspects... We need more of this type of coverage so the flying public knows the history and ancient nature of the 737.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-the-current-environment-20190410-p51cl8.html

The why it is there had been quite widely reported.

The real issues are aroumd design, implementation and certification factors.

 

[juddles]

I am starting to doubt anyone will ever fly on a "Max" again. I think that ungrounding will take many months, and by then Boeing will use a different label....

 

[Hvr]

I'm enjoying a Pepsi Max but Boeing Max is a bit flat.

 

[wandering_fred]

I'm enjoying a Pepsi Max but Boeing Max is a bit flat.

At this point in time, both would raise my blood pressure too much.

Just wandering
Fred

 

[kamchatsky]

I'm thinking that the 737-Max model will be deleted from the product range and orders moved to a deceptively similar model the 737-Plus, 737-Ultra or 737-Platinum. The plane stays much the same and the public will forget the issues of the Max.

It will be called 737 Enhanced.

 

[Aus ATC]

Hmmm. I was initially going to respond (after reading page 1) that yes, I would be happy to fly in the B737-MAX, safe in the knowledge that the MCAS design/implementation issues would have be addressed (seemingly a system designed by engineers without speaking with pilots...). But reading further, the inherent design compromises of the MAX which initiated the MCAS in the first place are clearly an issue to be addressed. I suspect I won't avoid flying the MAX once recertified, but the conversation gives food for thought.

 

[Scarlett]

I'm thinking that the 737-Max model will be deleted from the product range and orders moved to a deceptively similar model the 737-Plus, 737-Ultra or 737-Platinum. The plane stays much the same and the public will forget the issues of the Max.

Bit hard to hide the wingtip design in your newly named aircraft...

 

[juddles]

Bit hard to hide the wingtip design in your newly named aircraft...

And that is probably scaring a few people flying on earlier 737's that have had the split-scimitars retrofitted over the years. In Australia we are accustomed to the QF 737 wingtips, but the splits have been used for years in other countries.