Would you fly on a 737 Max?
Discussion
It's an amazing evolution. Notice how they even had a problem with very original JT8D installation. The 1st picture shows the short nacelle fitted to the very first Series 100 and 200 aircraft. Within months of entering service (in 1968), early users of these 737s found they had problems with the thrust reversers. All later 200s had a longer rear fairing and the early aircraft were retro-fitted quite quickly.
There is a lovely photo of Aer Lingus's first ever 737-248 (EI-ASA) taking off on its first flight at Seattle which features the elongated nacelles.
Also visible are the auxiliary blow-in doors which were a feature of early versions of the JT8D. They weren't needed on later 200s.
The picture dates from 1969.
There is a lovely photo of Aer Lingus's first ever 737-248 (EI-ASA) taking off on its first flight at Seattle which features the elongated nacelles.
Also visible are the auxiliary blow-in doors which were a feature of early versions of the JT8D. They weren't needed on later 200s.
The picture dates from 1969.
Eric Mc said:
It's an amazing evolution. Notice how they even had a problem with very original JT8D installation. The 1st picture shows the short nacelle fitted to the very first Series 100 and 200 aircraft. Within months of entering service (in 1968), early users of these 737s found they had problems with the thrust reversers. All later 200s had a longer rear fairing and the early aircraft were retro-fitted quite quickly.
There is a lovely photo of Aer Lingus's first ever 737-248 (EI-ASA) taking off on its first flight at Seattle which features the elongated nacelles.
Also visible are the auxiliary blow-in doors which were a feature of early versions of the JT8D. They weren't needed on later 200s.
The picture dates from 1969.
That’s a lovely picture. I take it’s that’s the delivery flight?There is a lovely photo of Aer Lingus's first ever 737-248 (EI-ASA) taking off on its first flight at Seattle which features the elongated nacelles.
Also visible are the auxiliary blow-in doors which were a feature of early versions of the JT8D. They weren't needed on later 200s.
The picture dates from 1969.
Edited by Piginapoke on Wednesday 11th November 18:39
737max documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdYcJldzOdw&t=...
I was watching this when a RAF Typhoon did a low pass directly above, rattled brain, tinnitus, cheers.
Eric Mc said:
...so there are now too few players in the game.
Same in Europe.Defence, and aerospace in particular, is ridiculously, almost public-sector-ly, slow and inefficient. Because there is no incentive or need to improve.
It appears to be largely the same for all industries 'serving' the public purse:-
- Facilities management (Serco, Interserve, etc...)
- Royal Mail
- ex-Utilities, esp. National Grid and the Water companies.
Eric Mc said:
I presume by "people" you mean "passengers". If that is the case, of course not.
However, for designers and operators of airliners, the type of engines and their location on the aircraft is pretty fundamental.
The chief issue with the 737 is actually the size and location of the undercarriage. When the aircraft was originally designed in 1965/66, it was fitted with very slimline Pratt and Whitney JT8D low bypass turbofans. This allowed the aircraft to have a fairly short-stroke undercarriage. This was considered a good feature at the time as it brought the engines close to the ground, making them easier to access and therefore quicker, easier and cheaper to maintain - as working on the engines did not need gantries, platforms etc.
When the second generation 737s emerged in the early 1980s, they were fitted with much fatter high-bypass CFM56 engines. This necessitated a relocation of the engines forward of, rather than underneath, the wing as the ground clearance was much less. It also involved relocating some of the engine ancilliaries to the side of the engine to keep ground clearance
With the Max, the engine is even bigger which involves moving the engine up a bit. That is what has caused all the aerodynamic issues which they "fixed" with software.
Original 737-100
737-200
737-300
737-800
737-Max
Can't help but feel that that's a perfect metaphor for the 20 something woman over the same time period.However, for designers and operators of airliners, the type of engines and their location on the aircraft is pretty fundamental.
The chief issue with the 737 is actually the size and location of the undercarriage. When the aircraft was originally designed in 1965/66, it was fitted with very slimline Pratt and Whitney JT8D low bypass turbofans. This allowed the aircraft to have a fairly short-stroke undercarriage. This was considered a good feature at the time as it brought the engines close to the ground, making them easier to access and therefore quicker, easier and cheaper to maintain - as working on the engines did not need gantries, platforms etc.
When the second generation 737s emerged in the early 1980s, they were fitted with much fatter high-bypass CFM56 engines. This necessitated a relocation of the engines forward of, rather than underneath, the wing as the ground clearance was much less. It also involved relocating some of the engine ancilliaries to the side of the engine to keep ground clearance
With the Max, the engine is even bigger which involves moving the engine up a bit. That is what has caused all the aerodynamic issues which they "fixed" with software.
Original 737-100
737-200
737-300
737-800
737-Max
Starts off beautiful and elegant but morphs into a monstrosity with fat lips you can't help but stare at and think where did it all go wrong.
The US authorities have cleared 737 Maxs to fly but with modifications.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
Edited to refer to the correct Boeing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
Edited to refer to the correct Boeing
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Wednesday 18th November 14:29
Dr Jekyll said:
The US authorities have cleared 787s to fly but with modifications.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
(7 3 7 ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
)MarkwG said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The US authorities have cleared 787s to fly but with modifications.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
(7 3 7 ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
)
Dr Jekyll said:
The US authorities have cleared 737 Maxs to fly but with modifications.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
Edited to refer to the correct Boeing
Boeing now also calling it the 737-8 and 737-9https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
Edited to refer to the correct Boeing
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Wednesday 18th November 14:29
Snip
Dr Jekyll said:
MarkwG said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The US authorities have cleared 787s to fly but with modifications.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
(7 3 7 ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54981658
)Interviewer: "Which variant of Boeing has safety issues?"
Boeing: "Yes."
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff