• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

How to Get People Flying on the 737 Max

Silly Valley

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
21
Likes
38
Location
Silicon Valley
Surprisingly the FAA seems to have never been put on the spot for allowing all the self oversight by Boeing???

Boeing is also not the Boeing of old but it is all we have left in the US for commercial airline building.
The decline of Boeing began long ago with the McDonnell Douglass merger. Decion makiking was quickly moved from Seattle to the new offices in the midwest. In practical terms, this was the beginning of the transition of Boeing the 'airplane' company becoming a corporation run by bean counters.

The results are what you would expect. This is one industry where it is essential that engineering, production and related areas have a seat at the decision making table alongside the bean counters.

In addition to being allowed by the feds to have enoigh rope to hang themselves, in some ways this is also a genertional issue. While we can do marvelous things with computers today, it seems difficult lessons from the past have been forgotten or lost in the corporate culture. The attitude that their own analysis by a group of young engineers guaranteeing a streamlined system was fail safe proved problematic. Another case of engineers saying something can't happen. Then Murphy shows up and it does.
 

MusicNBeer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
457
I work in the avionics industry and I avoid any new Boeing. Next worst is a new of any other manufacturer. The problem is that the new avionics are being made overly complex using extremely complex CPUs that are really impossible to ensure bug free operation. The software is also very complex with rigorous verification demands. This makes development extremely expensive so corners are cut. Inexperienced engineers, subcontracting out verification, schedule crunches, underestimating workload, on and on.
 

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
1,757
Likes
2,315
I work in the avionics industry and I avoid any new Boeing. Next worst is a new of any other manufacturer. The problem is that the new avionics are being made overly complex using extremely complex CPUs that are really impossible to ensure bug free operation. The software is also very complex with rigorous verification demands. This makes development extremely expensive so corners are cut. Inexperienced engineers, subcontracting out verification, schedule crunches, underestimating workload, on and on.
Great post. That post applies to so many products in life. Take AVR's for example.......but they are getting better. Software is expensive. Writing millions of lines of code (defense products for example) cost mega bucks. Right now in my wife's job they can't even hire computer programmers/engineers and such to do the work they want to do. They are literally throwing money at the few computer companies that do medical software and still can't get what they want as there are not enough computer people to hire. It is crazy. Hundreds of thousands (or more) computer jobs left unfilled each year.
 

Count Arthur

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
1,410
Likes
2,968
I work in the avionics industry and I avoid any new Boeing. Next worst is a new of any other manufacturer. The problem is that the new avionics are being made overly complex using extremely complex CPUs that are really impossible to ensure bug free operation. The software is also very complex with rigorous verification demands. This makes development extremely expensive so corners are cut. Inexperienced engineers, subcontracting out verification, schedule crunches, underestimating workload, on and on.
1645886808524.png
 

MusicNBeer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
315
Likes
457
To add to the problem, with software, it's easy to make a poor design generally work, well enough to pass requirements testing. This same poor design will fail in an unforeseen real world condition.
 

mhardy6647

Master Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
6,717
Likes
13,883
Reflecting on that recent freighter fire (that's claimed a whole bunch of mostly expensive motorcars... some of which are probably chockablock with those pesky lithium batteries), I thought of this thread... and I had an idea to kill two birds with one stone! They can convert all of the 737-MAX aircraft to those hybrid combo freight/passenger planes (such as one encounters, e.g., in Alaska) -- and put a single EV (en route to a dealer or customer) on each one. They can charge extra for the passenger seats; it's a thrill ride! :cool:
 

Peterinvan

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2021
Messages
168
Likes
130
Location
Canada
Boeing:
Admit your mistakes, go back to the drawing board, and design the engines to be lighter, mounted closer to ideal COG, and not require MACS to overcome an inherantly unbalanced plane. Call it the 737-Min.
 

Timon VDB

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
119
Likes
174
Location
NL -> AT (Vienna)
Boeing:
Admit your mistakes, go back to the drawing board, and design the engines to be lighter, mounted closer to ideal COG, and not require MACS to overcome an inherantly unbalanced plane. Call it the 737-Min.
The problem is the engines need to be big to be efficient. Old 737 was not designed with this in mind. Hence MAX engines had to be placed in weird position to make it fit.

Big problem is, Airbus designed with this "big engine" upgrade path in mind. Hence they can offer airlines upgrade path to very efficient NEO without pilot re-training. Very attractive.

To compete, Boeing had to add a bunch of software to make the plane flyable despite the weird configuration.
 

mhardy6647

Master Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
6,717
Likes
13,883
The problem is the engines need to be big to be efficient. Old 737 was not designed with this in mind. Hence MAX engines had to be placed in weird position to make it fit... To compete, Boeing had to add a bunch of software to make the plane flyable despite the weird configuration.
To compete, in this case, may well have meant to "maximize profitability and still sell aircraft" (i.e., to minimize expenses and time delay of a proper redesign).
Capitalism is kind of Darwinian. Maybe - perhaps - Boeing deserves to be (ahem) trumped by Airbus if the latter did a better job of planning for an inevitable future?
The hubris of deciding "pah! we'll fix it with software!" -- perhaps -- was its own reward? :(

Indeed, the inteim generations of 737s used engines much more efficient than the original series... but the powerplants outgrew the constraints of the design.

Heck, I think it could be persuasively argued that McDonnell-Douglas even bettered Boeing with the DC8 platform way back in the 1950s. The DC8 was stretchable (literally & figuratively). That bought the DC8 a much longer product lifespan than that of the 707... and the 737 was very much based on the 707 "platform".

DC-8-1.jpg

DC-8-Takeoff.jpg


Douglas-DC-8-71-Zambia-Airways-On-final-approach-to-Heathrow-1090x500.jpg
 
Last edited:

Suffolkhifinut

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
899
Likes
632
The decline of Boeing began long ago with the McDonnell Douglass merger. Decion makiking was quickly moved from Seattle to the new offices in the midwest. In practical terms, this was the beginning of the transition of Boeing the 'airplane' company becoming a corporation run by bean counters.

The results are what you would expect. This is one industry where it is essential that engineering, production and related areas have a seat at the decision making table alongside the bean counters.

In addition to being allowed by the feds to have enoigh rope to hang themselves, in some ways this is also a genertional issue. While we can do marvelous things with computers today, it seems difficult lessons from the past have been forgotten or lost in the corporate culture. The attitude that their own analysis by a group of young engineers guaranteeing a streamlined system was fail safe proved problematic. Another case of engineers saying something can't happen. Then Murphy shows up and it does.
Thanks totally agree! It isn’t just Boeing that has this problem it’s endemic over here in the UK.
 
Top Bottom