Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
Teddy Lop said:
Speed 3 said:
Am I right in thinking a slat track sounds like a rather important piece of the flight control apparatus?Speed 3 said:
Truly shocking, rather than fix the problem they pull a Pinto.Talking to the missus last night, she knows since leaving Airbus I've not been a fan of flying (nothing wrong, just too many near misses in crappy old saabs) and I said I'm more than happy to fly but it wont be on a boeing.
Drihump Trolomite said:
Talking to the missus last night, she knows since leaving Airbus I've not been a fan of flying (nothing wrong, just too many near misses in crappy old saabs) and I said I'm more than happy to fly but it wont be on a boeing.
What's your thoughts on Loganair replacing old Saabs with almost as old ATRs? Eastern at least bought two new ones to replace some of theirs.Drihump Trolomite said:
I hold no view but I'll never fly boeing or saab again
Are you really old or something? Which airlines are you going to use for the rest of your life? Are you planning on doing much flying?
Most airlines operate mixed fleets of Boeing and airbus, what if you book a flight on an airbus and they change it to a Boeing? Will you refuse to get on?
What if one of their aircraft are broken or there’s a strike or something and they’ve sub chartered the flight to another operator and it’s on a Boeing?
Drihump Trolomite said:
I hold no view but I'll never fly boeing or saab again
:haha: Enjoy your Holidays to Devon.Seriously, that is a somewhat sweeping statement.
Have you ever been in a Ford? After all, they made the Ford 'Exploder' for a while didnt they.
Those new Fiestas that are everywhere must be death traps.
El stovey said:
Drihump Trolomite said:
I hold no view but I'll never fly boeing or saab again
Are you really old or something? Which airlines are you going to use for the rest of your life? Are you planning on doing much flying?
Most airlines operate mixed fleets of Boeing and airbus, what if you book a flight on an airbus and they change it to a Boeing? Will you refuse to get on?
What if one of their aircraft are broken or there’s a strike or something and they’ve sub chartered the flight to another operator and it’s on a Boeing?
Don't go to the Scottish Islands though, even if it's booked for an Embraer there's still a good chance of a Saab turning up.
hidetheelephants said:
No more so than the 727 and 737 were completely new aeroplanes; they were but the lineage is obvious and there were legacy structures and systems.
The wing is the key. There is definitely a family lineage between the 707 through to the 737 - chiefly in fuselage and nose shape and, in the early days, some of the systems. However, each design had very different wings - which makes them quite different aeroplanes. And the later 737s (600/700/800 and definitely the Max) bear little in the way of reliance on the 707 family - apart from the shape of the nose.What Boeing SHOULD have done is kept the 757 line open and used IT as the basis for future single aisle designs rather then stretching and stretching the 737.
Eric Mc said:
hidetheelephants said:
No more so than the 727 and 737 were completely new aeroplanes; they were but the lineage is obvious and there were legacy structures and systems.
The wing is the key. There is definitely a family lineage between the 707 through to the 737 - chiefly in fuselage and nose shape and, in the early days, some of the systems. However, each design had very different wings - which makes them quite different aeroplanes. And the later 737s (600/700/800 and definitely the Max) bear little in the way of reliance on the 707 family - apart from the shape of the nose.What Boeing SHOULD have done is kept the 757 line open and used IT as the basis for future single aisle designs rather then stretching and stretching the 737.
They bodged the Max because airbus stole the initiative with the neo and Boeing got their fingers burned with cost cutting on the 787 which at the time was causing them problems.
I would actually agree that really was the best option. However,. if they were thinking of merely developing an already existing model, the 757 had more potential than the 737.
If they are not careful, they could follow the wrong road taken by McDonnell Douglas. After McDonnell took over the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967, all development of brand new models more or less stopped. Even the DC-10 had been started when Douglas was still just Douglas. All models developed after 1967 were based on the DC-9 and DC-10.
If they are not careful, they could follow the wrong road taken by McDonnell Douglas. After McDonnell took over the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967, all development of brand new models more or less stopped. Even the DC-10 had been started when Douglas was still just Douglas. All models developed after 1967 were based on the DC-9 and DC-10.
Eric Mc said:
I would actually agree that really was the best option. However,. if they were thinking of merely developing an already existing model, the 757 had more potential than the 737.
If they are not careful, they could follow the wrong road taken by McDonnell Douglas. After McDonnell took over the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967, all development of brand new models more or less stopped. Even the DC-10 had been started when Douglas was still just Douglas. All models developed after 1967 were based on the DC-9 and DC-10.
The 757 is hard to re engine though as it’s just that bit bigger and heavier than all the 737 variants. It’s in a unique class with size and range and a bit too inefficient with today’s fuel prices. That 757, 767 200 gap that’s now missing between the max and the 787 is where Boeing is looking (this week) to place their New midsize Airplane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_A...If they are not careful, they could follow the wrong road taken by McDonnell Douglas. After McDonnell took over the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967, all development of brand new models more or less stopped. Even the DC-10 had been started when Douglas was still just Douglas. All models developed after 1967 were based on the DC-9 and DC-10.
Boeing definitely looked at re engined 757 and 767s but decided they wouldn’t be economically viable.
alangla said:
El stovey said:
Drihump Trolomite said:
I hold no view but I'll never fly boeing or saab again
Are you really old or something? Which airlines are you going to use for the rest of your life? Are you planning on doing much flying?
Most airlines operate mixed fleets of Boeing and airbus, what if you book a flight on an airbus and they change it to a Boeing? Will you refuse to get on?
What if one of their aircraft are broken or there’s a strike or something and they’ve sub chartered the flight to another operator and it’s on a Boeing?
Don't go to the Scottish Islands though, even if it's booked for an Embraer there's still a good chance of a Saab turning up.
El stovey said:
The 757 is hard to re engine though as it’s just that bit bigger and heavier than all the 737 variants. It’s in a unique class with size and range and a bit too inefficient with today’s fuel prices. That 757, 767 200 gap that’s now missing between the max and the 787 is where Boeing is looking (this week) to place their New midsize Airplane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_A...
Boeing definitely looked at re engined 757 and 767s but decided they wouldn’t be economically viable.
The big issue with the 737 is the short undercarriage - a legacy of the JT8D versions. This is what has hampered fitting wider diameter high-bypass turbofans and seems to be the crucial factor in the aerodynamic problems suffered by the Max. At least the 757 had plenty of ground clearance.Boeing definitely looked at re engined 757 and 767s but decided they wouldn’t be economically viable.
I fear some of you have seen through my ruse which convinces my missus I'll fly but with tight stipulations.
Most of my flying is inter European so lots of airbus exclusive airlines to choose from.
It's a shame they didnt rebrand the 757 as 737-max and rework it.
Of course both airbus and boeing have problems, they both share same suppliers and both produce for each other but the service bulletins I used to read from boeing were horrendous. They have systematically destroyed their QA in the pursuit of trying to compete with Airbus, the neo should have prompted the 797 but to undercut and remove retraining they didnt.
Stovey, do they not use a single control type across their family?
Most of my flying is inter European so lots of airbus exclusive airlines to choose from.
It's a shame they didnt rebrand the 757 as 737-max and rework it.
Of course both airbus and boeing have problems, they both share same suppliers and both produce for each other but the service bulletins I used to read from boeing were horrendous. They have systematically destroyed their QA in the pursuit of trying to compete with Airbus, the neo should have prompted the 797 but to undercut and remove retraining they didnt.
Stovey, do they not use a single control type across their family?
surveyor said:
alangla said:
El stovey said:
Drihump Trolomite said:
I hold no view but I'll never fly boeing or saab again
Are you really old or something? Which airlines are you going to use for the rest of your life? Are you planning on doing much flying?
Most airlines operate mixed fleets of Boeing and airbus, what if you book a flight on an airbus and they change it to a Boeing? Will you refuse to get on?
What if one of their aircraft are broken or there’s a strike or something and they’ve sub chartered the flight to another operator and it’s on a Boeing?
Don't go to the Scottish Islands though, even if it's booked for an Embraer there's still a good chance of a Saab turning up.
Eric Mc said:
If they are not careful, they could follow the wrong road taken by McDonnell Douglas. After McDonnell took over the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967, all development of brand new models more or less stopped. Even the DC-10 had been started when Douglas was still just Douglas. All models developed after 1967 were based on the DC-9 and DC-10.
If you look at Pprune, they seem to think the start of the current rot was when Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas & took on a load of their business practices.alangla said:
Eric Mc said:
If they are not careful, they could follow the wrong road taken by McDonnell Douglas. After McDonnell took over the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967, all development of brand new models more or less stopped. Even the DC-10 had been started when Douglas was still just Douglas. All models developed after 1967 were based on the DC-9 and DC-10.
If you look at Pprune, they seem to think the start of the current rot was when Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas & took on a load of their business practices.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/...
Eric Mc said:
I would actually agree that really was the best option. However,. if they were thinking of merely developing an already existing model, the 757 had more potential than the 737.
The problem with the 757 is that it really didn't fill a role better than any other aircraft, it was a long range narrowbody designed to operate between hubs. Smaller and less efficient than 747, 767 and 777 over long range and not as versatile as the 737 on short range flights. So it didn't get many customers, ergo was cut from Boeings line up around 2004.Boeing was developing a New Midsize Aircraft (NMA) which was expected to wear the moniker of 797 designed to replace the 757 and 767 roles, but were caught with their pants down by the A320neo. Development of this aircraft, expected to be a short, twin aisle airliner like the 767 has stalled recently as resources have been relocated to the 737MAX debacle.
Eric Mc said:
The big issue with the 737 is the short undercarriage - a legacy of the JT8D versions. This is what has hampered fitting wider diameter high-bypass turbofans and seems to be the crucial factor in the aerodynamic problems suffered by the Max. At least the 757 had plenty of ground clearance.
According to Boeing's marketing, that's a feature, one they wanted to keep.The low clearance of the 737 allowed it to operate from airports without significant infrastructure... I.E. baggage handlers could load and unload the hold by hand, without the aid of a ramp.
This was the major advantage Boeing had over the A320, as the A320 was designed with high-bypass turbofans in mind so it's ground clearance was higher, preventing baggage handlers from loading the hold by hand, at least according to regulations.
The B737 and A320 have stopped being regional airliners, as evidenced by the acquisition of smaller firms such as Bombardier (A220, formerly C-Series) and Embraer (E-Jets) to provide smaller jets, when the B737 and A320 families started out, they were mostly 100-150 seat airliners, now they are 150-200+ seat airliners, so both Boeing and Airbus have sought models to replace them as regional airliners, so I'm agreeing with you that Boeing should really just bite the bullet and raise the B737.
The problem with raising the 737 was that they couldn't without fundamentally re-designing the whole plane.
To raise the plane they needed to lengthen the undercarriage legs - which of course, includes the main undercarriage. These, of course, retract inwards and more or less meet in the middle under the fuselage.
To allow them to retract without clashing with each other, the undercarriage attachment points would need to be moved to a position further out on the wing. That means redesigning the wing spar, the undercarriage bay and substantial parts of the wing itself. At this point, you are really at looking at a new aeroplane - which is what they were trying to avoid.
To raise the plane they needed to lengthen the undercarriage legs - which of course, includes the main undercarriage. These, of course, retract inwards and more or less meet in the middle under the fuselage.
To allow them to retract without clashing with each other, the undercarriage attachment points would need to be moved to a position further out on the wing. That means redesigning the wing spar, the undercarriage bay and substantial parts of the wing itself. At this point, you are really at looking at a new aeroplane - which is what they were trying to avoid.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff