Your comments about engine placement and impact on the B737 highlights a major difference between the B737 series and the A320 series - undercarriage. [...]

Meanwhile Airbus, being about an engine generation later to the market they designed the undercarriage to pack away in a more space efficient manner than Boeing were able to do without massive re-engineering of the whole inner wing and fuselage sections.

I'd argue it is not one engine generation... but three decades later.

Boeing introduced the 148-inch-diameter (376 cm) fuselage of the 737 with the Boeing 707 in the late 1950s which also sat close to the ground; with small diameter turbojet engines. Boeing 707 and 727 and 737 feature the same fuselage cockpit section (dimensions) which includes the front landing gear bay.

These planes formed the "Jet Age", that passenger planes became a common mode of transportation. Airports had to adapt over time... invested in all kinds of special vehicles, equipment... to handle larger jet aircraft. Sunken money, if there's just one tall jet aircraft visiting once or twice a week.

Compare with the DC9 (1965): close to the ground, rear exit with foldout stairs. Even the front doors of Boeing 717 still featured the the foldout DC-9 stairs. (I once disembarked a BlueOne 717 onto the apron in Berlin-Tegel when an impatient Finnish captain refused to wait any longer for a late arriving gangway vehicle).

Airbus profited from Boeing, Lockheed and Douglas wide bodies, and the tall-legged 757/767s that revolutionized air travel before them, that led to suitably equipped airports on all continents, now capable to service long-legged A320s.

Boeing introduced the 148-inch-diameter (376 cm) fuselage of the 737 with the Boeing 707 in the late 1950s which also sat close to the ground; with small diameter turbojet engines. Boeing 707 and 727 and 737 feature the same fuselage cockpit section (dimensions) which includes the front landing gear bay.

I think you are suffering a degree of unit-confusion. The JT8D used on the early B737 (upto -100 & -200) was just over 40 inches in diameter. The CFM56 family used on later variants (pre-MAX) are about 90 inches - the same family of engines used by Airbus on the first few generations of the A32x series. The B737-MAX and A32xNEO saw even larger engines, coming in at (well) over 100 inches.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

No, I think I'm not. My argument was about the basic layout of the 737 fuselage which already dates back to the 707. With all later 737 evolutions Boeing was forced to design around the original height limitations.
Of course, only the original 737 used the JT8D (not a turbojet either). Sure, the later 737 classics and NGs didn't sit as close to the ground as the original 737 did, nevertheless not high enough to accommodate a regular CFM56 with a circular engine nacelle.

For the 737 classic (737-300/400/500) the engine manufacturer had to construct CFM56 variants which moved auxiliary components from the engine bottom to both sides to allow for a non-circular, flattened engine nacelle bottom to provide sufficient ground clearance.

I think we had that discussion here previously with the dangerous fire incidents (e.g. American 737 Max at Denver in July) and passengers forced to leave via overwing emergency exits along the extended flaps, as there are no inflatable wing slides. Somebody stated the figures: wing height above ground for the 737 Max vs. original 737-100.

(And this make me think why didn't Boeing stop enlarging the 737 and scrap the 757 - that's a discussion for another day)

I'm eager to read about that discussion.

(And this make me think why didn't Boeing stop enlarging the 737 and scrap the 757 - that's a discussion for another day)

I'm eager to read about that discussion.

It is called a type rating, that attaches to aircrew and the restrictions that imposes on a workforce.

(And this make me think why didn't Boeing stop enlarging the 737 and scrap the 757 - that's a discussion for another day)

I'm eager to read about that discussion.

It is called a type rating, that attaches to aircrew and the restrictions that imposes on a workforce.

If that's the only argument then Boeing will be forced to replace the Max with the 737 "Centennial Edition", featuring open fan engines mounted on top (cf. VFW 614) of more efficient CFK wings, preserving the invaluable original 737 type rating with an even more sophisticated MCAS 2.0.

Meanwhile...

When will the Boeing 777x properly take off?...


777x DELAYED AGAIN! ... Now Delayed Until 2027 At The Earliest! Will This Jet Ever Fly?



Quite another saga for Boeing...

... And are the Regulators being used/abused as a 'design check' and 'Quality Control' for Boeing?...


Fly safe?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... And are the Regulators being used/abused as a 'design check' and 'Quality Control' for Boeing?...

You can see it the other way 'round too:

Is the regulator finally capable to supervise and certify the development of modern jetliners within a mature process that clearly states requirements and allows for reliable, dateable steps towards certification?

Boeing's CEO Ortberg:

Ortberg told analysts at a September conference that the slow certification process will stand in the way of launching a new plane. [...]

“I can’t imagine that we can do a new airplane without having that process refined,” Ortberg said.

That same month, the FAA said it planned to propose changes to speed up certification of commercial airplanes by the end of this year.

(And this make me think why didn't Boeing stop enlarging the 737 and scrap the 757 - that's a discussion for another day)

I'm eager to read about that discussion.

It is called a type rating, that attaches to aircrew and the restrictions that imposes on a workforce.

If that's the only argument then Boeing will be forced to replace the Max with the 737 "Centennial Edition", featuring open fan engines mounted on top (cf. VFW 614) of more efficient CFK wings, preserving the invaluable original 737 type rating with an even more sophisticated MCAS 2.0.

