Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
All the experts I've heard in the media talking about the 737 Max have said that the engines are further forward of the leading edge of the wing and positioned higher. This has altered the weight and balance of the aircraft compared to the previous versions (737-700/800/900) and that is why this anti-stalling software was installed.
Boeing were caught completely by surprise when Airbus launched the A320neo, as a relatively cheap option of significantly improving the efficiency of an existing airframe. Changing the wings and adding a new engine is cheap compared to a new airframe, especially if you leave the wingbox alone.Unfortunately for CFM the best way of improving the efficiency of an engine is to fit a much larger fan, but by staying with the existing wingbox they were limited by the 737s relatively stumpy undercarriage legs, hence pushing the engines upwards relative to the wing.
Both crashes with the 737 Max happened during daytime in good weather conditions, so the pilots had immediate visual reference something was wrong - although I did fly into Jakarta the day after the Lion Air crash, and the air quality over Java was very pea soup with very bad pollution. If it happened in the dark, and the pilots didn't react as fast, might the situation be much worse with an aircraft ditching into the more populated areas that surround airports?
JuniorD said:
Ayahuasca said:
PRTVR said:
Well wish me luck, think I might be flying out with Tui today on a max. 
Nice knowing you.Looking at the pictures of the crash do people think anything would survive , bones etc.
El stovey said:
captain_cynic said:
If what Eric Mc says is true, then it could easily be a design flaw that causes the type to be withdrawn.
Withdrawn? What like they just all get scrapped?
However they'll at least have a chance to engineer the problem out before then. They'll likely figure something out, but this is not going to be good for Boeing.
The 737 NG's haven't ended production yet, so even if the type has to be scrapped it won't be a death blow, they'll just keep making the NG's, probably with the CFM LEAP engines.
El stovey said:
As I said above, the 737 should have ended years ago and Boeing should have made the 797 by now.
The problem is they got caught out by the airbus neo and this was the reaction. Also the problems with 787 production initially caused them to step back for a bit before developing another new type.
The 737 has three distinct airframes now, they've just kept the namesake. The 737 Classic (-100 to 500) made from 1967, the 737 NG (Next Generation, -700 to 900) produced since 1996 and the 737 MAX (also using -700 to -900 and -1000) in production since 2016. So newer designs have been in production since 96, just under the same moniker.The problem is they got caught out by the airbus neo and this was the reaction. Also the problems with 787 production initially caused them to step back for a bit before developing another new type.
All airframes are still in production although I imagine they aren't making many classics any more.
Boeing's nomenclature is an absolute mess, so confusion is bound to happen (Airbus's is only slightly better though).
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 12th March 13:16
Munter said:
El stovey said:
captain_cynic said:
If what Eric Mc says is true, then it could easily be a design flaw that causes the type to be withdrawn.
Withdrawn? What like they just all get scrapped?
k off computer just follow my controls I know what I'm doing" button. Or the software patch might be enough. Perhaps it's a complete rewrite of the software to solve the issues a different way. Who knows. But given the thing does fly most of the time", there must be a solution to be found.
I wouldn't lump the 100 and 200 with the 300 to 500. The 100 and 200 were the initial production variant and both powered by the low bypass Pratt and Whitney JT8D turbofans. The 100 did not sell well at all with most early 737 customers opting for the slightly longer 200 family.
The 200 was superseded in the mid 1980s by the 300 to 500 family which differed in significant ways to the 100/200 - chiefly with the replacement of the old JT8Ds with new generation and more efficient CFM56 high bypass turbofans. There were some aerodynamic changes as well with the tailfin receiving a fillet extension, the tailplane was enlarged and some wing modifications were made.The cockpit also went glass at this time.
Indeed, the switch to the glass cockpit was mentioned as a factor in the Kegworth British Midland 737 crash in 1989.
The 200 was superseded in the mid 1980s by the 300 to 500 family which differed in significant ways to the 100/200 - chiefly with the replacement of the old JT8Ds with new generation and more efficient CFM56 high bypass turbofans. There were some aerodynamic changes as well with the tailfin receiving a fillet extension, the tailplane was enlarged and some wing modifications were made.The cockpit also went glass at this time.
Indeed, the switch to the glass cockpit was mentioned as a factor in the Kegworth British Midland 737 crash in 1989.
Eric Mc said:
I wouldn't lump the 100 and 200 with the 300 to 500. The 100 and 200 were the initial production variant and both powered by the low bypass Pratt and Whitney JT8D turbofans. The 100 did not sell well at all with most early 737 customers opting for the slightly longer 200 family.
The 200 was superseded in the mid 1980s by the 300 to 500 family which differed in significant ways to the 100/200 - chiefly with the replacement of the old JT8Ds with new generation and more efficient CFM56 high bypass turbofans. There were some aerodynamic changes as well with the tailfin receiving a fillet extension, the tailplane was enlarged and some wing modifications were made.The cockpit also went glass at this time.
Indeed, the switch to the glass cockpit was mentioned as a factor in the Kegworth British Midland 737 crash in 1989.
Quite right... I was using Boeing's nomenclature, I also wouldn't lump them in, the low bypass turbofans are a completely different class of engine. The 200 was superseded in the mid 1980s by the 300 to 500 family which differed in significant ways to the 100/200 - chiefly with the replacement of the old JT8Ds with new generation and more efficient CFM56 high bypass turbofans. There were some aerodynamic changes as well with the tailfin receiving a fillet extension, the tailplane was enlarged and some wing modifications were made.The cockpit also went glass at this time.
Indeed, the switch to the glass cockpit was mentioned as a factor in the Kegworth British Midland 737 crash in 1989.
I remember seeing a -100 at Perth Airport... in 2014, still in service with Cobham Aviation doing charter flights to a mine site. Engine nacelles were so close to the wing they were practically part of it. I'm sure they've gotten rid of it since.
Quick look at Flightradar shows TF-ICE left Gatwick at 12:31, just missing the ban. https://www.flightradar24.com/ICE5G/1fc6d99c TF-ICY is heading for Skye just now, presumably these will be the last two in UK space. If the TUI ones are out of the country (probable) then some holidaymakers have got a long walk home...
captain_cynic said:
Quite right... I was using Boeing's nomenclature, I also wouldn't lump them in, the low bypass turbofans are a completely different class of engine.
I remember seeing a -100 at Perth Airport... in 2014, still in service with Cobham Aviation doing charter flights to a mine site. Engine nacelles were so close to the wing they were practically part of it. I'm sure they've gotten rid of it since.
You still see some old -200s with gravel kits on Flightradar running trips to mines in the north of Canada, don't think anything since then has had the gravel runway capability.I remember seeing a -100 at Perth Airport... in 2014, still in service with Cobham Aviation doing charter flights to a mine site. Engine nacelles were so close to the wing they were practically part of it. I'm sure they've gotten rid of it since.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff