• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

I think something's wrong with the Boeing 737 Max 8

Why don't they just build the plane the MAX is trying to emulate but can't?
The 757. Still a better plane than the 737. Faster, can climb to altitude without step climbing, uses less runway at a lower speed higher payload and more range.
Better in some cases, but also more expensive, bigger and more fuel thirsty so possibly harder to fill for some routes and less profitable. A lot of pilots sure love the 757 though.
 
Pretty much better in all cases. Remember the 57 have older engines. Upgrade them and its more efficient. The MAXs are being stretched to carry the same number of people as the 57 but needs all the mods that require MCAS which means the mods make the craft do dangerous things so they make another mod-which if it works- keeps the plane from going into unwanted attitudes.
The 57 can still take off and land-as is- on shorter runways at higher density altitudes and is cetificated for intercontinental flights over water.
Plus if you are qualified on the 57 you are pretty much good to fly a 67.
Boeing is trying to make the 37 do things it can't do in order to save money.
They need to bring back the 57.
 
Last edited:
All good points, and certainly seems like a fine idea. But as you suggest, Boeing is in the business of making money. I don't think they would have shut down the 757 production line if the orders were still coming in so it would be the airlines and their wallets that decide when a model is discontinued. The last 757 was assembled in 2004 but there were only seven new orders coming in during the last three years of its production.
 
That is because they were pushing the 737s. They were getting bigger and lots of airlines already had 37s and the 57 was relatively new in the fleet.
Airbus was getting a lot of the orders for planes that competed with the 57. Airbus has an unfair market advantage since they are somewhat of a govt entity.
Now the 37 is trying to be a 57. Can't do it. The time is right for new 57s.
 
I'd be surprised if the sales team behind the 757 wasn't pushing hard as well. The Airbus 321 wasn't even out until the 757 went away, and it's the main competitor in that range.

Nothing wrong with Airbus having government support, it isn't as if Boeing is on it's own. Between 2000 and 2014 Boeing took in plenty of government money...$457 million in federal grants, $64 billion in federal loans and guarantees, plus another $13 billion in local and state subsidies over the same period. Boeings 2016 revenue was over $94 billion, and more than a third of that was from the U.S. Department of Defense which amounts to indirect help for the commercial side of the business.

Boeing has resisted the idea of re-launching the 757 even in a re-engined form. They've been making studies in the 250 passenger range for their proposed new design. 797? Who knows, they're currently calling it their MSA for Mid Sized Airplane. But for the past few years, including a proposal feature at the 2017 Paris Air show, they have been looking at a new design composite aircraft for this need, including talks with engine manufacturers for the design. But even this progress has slowed this summer as the company stated that they're focusing more on getting the Max8 problems ironed out.
 
Months and months to fix a software problem? I'm more skeptical about these airplanes now that I was when this started. Now I'm concerned about any airplane on which the pilots actions can be over-ridden by a software engineer! Maybe what's needed is an emergency button the pilot can push to shut off the computer! It appears as though that could have prevented the two disasters that occurred with these airplanes.
 
Its not a software problem. Itz a mechanical design problem which a software program is supposed to mask. MCAS is there because the design places the craft in an undesirable attitude. The engines have been placed so car forward and high it forces the plane into a stall. MCAS pitches the nose down when the stall occurs.

Loans? Not a subsidy. Guarantees? Have to be paid back. And what do you call a subsidy? Tax breaks? T hats not a subsidy. When your taxes get cut do you call it a subsidy or less money taken from you?
And govt contracts aren't a subsidy. Fedgov isn't using mil contracts to subsidize the commercial side. Thats done by Boeing because they are screwing the pooch on the commercial side.
Airbus is different because they are the official govt owned business which has NO competition.
You admit Boeing resisted selling the 57. They killed it before it had a chance to shine. They instead pushed turning the 37 into a 57. Now they want to build a plane like the 57. Why not just build the 57? It does what they want to do.
Airlines with 57s love them for what they can do.
The only advantage the 37 has is you can get more of them into gates at airports like DAL ( Love Field) which has a limited amount of space.
But put the two planes on the runway at max load and the 57 gets in the air using less runway and at a lower airspeed. Thats easier on equipment.
But I have to say its an experience flying out of DAL under noise abatement procedures in a 37.
 
In part, it is a software problem. If a pilot tries to climb out of a dive and the on-board computer cranks in even more negative elevator and forces the plane into a crash then 'problem' is an apt term for the situation. Granted, faulty front slip angle vane issues that send signals to MCAS is also a mechanical problem.

Of course Airbus has competition. It's called Boeing. For instance, Germany's airline 'Lufthansa' could have ordered more Airbus a380s in its last round of acquisitions, but went for the 747-8l instead despite Airbus being partly German owned.

The 737 has other advantages - if a certain route needs 150 passenger capacity, that would leave a 757 flying 1/4 empty. Plus the fuel burn is about 1600 pounds/hour greater for the 757. It really seems that the 757 had one main advantage and that was it had long range and was suitable for such routes that needed it but didn't have the demand to fill a wide body.

I didn't admit Boeing resisted selling the 757, what I actually wrote was "I'd be surprised if the sales team behind the 757 wasn't pushing hard as well." Why would I think they set up an aircraft line and then resisted selling it?
 
seeing as some of you have a much better grasp on this scene.
do you think Boeing could be forced into bankruptcy with the lawsuits,
the financial upkeep of the grounded planes and the possible retrofit of them?
or will they just fall back on their govt contracts to survive?
i ask because a lot of people died over a design and software problem that Boeing knew about...
 
By not aggressively selling the 57 and pushing the 37, yes they resisted selling the 57.
It wasn't what they really wanted to sell.
And a MAX with only 150 passengers is flying at less than capacity. That is the function of the older 37s.
We aren't talking 737-700s here. And the 57 isn't a wide body. Narrow body, single aisle config. Very similar to the 37. Btw the A320 and A321 were available during the 57 production run.
At the time airlines were doing shorter hops needing less capacity as they were feeding bigger planes at regional hubs or doing as Southwest did. Plus fuel prices dropped. SW had a crazy cheap fuel contract that allowed those crazy cheap flights.
Now they need larger capacity aircraft and the airlines want parts commonality (is that a word?) so 737 it is.
Unfortunately they created a pig and the pig doesn't want to fly like the original craft. Enter MCAS. And when it doesn't work we saw what happens.
It would cost a bunch to retool for the 57 but how much will the lawsuits and all cost?
And I bet the new plane designated 797 (?) is basically a 757 in disguise.

Btw, great discussion! But I think we have just about beaten this pig to death.
 
Its not a software problem. Itz a mechanical design problem which a software program is supposed to mask.

exactly
and do you know why this was overlooked on purpose
and they let the plane into service???????????????????????

corrupt government kickbacks from the previous administration
just remember WHO pulled it out of the sky (won't mention names but YOU KNOW!)
the only person in Government who gives 2 shits about the people!!!!!...

sorry to take this there
but this is why you don't have to think something MAY be wrong
it is!
 
seeing as some of you have a much better grasp on this scene.
do you think Boeing could be forced into bankruptcy with the lawsuits,
the financial upkeep of the grounded planes and the possible retrofit of them?
or will they just fall back on their govt contracts to survive?
i ask because a lot of people died over a design and software problem that Boeing knew about...

they will survive as they have gov DOJ insiders to help defend them now
more info is in the political forum (I apologize for taking this there but its pertinent info)
as I might of put this thread to there but it is inevitable
to tell the full story.
Cliff notes version is
our corrupt Government from the last administration ALLOWED this to happen
now they send in a clean up crew...
 
Last edited:
The fundamental problem was that Airbus upgraded the A320 family with new, larger, more efficient engines. Boeing had to react but, unlike the Airbus’s, the 737 undercarriage did not allow sufficient space under the wings for the big engines. Boeing thought that they had solved the problem by altering the nacelle of the engine, moving it forward and up. But had the effect of moving the aircraft’s center of gravity and nothing that has been done since seems to have cured the problem to the satisfaction of the World’s safety authorities.

It now seems likely that the 737MAX will not fly again until well into next year and, when it does, may be a ‘never going to fly in that’ dead duck from the public’s perspective. This is the result of finance and marketing having the final say over safety decisions rather than engineering. Boeing poured its profits into share buybacks, financial engineering, rather than real engineering R&D on a new plane and are now backed into a corner.

There now appears to be another issue with the existing 737NG. During the deep stripping of the existing airframes on conversion to cargo cracks were found in major supports struts for the wings. It has turned out to have been caused by very, very slightly oversized holes for the fixing bolts. This is not safety critical at the moment but hundreds of aircraft are going to have to be checked and repaired. Fortunately for Boeing, due to their warranty contracts, the main costs of this seem to be going to have to be met by their customers.
 
It isn't just a matter of center of gravity. If that were the case, it could be offset with balance weights somewhere else on the airframe, something that has been done in other aircraft in the past. The more crucial problem with the big engines was the change in aerodynamics and lift caused by the new placement and reshaped engine pylons.
 
Hopefully there is room for balance weights. Unfortunately more weight means less payload.
 
265869_image.jpg
 
And now comes forth the former QC manager at a Boeing plant saying the emergency oxygen system on the 787 is faulty and Boeing knows it.

Sorry, the link to the story won't work right. It keeps going to a totally unrelated video.

Plenty of blame to go around on this one.
And it helps establish a pattern at Boeing.
 
Last edited:
Just have to wonder what all this will do to people's outlook on the plane. Will they want to fly in it?

Once upon a time, Lockheed built a lot of passenger planes. They developed the first American turbo-prop liner, the L-188 Electra. With exceptional short field take-off abilities, the speedy plane was popular and airlines started ordering in quantity.
Eastern%20Air%20Lines%20Lockheed%20L-188A.jpg

Then three of them crashed, and a design flaw was discovered. After the problem was fixed, confidence was shaken and no passenger airline ever ordered another one.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top