Are the MAXs now in 'Parc Ferme'..?
Thread Starter
Are the MAXs now in 'Parc Ferme'..?
I just wonder if the grounded aircraft are in Parc Ferme, where they cannot be worked on by engineers.
If,.as has been suggested in other threads, there is some common AoA data transmission error. Then it would be nice is the fault could be found in some of the other Maxs. as the only two aircraft we know had the fault are not intact now.
If,.as has been suggested in other threads, there is some common AoA data transmission error. Then it would be nice is the fault could be found in some of the other Maxs. as the only two aircraft we know had the fault are not intact now.
There are five Tui Max’s parked at Juliet 1 at Manchester, (making that intersection unavailable to traffic).
I would imagine that these aircraft can be worked on in the open to prepare them for short-term storage? Would they remove batteries, empty the fuel water drains and drain potable water? I am sure there is more to it than that. Maybe jack them onto blocks to prevent tyre flats?
They can change engines outside, (under a tent), so I would imagine they can work on Avionics and probes?
I would imagine that these aircraft can be worked on in the open to prepare them for short-term storage? Would they remove batteries, empty the fuel water drains and drain potable water? I am sure there is more to it than that. Maybe jack them onto blocks to prevent tyre flats?
They can change engines outside, (under a tent), so I would imagine they can work on Avionics and probes?
Thread Starter
I was thinking that they would be a good source of information, and that an engineer could un-knowingly alter any evidence that would help pin-point the faults.
Were there not a few other aircraft that had similar captain side anomalies. These should be inspected by suitable FAA / CAA teams.
Were there not a few other aircraft that had similar captain side anomalies. These should be inspected by suitable FAA / CAA teams.
Last edited by scifi; 1st Apr 2019 at 14:08.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking that they would be a good source of information, and that an engineer could un-knowingly alter any evidence that would help pin-point the faults.
Were there not a few other aircraft that had similar captain side anomalies. These should be inspected by suitable FAA / CAA teams.
Were there not a few other aircraft that had similar captain side anomalies. These should be inspected by suitable FAA / CAA teams.
Thread Starter
Lets be quite honest, that airframe was never designed for those engines, and no amount of software is going to solve that problem.
If Boeing want to use the LEAF engines then they need to design a new aircraft to suit them.
If Boeing want to use the LEAF engines then they need to design a new aircraft to suit them.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 39
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we get some arguments to support this statement?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B737 fuselage design dates back to the 1950s, the later designed B767/757 are already obsolete and except for a few specialised variants, out of production. It should have been obvious to Boeing back in the 1980s that they needed a new airframe for their bread and butter narrowbody. Possibly they didn't see the new A320 as a threat and weren't willing to invest the money in a new design. Even at 30 years old the A320 is still a fantastic aircraft which is still able to be updated without mutating it into something the original designer wouldn't recognise. New sharklet wings and next generation engines have improved it's efficiency considerably, update the flight deck and there is no reason for it not to go on for another 20 years.
Boeing would need to spend billions on a new design which would be unlikely to offer significant improvements over the current A320 series, and the selling price would need to recoup the development costs. Margins at the economy end of the market aren't as much as at the higher widebody long haul end and it would take many years to get back into the black.
Boeing would need to spend billions on a new design which would be unlikely to offer significant improvements over the current A320 series, and the selling price would need to recoup the development costs. Margins at the economy end of the market aren't as much as at the higher widebody long haul end and it would take many years to get back into the black.
Even at 30 years old the A320 is still a fantastic aircraft which is still able to be updated without mutating it into something the original designer wouldn't recognise. New sharklet wings and next generation engines have improved it's efficiency considerably, update the flight deck and there is no reason for it not to go on for another 20 years.
Boeing would need to spend billions on a new design which would be unlikely to offer significant improvements over the current A320 series
Boeing would need to spend billions on a new design which would be unlikely to offer significant improvements over the current A320 series
The A320 certainly has significant advantages over the 737, which is no surprise given that it came along 20 years later.
So what makes you think that an all-new aircraft 30 years further down the road than the A320 wouldn't be able to offer a corresponding leap over it in technology and capability ?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a tube driver so could someone please explain to me why the 757 was ditched, especially the -100 in favour of the 737? Was it due to the 'same type' argument that seems to pervade for the 737 Max? It seems to me that this was a good aircraft with plenty of space for bigger engines.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a tube driver so could someone please explain to me why the 757 was ditched, especially the -100 in favour of the 737? Was it due to the 'same type' argument that seems to pervade for the 737 Max? It seems to me that this was a good aircraft with plenty of space for bigger engines.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see, that's where I'm a bit confused. The only data I can find is that cost/seat mile for the latter 737s is in the region of 6-8 cents/mile; Boeing claim the Max is a 20% improvement on earlier models. The 757 appears to be about 7.5 cents/mile.
https://www.planestats.com/bhsn_2014sep
Wiki hits it from a different angle saying that a 737 Max has a Miles Per US Gallon of 102/seat with the 757-300 at 88 MPG.
For sure, the 757 appears to be more expensive but not in the order of twice as much. It would be an interesting theoretical exercise to number crunch a 757 with LEAF engines.
https://www.planestats.com/bhsn_2014sep
Wiki hits it from a different angle saying that a 737 Max has a Miles Per US Gallon of 102/seat with the 757-300 at 88 MPG.
For sure, the 757 appears to be more expensive but not in the order of twice as much. It would be an interesting theoretical exercise to number crunch a 757 with LEAF engines.
You can't have it both ways.
The A320 certainly has significant advantages over the 737, which is no surprise given that it came along 20 years later.
So what makes you think that an all-new aircraft 30 years further down the road than the A320 wouldn't be able to offer a corresponding leap over it in technology and capability ?
The A320 certainly has significant advantages over the 737, which is no surprise given that it came along 20 years later.
So what makes you think that an all-new aircraft 30 years further down the road than the A320 wouldn't be able to offer a corresponding leap over it in technology and capability ?
If Boeing can design an aircraft that offers superior safety / fly by wire characteristics / ergonomics to the A320 family of aircraft, they'd be on a winner.
Unfortunately for them, I think that technology has largely plateaued since the A320 introduction. The only major change is in engine efficiency. The 787 and A350 are certainly incremental improvements, but largely offer a refinement (albeit larger) of the A320 FBW concept.
For Boeing, shrinking the 787 into a new 737 replacement would need to do a lot more than the A320 to be a best seller. Size aside, the 787 and the A320 are largely equals in terms of technology and safety. If the tech was there, Boeing would have it on show already in the 787.
