zorbathegrate t1_izezf2z wrote
Heartbreaking.
I wish Boeing could have created something 747 fuel efficiency solution type thing. Make it perfect for another 50 years
RadialSpline t1_izf8jek wrote
That’s how the 737MAX happened. Trying to extend the lifespan of a design long past when it should have been retired.
As in the 737 was designed during a time when many airports had no baggage handling equipment for loading, so it sits lower to the ground than every other extant Boeing design, which then forced them to move the engine nacelles up when they slapped in the truly massive high-bypass turbofan jets. Moving the nacelles changed flight characteristics of the plane but they put a flight control system from the military side (MCAS) on to bring the planes flight characteristics back in line with the OG 737. The MCAS system got faulty data from sensors on some flights and severely contributed to the downing of those flights. There were specific trim levels on the 737MAX that had/have more advanced troubleshooting features (that’s the safety systems locked behind a paywall of earlier posts), that the airlines of the flights that went down didn’t spring for (new cockpit setup would require that airline to send its pilots in for retraining on the new features).
This is what I pieced together working in Boeing’s fabrication division deburring and hand-finishing wing ribs and spar chords (ribs hold the upper and lower wing skins apart and the spar chords hold the wing skins to the fuselage.) Chances are if you’ve flown on any of the new 777X aircraft parts of the wings I fixed up with angle grinders and hand tools.
bouncyb0b t1_izfeumo wrote
You missed the bit where the Boeing sales people deliberately miss informed the airlines that no type conversation training was necessar, in order to increase sales. The pilots of the crashed jets had no idea that this system existed let alone how to deal with a failure of it.
Ford pinto levels of corporate competence.
RadialSpline t1_izfqdqw wrote
Technically the 737MAX was on paper the exact same flight characteristics of an non-MAX model at the time of sale, so per regulators there was no need to have the pilots go through it. The Lion Air flight 610 and Ethiopian Air flight 302 tragedies were monumental fuckups from many sources, not just Boeing.
floridaengineering t1_izhoy56 wrote
Weren't the flight characteristics different due to the new position of the engines? Unless you're talking about the inclusion of the MCAS.
RadialSpline t1_izhr5zt wrote
Yep. With MCAS the MAX had the same flight characteristics as the OG 737, so by adding it Boeing was able to manufacture them under the original 737 production certificate, which is/was a MASSIVE loophole that hopefully the FAA has closed (I have not checked as I got the hell out of Boeing earlier this year due to culture issues when I got called back from a layoff).
It turns out that people who survived [in upper management] the Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas merger in the 90’s were the scum-sucking corporate raider types who would take a league if you give them an inch who would exploit things like vague regulations/legislation for a payday and set up someone who actually kinda sorta gave a crap about longevity of the company as a fall guy. [James McNerney was the President, CEO, and Chairman of Boeing’s Board of Directors while the 737MAX was developed and certified, then resigned before the first deliveries for Muilenberg to take the heat, then Calhoun has taken over once an executive was used as a scapegoat. McNerney and Calhoun are MBA types while Muilenberg was an engineer…]
[deleted] t1_izi0w7f wrote
[removed]
macfail t1_izfdwbu wrote
The 747 series has 4 engines and a wing form optimized for higher cruise speed. You can't easily engineer your way around those without redesigning the whole plane. They already have the 787 and 777, which meet customers needs.
Drone30389 t1_j0kdral wrote
They actually did give it new wings and engines: the 747-8i
CollectionOfAtoms78 t1_izhhrl0 wrote
If they made this decision, it was not a recent one. Someone did the math months or years ago showing when it would no longer be profitable to continue producing these things.
I also believe there are newer plane innovations are in process of being implemented. Here is a video by Real Engineering that explains some of these ideas and their pros and cons.
Mamalamadingdong t1_izhyrap wrote
The economics of very large planes just isn't really viable anymore. It is more profitable now to get smaller, very efficient planes to fly direct rather than having a hub model where small planes feed 1 big plane at a major airport which then flies to another big airport to feed a bunch of small planes.
Shawnj2 t1_izi1yyz wrote
Yep the passenger version of the 747 has been out of production for years except for one-offs like the new versions of AF1.
Drone30389 t1_j0kdoe2 wrote
They did, the 747-8i had new, more efficient engines and new, more efficient wings. It wasn't enough to save the program and compete with the large twin engine planes.
zorbathegrate t1_j0la3v0 wrote
Seems to me like they would still be the best for shipping.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments