B 737-MAX Maiden Flight
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 6°N 3°E
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A320neo caught Boeing off-guard, but barring a major unforeseen issue the 737MAX will be a big moneymaker for Boeing until the all-new 737 comes out in 2030.
Just give us an EICAS!!!! That is clearly too much to ask for
Real truth is that it is a cost saving gimmick.
Boeing really wanted to replace the 737ng with an entirely new airplane instead of doing the Max, but Airbus forced their hand with the NEO. Not only would an all new aircraft required a much longer development time, it would have taken several years more after it was certified to ramp production up to the current 40 or 50 aircraft/month. That would have basically meant conceding a 500-600 aircraft/year market to AB for many years.
My personal crystal ball says Boeing will launch a new airplane program in the early to mid 2020s for the 150-250 passenger market - basically a 737/757 replacement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not single aisle.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Near a lake
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone seems to consider the A320 a modern aircraft, it's an airplane from the 80's, the Neo version is "just" an upgrade of the actual aircraft. It's still the same cockpit with small screens, an technology from the 80's, no HUD...
The 737Max is also just an upgrade but at least, Boeing changed the screens for a more modern layout... Airbus had this opportunity to integrate the A350 (or A380) cockpit but remain with this old and noisy cockpit ( I know, it is less noisy than the 737 but still very noisy!)
The main problem is that aircrafts are created for airlines, not for pilots...
The 737Max is also just an upgrade but at least, Boeing changed the screens for a more modern layout... Airbus had this opportunity to integrate the A350 (or A380) cockpit but remain with this old and noisy cockpit ( I know, it is less noisy than the 737 but still very noisy!)
The main problem is that aircrafts are created for airlines, not for pilots...
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Already was in the NG (700-900). If you paid for it that is.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's still the same cockpit with small screens, an technology from the 80's, no HUD...
every time they forget about it and bonk their head on the big ugly thing.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. What is the point in roll out guidance for Cat IIIB if there are only two autopilots, limiting it to Cat IIIA? As for FBW spoilers, that'll be a cost and weight saving measure, getting rid of the old mechanical spoiler mixer unit. It won't make any difference to the pilots, but I'll bet the overall handling will be even worse than the NG; the Classic flew nicely, but the NG was horrible - bad harmonisation with heavy and sluggish roll but a bit twitchy in pitch, far less stable than the old airframe and badly behaved in the flare (prone to floating, but suddenly dropping if you get below VREF+5, an unpleasant characteristic of supercritical wings). Recent developments are doing wonders for performance, but handling is suffering badly. But who cares? SOPs dictate the use of automatics, so the industry can just blame lazy pilots who don't practice hand flying for the shoddy handling characteristics of modern airframes...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
neo currently at approx. 60%, MAX 40% overall sales. PW1000G offering additional 2% sfc improvement by 2019 which CFM can't match in the timescale. If the PW engine continues to stay one step ahead of the LEAP, the AB share will continue to grow at B's expense. Already B rumoured to be considering a stretched MAX9 with jacked up gear and new wing to take on the A321neoLR. More likely B will be forced into earlier launch of all new family spanning 150 - 300 seats: common cockpit, systems etc but perhaps two fuselage diameters i.e. taking a 757/767 approach again - worked last time but will incur $10bn - $15bn non-recurring and will have to deliver step change economic improvement over neo - tough call.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. What is the point in roll out guidance for Cat IIIB if there are only two autopilots, limiting it to Cat IIIA?
To be honest i can't really confirm your story about bad landings and handling on the NG. Yes, it was a change transitioning from the classic and i do prefer the classics handling, especially in roll, but the NG was after some getting used to as easy to fly and land in my opinion.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: somewhere
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aluminium Shuffler,
Well, you're wrong there.Cat IIIB capability does not require 3 autopilots.Denti was correct in his statement,the later versions of the 737 NG are capable of CAT IIIb operations.
As far I recall among other things required there have to be 3 seperate inertial guidance sources to provide data to the FCCs.On the later variants of the 737 NG the third source is the ISFD standby instrument unit.Plus Boeinog implemented changes to the rudder system to allow the Autopilot to control the rudder during rollout guidance.
The a320 btw is also Cat3b capable as far as I know and also features only 2 AP.
Kind regards,
Vee1.rotate
Edit:oops,Denti beat me to it.
I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. What is the point in roll out guidance for Cat IIIB if there are only two autopilots, limiting it to Cat IIIA?
As far I recall among other things required there have to be 3 seperate inertial guidance sources to provide data to the FCCs.On the later variants of the 737 NG the third source is the ISFD standby instrument unit.Plus Boeinog implemented changes to the rudder system to allow the Autopilot to control the rudder during rollout guidance.
The a320 btw is also Cat3b capable as far as I know and also features only 2 AP.
Kind regards,
Vee1.rotate
Edit:oops,Denti beat me to it.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about harder to fly, think it is merely what you get used to.
I went through a phase in my career, where I flew the 300/400/500 with periods of only 1 variant for months at a time. After a few days any of them seemed fine, as it was when I alternated between the 3 at once.
In any case, there is much more variation between an empty airframe vs one at Max Landing Mass.
For sure the Classic with its nice thick wing is easier to grease on . . . . but, that is not what we are "supposed" to do anyhow according to Mr Boeing, so, don't complain to him.
FWIW I preferred the 800 pre winglets, but none of them are nicer to fly/land than a 300W.
Oh, and those who have flown the 900 don't have a good word to say about its handling.
I went through a phase in my career, where I flew the 300/400/500 with periods of only 1 variant for months at a time. After a few days any of them seemed fine, as it was when I alternated between the 3 at once.
In any case, there is much more variation between an empty airframe vs one at Max Landing Mass.
For sure the Classic with its nice thick wing is easier to grease on . . . . but, that is not what we are "supposed" to do anyhow according to Mr Boeing, so, don't complain to him.
FWIW I preferred the 800 pre winglets, but none of them are nicer to fly/land than a 300W.
Oh, and those who have flown the 900 don't have a good word to say about its handling.
