Boeing has today announced an order for up to four Boeing 737 jets by Polish airline Enter Air. Yes, the airline is ordering Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft, but that’s not how they’re being described. These planes are being described as Boeing 737-8 aircraft. This is clearly part of a very slow and subtle rebranding exercise for the troubled jet. (onemileatatime.com) 기타...
I'm old enough to remember the Lockheed L188 Electra. It was renamed (sort of) as the Electra II once it's problem was corrected. History repeats itself...
I used to do airport advisory at an airport with a provincial forestry service base, and every year, they stationed an Aero Commander spotter and Electra air tanker there. They didn’t spend much time parked and in three years I don’t remember them ever going mechanical. What a machine that was!
Yes, and many airlines were loath to retire them including Eastern, who was a launch customer, and kept theirs (flying passengers) until 1977. Reeve carried cargo and passengers in Alaska until March of 1999. Varig carried passengers in Brazil until January of 1999 .
Pretty impressive.
The excuse for retirement was "propeller and engine maintenance has become too expensive and parts are in short supply". Really? What about all those many hundreds of C-130's and P-3"s?
What was the a/c problem? I flew L188 out of Boston in 1966 as FO and FE. The initial training full stall and then full power blowing the stall off the wing was impressive.
In 1960 two crashes of L188 Electras were determined to have been caused by structural failure, in which engine mount vibrations in the outer nacelles (#1 and #4) caused resonant flutter in the outer wing panels broke the wings. Lockheed modified the whole fleet to eliminate the flaw, but the plane’s reputation was ruined and new orders dried up as a result.
New orders dried up because, by then, the airlines had learned their mistake. By 1960 it was already clear that the flying public did not want to see propellers---period!
Once the 707 and DC-8 made jet travel accessible to the masses it was all over.
Lockheed seemed to have issues with flutter, back in the day. They always were pushing the envelope on speed. Speed, was their selling-point. So the L-18, and P-38 suffered flutter issues. Then a tiny mathematics error led to a situation where the engine nacelle and wing could reach the same frequency. Which caused a chain reaction. A weakened nacelle could not contain Propeller Auto-Procession resulting in the Dynamic Coupling of the wing and subsequent failure.
To their credit, Lockheed set up a modification program and all the aircraft that had been built were sent through the modification factory at great expense to Lockheed. In spite of all the nasty litigation that followed the BN and NW crashes, at least the aviation industry knew that Lockheed had immense integrity.
Further, as it happens, I understand the frequency of the precession was a harmonic of the wing's natural frequency and therefore amplified the forces until structural failure. I've got about 1,500 hours in the P-3A and B, and so had a keen interest in what happened.
I always found it to be a great airplane, with exception of its pitch stability due to the Navy's reduction in fuselage length (we had noticable problems with airsickness, since the operating crew sat sideways) and its stiff landing gear, which made it a challenge to land smoothly.
I'd have to go back and read up. Late author Bob Serling wrote an an entire book about it, "The Electra Story" and devoted a whole chapter in another book, "Loud and Clear".
- Not a surprise they're dropping MAX designation in this order announcement. Unforch, the words "737 MAX " are painted on the livery of many completed MAXes. The revisionist history begins now.
An open question : For the previously built planes, what's the model description on the official title and financial / leasing documents ?? I don't know the answer, but would be curious to find out.
On my company’s OpSpecs its 737-8, so my guess is the same for official documents.
I highly doubt going forward any airline will keep the “Max” designation in terms of public branding. Since they’re not flying right now anyway it’s a good time to remove any Max logos. It’s already gone from our safety cards which were the same for the -800 and Max.
So are they still going to keep the same aircraft type, as far as flight plans go? They can't use B738 because of the -800s, which is why they went with B38M for the MAX8.
Also, subsequently, the MAX9 is also going to be affected. They can't use B739 because of confusion with the -900s. B39M was used for the MAX9. So any idea on what they'll use for filing flightplans?
It may when the media looks at an incident, and someone savvy in the media looks at the flight plan to see what aircraft type was used between departure and destination, sees the aircraft type, and links it back to the MAX. then the renaming convention becomes controversy again.
my point here is that if they're going to rename it, then they need to give it a new type altogether and get rid of the stigma on the MAX everywhere it is mentioned or referenced.
I would very happily fly on the 737 MAX. With all the testing and everything else they have done with these aircraft you can bet there will be absolute safety in abundance!!
The centroid of the MAX jet is just wrong. It reminds me of when I saw the first Ford Explorer. I thought it was a roll-over waiting to happen with its narrow wheel base and large body. Even with the most flattering perspective of a MAX in flight, it just looks like a stall waiting to happen. On the runway the MAX looks almost comical.
Just because some people didn't have the competence or the proper training to fly it, doesn't mean the MAX is an unsafe airplane, specially after all the fuss and scrutiny it went thru. I'd fly it anytime. Usually media ignorance and sensationalism is responsible for misleading the public regarding flight safety.
I also agree. Boeing a/c are all over my logbook except for 737. Watching the slow progress to automation flying concerned me as well. As I recall reaching over to stab trim cutout switches gave time to evaluate and manually trim stab.
Boeing didn’t disclose anything to pilots about the MCAS. Pilots shouldn’t have the wool pulled over their eyes by a manufacturer. It really doesn’t matter what passports they carried- they and their passengers would probably still be here if they’d have had an opportunity to understand the system.
You seem to forget that there was a -MAX issue with SWA at KMCO. They were damned lucky that they didn't crash. Nothing to do with the pilots at that point, as it was entirely the aircraft that had the problem.
weight of the aircraft could have played a factor. SWA8701 was effectively an empty aircraft, only carrying fuel so it could make it to KVCV. LIO610 and ETH610 were revenue flights, with the extra weight of luggage, etc., that could have played into altering the center of gravity which was already off because of the design of the B38M. That cascades down to altering the Angle of Attack, which cascades down to how MCAS responded to it.
Additionally, it was definitely an engine-related issue with SWA8701, whereas it was MCAS on LIO610 and ETH610.
Longer variants of the 737 MAX have been reported as more stable than shorter variants; if weight and balance made a difference, then the longer variants should be less stable than the shorter variants.
Both the B38M and B39M had the same CoG issues. The B10M (-MAX10) has a longer fuselage, which did not have to account for the CoG being off, like the B38M and B39M.
Southwest lost an engine, which had absolutely nothing to do with MCAS. They were completely separate and unrelated problems, and suggesting otherwise is less than honest.
I agree. However, it is just as less as honest to blame pilots from other countries as being the problem to LIO610 and ETH610; like SWA8701, the aircraft had a problem, not the pilots, and that is regardless of what the actual problem was. Both involved the B38M, which is the crux of the matter.
High altitude and or hot airports....both crashes fit this situation. Boeing used this argument when complaining about the Bombardier C Series. Or maybe they told the american companies about MCAS....who knows...
Just a tiny problem - took a year of design and test to fix. Good logic. Grounded entire fleet worldwide. I would hope conspiracy theories would not infiltrate 'intelligent' pilot communities - but it has.
There was a huge safety issue with the MAX. Stop sugar coating it.
preventing a crash and dealing with the MCAS/Center of Gravity/Angle of Attack issues are not necessarily mutually inclusive. SWA8701 was an engine related issue, which they were lucky to have just taken off from KMCO and were able to return before the issue got worse.
Additionally, SWA8701 was a ferry flight from MCO to KVCV so the aircraft could be stored, not a revenue-generating flight. Because of that, all that were onboard were the Captain, FO, and fuel to make the flight. Now, imagine if any additional luggage, pax, etc playing a part in the weights that could alter that CG that contributes to a higher AoA.. something that MCAS was supposed to prevent, but didn't with LIO610 and ETH610.
Nice try Boeing, but you’ve got a lot of work to get as good at post-disaster rebranding as Morton-Thiokol-ATK-Orbital or whatever they’re named this week.
Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the pig to something else..
Putting scalloped engines and sharklets on the wings are easy ways to tell.. lower my forward engine mounting etc..
I resent an attempt to dum down the public.. I still say.. have all the major pilot unions come out very publically endorsing the airplane and willingness to fly them..
And after 6 years of P-3 experience and 2 years of Electra II experiences with Universal Airlines I always thought it was named the “II” because Amelia flew the original (twin engine) Electra.? It was an outstanding airplane, after the fix.
No, it's not rebranding. This is how the plane is designated in the factory during manufacturing. Each dash number... -7, -8, -9, -10 are the variations, and they need to know that when they build the airplane, because most parts are a little different for each model, with different part numbers. This is not to say that someday they won't call it something different for the public, like the 737 Superdooper.
Electra was a great, reliable plane, except attracted insects to it's intakes causing engine to stall. FAA determined sound of turbines was just right to attract them. Fix? ?
