Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Fixing the MAX

Old 23rd Sep 2020, 18:49
  #1 (permalink)  
25F
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 245
Fixing the MAX

As SLF I shall post here even if it's not really an SLF thing.

As we all know by now, the "problem" with the 737 is that the wings are too close to the ground to fit modern fat high-bypass engines.

Therefore a simple solution is to make the landing gear longer. And this it turns out has already been done for the MAX-10:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/boeing...-landing-gear/
Why wasn't this done in the first place? Why is it not done now?
25F is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2020, 20:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,177
Read the article that you have linked to.

The reason for the proposed 737-10's extended landing gear is to lessen the risk of tail strikes. It still wouldn't be long enough to allow a larger engine to be accommodated under the wing.

A gear that was long enough to do that would need more room to retract than there is space available.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2020, 21:58
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 153
As SLF the problem from a non-technical perspective seems to be that they are trying to defeat the laws of physics through software. I'm therefore not sure if I'll be happy flying on the Max. I try to avoid B737s anyway as A320s are more comfortable but will be going out of my way to avoid flying short haul with anyone with the Max in their fleet for a good few years.
James 1077 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 03:18
  #4 (permalink)  
Son of Slot
Super Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 867
Not a problem 25F. The Max is very much an SLF concern. I have no doubt that Boeing, the FAA (+ other air authorities) and carriers will be swearing all sorts of good things about the Max - but there will be numerous SLF who will not step on it for a long time.
S.o.S. is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 13:01
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 815
S.o.S
You can count me as another avoiding the Max, and I also avoid 787 if at all possible. I used to have great faith in Boeing as a company, but the recent changes have unfortunately made me question this. I still fly in 777,S but have stayed away from the latter two types, though did do sometime on the early ANA 787. Going forward on long haul A350 is my current choice due to most 380,s being grounded currently and 320 short haul, so a complete change from my previous "if it ain't Boeing I am not going" stance !
Cheers
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 13:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,676
Once the Ruperts and Nigels have agreed to fly the thing, if there are approx 10 of them as slf on a Max, I might get on one. And I might not.

Have you looked at the profile photos of a Max vs a non-Max?

The engines are Far too big.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 14:09
  #7 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,205
I will not be flying the Max for the main reason that Boeing do not deserve to succeed with this. Further, I will not travel on Southwest Airlines (any aircraft) as they are one of the large corporates who convinced Boeing not to publicise the MCAS as it would lead to extra costs of training. My choice of sanction will have zero effect on the companies but I have no wish to support such callous behaviour.

When Boeing moved away from it's historical engineering bases, many posts in different forums of PPRuNe said it was a mistake. We had retired Boeing folks saying how the culture had changed. For my part, I worked in the corporate field of commerce (Telecommunications) from 1978 to 2003 before I changed career. This included working for an American company in the late 1980s when Outsourcing became the fashion. I did not like it and the damage it did to the staff. Following the recession of 90/92 I saw the accountants take control and if you look at graphs of the way salaries and bonus' for senior managers and directors soared away from regular staff - you will see one of the roots of this disaster.

As with Mr Mac, I now avoid the 787 but mainly because I like to look out of windows to see the world and electronically closed windows are terrible. Further, their bodging of the electrical system seems to have been forgotten. I am also sad that the A380 is not being used as much as the SLF experience is great.

The American idea of 'capitalism' has changed and the price is now being paid.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 15:02
  #8 (permalink)  
25F
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
The reason for the proposed 737-10's extended landing gear is to lessen the risk of tail strikes. It still wouldn't be long enough to allow a larger engine to be accommodated under the wing.
The article (which, you know, I read first) says it extends the landing gear by 9 inches.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56 the 737NG's engine has a fan diameter of 61 inches and the MAX's LEAP-1B has a fan diameter of 69.4 inches. I am not comparing the *height* of the two engines because the former has had its height optimised to fit under the wing - do the same to the LEAP and it would I expect also fit under.
25F is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 16:35
  #9 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,205
Question is not just fitting but the height of the pod when the OLEO is at full compression, then add a safety margin if one wing is dipping lower and other factors. That might mean the extension is not enough.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 19:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,177
Originally Posted by 25F View Post
The article (which, you know, I read first) says it extends the landing gear by 9 inches.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56 the 737NG's engine has a fan diameter of 61 inches and the MAX's LEAP-1B has a fan diameter of 69.4 inches. I am not comparing the *height* of the two engines because the former has had its height optimised to fit under the wing - do the same to the LEAP and it would I expect also fit under.
I don't think you've quite understood how the semi-levered gear on the 737-10 would work.

The ground clearance under the 737-10's engines, when on the ramp, taxiway and on landing, is no different to the 737-8 and -9. The levered gear only lengthens the leg on takeoff, as the aircraft approaches rotation, to reduce the tail strike risk (same as on the 777-300ER).

It follows that fitting the same gear on the other Max models would not provide any increase in wing height that would allow the LEAP engines to be mounted in the same position as the CFM56s on the NG.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 11:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 182
To fly or not to fly on the Max? Presently the decision is being made for me by a nasty virus that's going around and consequently I'm currently not flying on anything! But I digress. I would like to believe that Boeing won't release the Max for commercial operations until they are certain it's safe to do so. However, I might just wait a little while before stepping into one
Pistonprop is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 13:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 78
Posts: 341
Is not the question whether or not to fly at all ?
For me I can get to Spain via channel tunnel and car
always in my own little bubble. Not sure about
3 or 4 hours in an aircraft, especially if covid spreads
via aerosol, which is now rumoured.
Long haul, I'd like to get home, but no hope of that yet.
Sorry for the thread drift.
esa-aardvark is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 15:28
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 815
As with Mr Mac, I now avoid the 787 but mainly because I like to look out of windows to see the world and electronically closed windows are terrible. Further, their bodging of the electrical system seems to have been forgotten. I am also sad that the A380 is not being used as much as the SLF experience is great.

The American idea of 'capitalism' has changed and the price is now being paid.[/QUOTE]
PAXboy
That is two of us who like to look out of the window at our planet ! As for 380 I hope to be using them again before Christmas, but we will see. With regards to outsourcing and Boeing, I was on a BA flight out of Delhi around April 2003, and there were 3 guys from Boeing with me in the check in queue, which for those who have not witnessed the chaos then at Delhi, you had to be there to appreciate it. The Boeing guys were getting a little flustered, and we got chatting and indeed continued to do so in the lounge. They had been in India on a fact finding, as they had outsourced some work there. I asked how it had gone. The commercial guy said the cost was good, the two engineers looked at him, and then at me, and the older one quietly said "cost of everything value of nothing". They were recommending to shut operations down there as two many corners being cut, but finance guys liked the costings. I am unaware if Boeing still outsource work there, but it would not surprise me if they did. As for new US Capitalism and the issue with Boeing, is it not reap what you sow.
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 17:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,071
I have a different take on all this it seems to me.
I always look at the airline, the aircraft and the route. How does that affect my decision making? Well, if I needed to get between 2 Philipino islands and the choice was a local airline/737Max and a ferry I'd take the plane.
It gets more interesting if, say, I want to go to Madagascar. Via Paris the choice is between Air France and Air Madagascar. Last time I looked I needed a night stop if I chose Kenya Airways via Nairobi. I'd probably choose Air Madagascar.
OK, so my examples are extreme but I'm simply trying to make the point that it's not as simple as "I won't fly on a <aircraft type>.
Hartington is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 23:11
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 957
Neither Boeing nor the FAA can afford another MAX crash caused by the MCAS system. With the fix to the aircraft and the new training program the risk factor should be acceptable. If an airline such as British Airways or Qantas puts the aircraft into service, I would fly on it.

The return to service of the MAX will involve more preparation, training and monitoring than anything I can think of recently happening.
krismiler is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 23:36
  #16 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,205
I agree krismiler. But the only reason they are doing those things is because they did not do them when they should have. It is only the 346 deaths that made them do the right thing.

Last edited by PAXboy; 26th Sep 2020 at 10:06.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 00:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 747
An inch here or there? It sounds as if Boeing are maxing the fix.
jolihokistix is online now  
Old 2nd Oct 2020, 15:28
  #18 (permalink)  
25F
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 245
Okay, I see what you mean now, but it wasn't clear from the article, only the video, which I did not watch first time round!
In any case, if they can make it extend on rotation, they can make it extend at all times.
25F is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2020, 15:39
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,525
The 73 is dead.
Its been overstretched and over engineered.
B2N2 is online now  
Old 2nd Oct 2020, 16:42
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by B2N2 View Post
The 73 is dead.
Its been overstretched and over engineered.
I beg to differ B2N2. I has been overstretched but UNDER engineered.
scoobytopdog is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.