Rule number 1: The customer is always right!

(And this make me think why didn't Boeing stop enlarging the 737 and scrap the 757 - that's a discussion for another day)

I'm eager to read about that discussion.

It is called a type rating, that attaches to aircrew and the restrictions that imposes on a workforce.

If that's the only argument then Boeing will be forced to replace the Max with the 737 "Centennial Edition", featuring open fan engines mounted on top (cf. VFW 614) of more efficient CFK wings, preserving the invaluable original 737 type rating with an even more sophisticated MCAS 2.0.

Rule number 1: The customer is always right!

Rule number 2: If the customer is actually wrong, rule number 1 applies.

Is this a Boeing problem?

Or an Air India problem?


Why India's Pilot Union Wants Air India’s 787 Fleet Grounded Immediately!


... Or a consequence of 'something else'?...


Regardless:

Fly safe??
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Is this a Boeing problem?

Or an Air India problem?

Fear, suspicion, naming convenient culprits. What the evidence points to so far seems unimaginable to many.

Only a final report will hopefully put an end to this.

So many 787 Dreamliners in scheduled service worldwide...

... Or a consequence of 'something else'?...

Nothing should ever be ruled out in aviation safety; but what else could have caused it?

Or an Air India problem?

Clickbait makes too much money problem?

You have to remember, that according to the book of Martin, any corporation seeking to make a profit is a very evil entity.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

You have to remember, that according to the book of Martin, any corporation seeking to make a profit is a very evil entity.

Hmmm, in theory profits are limited by competition on liberal markets.

But according to Gary these market conditions don't exist between airlines (bc. of government's regulation). It seems these conditions also no longer exist in the Airbus-Boeing duopoly.

Boeing almost managed to destroy its smaller competitor Bombardier, which obviously designed a superior plane (CS100/300), by means of legal actions and lobbying for high US import taxes. It backfired when Airbus absorbed the project.

So, the textbook theories on liberal markets no longer apply in this business. Therefore one probably can identify unjustified profits within.

... any corporation seeking to make a profit is a very evil entity.

Now there is the question...

Is profiting 'evil'?

Or is 'profiteering' 'evil'?

Or is exploitative (where people suffer for their health/well-being) profiteering 'evil'?

... And what of reckless profiteering whereby peoples' lives are unnecessarily put at risk (because whatever design/safety measure is skipped) for the sake of extra profit?


Do we allow our present day Neo-liberalism (freed from regulations,) convert customers/clients/people into modern day slaves to be unhealthily exploited for profit?

And who would have thought that planes would be built and flown with only a singular Angle-of-Attack sensor, that upon failure, would be the one critical feature that brought down two planes full of passengers?

And who would have thought that the same company would have thrown out their Quality Assurance team, despite their continuously catching production faults, so that instead, factory production could be speeded up...

How has that come to be?


Is harm and hurt being perpetrated.


Fly safe?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Why don't you go after the real evil? Why are airlines protected from the true costs of their errors? Say why is a lost bag limited to the cost of a single shirt? Do you think that perhaps this could influence their decisions on what equipment options they pick? Do you think it might influence what shops they use to repair their equipment? Would they seek to bribe inspectors?

Boeing Books $4.9 Billion Charge As 777X Jet Faces New Delay

The planemaker has now recorded almost $16 billion in total charges for the 777X, a strategically important aircraft that is running seven years behind schedule amid tough regulatory scrutiny and is now scheduled to enter service in 2027.

While the latest 777X delay is disappointing, the airplane continues to perform well in flight-testing and doesn’t have any technical issues, Ortberg said. Separately, the company is making progress toward certifying its last two 737 Max models after deciding on a design to address an anti-ice issue.

“Perhaps more importantly, the overall tone of management is more grounded and realistic,” he said, “While sorting Boeing out is not a short-term project, we think the corner has been turned and progress is being made.”

"amid tough regulatory scrutiny"

Really?

Or is it that people in Boeing are still cutting every corner they can for the sake of greedy short term profits, and passenger safety be damned?...


Oh... And Trump is sacking the regulators so that they don't get in the way of corrupt business...

Fly safe with that??...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Or is it that people in Boeing are still cutting every corner they can for the sake of greedy short term profits, and passenger safety be damned?...

I don't think you can accuse Boeing's new CEO of greed or corruption. He's an engineer. He will sort things out and get them done.

Of course Boeing caused the problems with today's FAA certification processes because of the 737 Max disaster. FAA regulation was revealed as ineffective (outsourced to Boeing?). Everyone learned a lesson or two. FAA developed new certification processes. They obviously overshoot now, which delays certification extremely, and worse still... makes required steps unpredictable for Boeing. That led to further years of delays with the 777X.

I don't think that Trump sacking FAA regulators will improve anything for Boeing---more likely the opposite, stirring confusion at FAA. It needs the right people, like Kelly Ortberg, at Boeing and FAA to finally solve Boeing's problems.

I bold printed Boeing's conclusion: "We think the corner has been turned and progress is being made."

That's a positive perspective, isn't it?

I bold printed Boeing's conclusion: "We think the corner has been turned and progress is being made."

That's a positive perspective, isn't it?

From which department? Marketing? Legal? Accounting? Engineering?