Imagine how many new orders they could get if they took advantage of the lull in air travel by deciding they actually wanted to compete with Airbus and building a new clean-sheet design. They could smoke the A320NEO if they wanted to, but that might involve spending money and paying their rank-and-file. Why do that when you can pay lawyers and lobbyists instead.
In 20-30 years hence, Airbus would be in the same place Boeing was 10 years ago with the predicament of having that huge question mark about what to do with their aging design.
Nah, far easier to stand on the street corner with your hand out.
From a bunch of the nasty comments I see here, I take it that many don't believe that it's been fixed. Do you guys really believe that after all this fuss and billions of $$$ spent/lost, they'd still put out a pig that won't fly?????
The 737 Max design is fundamentally unstable due to the positioning of the more powerful engines further forward. The inherent instability is compensated for by computer-controlled trim adjustments which make the aircraft less aerodynamically efficient than it could be ,with proper airframe re-design. The fact that the M-CAS compensation effects were kept from pilots in training caused a dangerous blind spot in their efforts to control out-of-trim conditions when they arose. I don't like airplanes whose basic design is bad.
Not sure what your qualifications are to make the claims you do, but I assume you would have some level of authority. My qualifications are 737-800 Captain and I flew the Max several times. The airplane flew better than the regular -800, yet I was not aware of MCAS. So there might be other differences that I was not aware of also. I had no reservations flying the aircraft, but I know my training and experience far exceeded those that were not able to recover. Who could blame Boeing for trying to rebrand the aircraft. I expect it will be the safest aircraft to fly with all the scrutiny it faces, and I'll fly as a passenger on any US carrier that brings it back.
He's regurgitating nonsense from an article posted online shortly after the second crash called "How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer"
Spoiler alert: How it looks is a lot different than it really is, apparently.
i think they ought to put a decal of a rodeo cowboy on a horse right by the cockpit windows, and call the aircraft what it truly is : boeing bucking bronco. Put every ones mind at ease a bit......
Oh yeah. It was inevitable. Not, that the public would know the difference,but, the mainstream media would never let it rest. As it is, at this point the general public at large is still not flying anyway.
AND, there is little to compare the 737's issues with the L-188. At the time many in the industry only referred to the L-188 as a "prop-jet". The name "Electra" was taken off of the side of the aircraft or name changed to "Electra II" or "Super Electra". I always thought the "Super Electra" moniker ironic since the ORIGINAL "Super Electra" L-18, suffered from flutter issues as well. Lockheed must have cringed at the idea.
Ahh. Like the attempt by high fructose corn syrup peddlers to call their poison 'corn sugar'.
It's corn sugar on steroids, with traces of arsenic and antifreeze.
I'm surprised they haven't gotten their way so far. It has to be coming. Sad. It's toxic, and WAS in everything. Bread, soda, yogurt, drinks, medicines, etc...
Whatever... Imagine a country that pays to treat people from a poison the tax payers pay for.
The corn syrup producers are laughing themselves to the bank!
Look at old movies and tv shows. See how skinny they are? Why? They didn't have nearly the sugars we have gotten used to in the American diet. I dare anyone to actually keep a log of the amount of sugars they consume on a daily and weekly basis. People from other countries are horrified at the amount of sugars that Americans ingest on a daily basis! Diabetes is rampant in this country because of the sugars in everything we eat and drink. It's an epidemic. And a lot of it is tax payer funded.
Research it! Look into it. It's poison because it's in so damn many things!
And as people have gotten sick of being sick, and avoid high fructose corn syrup, the industry desperately wants to hide the use of it, because they get tax payer subsidies! It's the cheapest, and most dangerous sweetener on the planet. Cheap because WE PAY FOR IT! WE, tax payers, SUBSIDIZE THE INDUSTRY!
Actually it is not. The MD11's first flight was 9 years after AAL191. The name change reflects the fact that the MD11 was developed by the merged McDonnell-Douglas corporation. The DC-10 program was conceived and developed by Douglas Aircraft, hence "DC" designation" although it first flew in 1970 after the merger.
Deep-sixing the MAX moniker is more reminiscent of what American Airlines did to its DC10s. AA originally put decals on their DC10s, just below the forward doors, in full view of passengers waiting in the gate area, reading “DC10 Luxury Liner”. After the DC10s troubles, these were changed to read “American Airlines Luxury Liner”. You can find images of both in FlightAware’s DC10 photo gallery.
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..