Boeing cdnt extend undercarriage. There is literally no space, otherwise they wd have done it. If you look underneath a Max, what do you see..
Here's an interesting article:
https://crankyflier.com/2022/10/11/...orse-to-get-the-max-7-and-10-aircraft-flying/
https://crankyflier.com/2022/10/11/...orse-to-get-the-max-7-and-10-aircraft-flying/
Boeing is staring at an existential crisis if it cannot make safe 737 models.
A new clean sheet approach is needed, rather than keeping on using parts from older aircraft.
As it is, new parts have to be made, so it would be better if they made something new which uses the experience with the 787 composite structure.
Meanwhile, I believe there is a very long wait for 320neo series planes.
Pending orders for 320 series are about 7000 units, production will be ramped up from 40 a month to 75 a month by 2025.
Boeing has less than 5000 on order, for the 737 series, that figure may include aircraft completed but not delivered for various reasons.
Sources are a quick Google search, and Airbus site.
No ties to any sellers...
A new clean sheet approach is needed, rather than keeping on using parts from older aircraft.
As it is, new parts have to be made, so it would be better if they made something new which uses the experience with the 787 composite structure.
Meanwhile, I believe there is a very long wait for 320neo series planes.
Pending orders for 320 series are about 7000 units, production will be ramped up from 40 a month to 75 a month by 2025.
Boeing has less than 5000 on order, for the 737 series, that figure may include aircraft completed but not delivered for various reasons.
Sources are a quick Google search, and Airbus site.
No ties to any sellers...
The Peace-loving people of Portsmouth, UK, continue to be bemused by the activities of our RAF Cargo planes: They are buzzing us every 4 minutes.
Causing Alarm and Distress.
"Per Ardua, ad Astra" an' all that!
Frankly, this is getting beyond a Joke!
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/p...ver-portsmouth-gosport-and-the-solent-3901344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas
I have worked for Airbus. Never again. 😳
Causing Alarm and Distress.
"Per Ardua, ad Astra" an' all that!
Frankly, this is getting beyond a Joke!
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/p...ver-portsmouth-gosport-and-the-solent-3901344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas
I have worked for Airbus. Never again. 😳
Map making does not involve so many sorties.
An ant in the elephant's ear?
Some bug that needs working out...
An ant in the elephant's ear?
Some bug that needs working out...
Alaska Airlines 737 MAX Door Blows Out
https://www.businessinsider.com/alaska-airlines-flight-window-portland-oregon-california-2024-1
Cripes! It's surprising this kind of story doesn't make it onto our television news but a cat saved from a drain does...
Reminds me of the design fault which brought down the DC-10s years ago.
An inward opening cargo door was changed to an outward opening one in order to allow space for one extra pallet in the cargo bay using the space an inward opening (and inherently safe) needed. If I remember correctly the team behind that decision became the management of Boeing after the merger.
An inward opening cargo door was changed to an outward opening one in order to allow space for one extra pallet in the cargo bay using the space an inward opening (and inherently safe) needed. If I remember correctly the team behind that decision became the management of Boeing after the merger.
They should consider mounting the engines above the wing, like in the Honda business jets.
Or a design like the Boeing YC-14?
That will be one solution to the problem...
Boeing better set its house in order... Airbus, some Chinese and Russian makers also have been very competitive in price and delivery, the Chinese one is about one third the price!
If they continue to take the customer lightly, well in most cases the seller goes out of business.
Or a design like the Boeing YC-14?
That will be one solution to the problem...
Boeing better set its house in order... Airbus, some Chinese and Russian makers also have been very competitive in price and delivery, the Chinese one is about one third the price!
If they continue to take the customer lightly, well in most cases the seller goes out of business.
I'm afraid that Boeing is stuck in the modern business model. A once great company reduced the the same old Big and Stupid mindset like GM etc.
Next it will be a company in name only, like GE etc which is nothing but a copyrighted corporate name. The real meat and potatoes is in China of course, where they actually build stuff.
I for one welcome our Chinese and Russian overlords. I'm sick of not getting stuff done. China and Russia get stuff done.
Next it will be a company in name only, like GE etc which is nothing but a copyrighted corporate name. The real meat and potatoes is in China of course, where they actually build stuff.
I for one welcome our Chinese and Russian overlords. I'm sick of not getting stuff done. China and Russia get stuff done.
P&W also has been taken to court here by a local (Indian) airline called GoFirst, the high failure rate of their engines caused the fleet to be grounded, and they could not pay the banks, matter is in court.
The engine maker's replies are, well, evasive...
The competing IAE engines are seeing very long delivery times, as the airlines which booked P&W engines have switched to IAE for new aircraft deliveries...there is actually an opportunity there for competitors, though IAE is partly owned by GE (IIRC).
Thee are only a few companies capable of making modern high bypass ratio commercial jet engines, and less than 20 names that come to mind.
There are a lot of licenses and cross licenses in that field.
No ties to anybody above...
The engine maker's replies are, well, evasive...
The competing IAE engines are seeing very long delivery times, as the airlines which booked P&W engines have switched to IAE for new aircraft deliveries...there is actually an opportunity there for competitors, though IAE is partly owned by GE (IIRC).
Thee are only a few companies capable of making modern high bypass ratio commercial jet engines, and less than 20 names that come to mind.
There are a lot of licenses and cross licenses in that field.
No ties to anybody above...
The change from domestic inward opening passenger emergency escape hatch design came from a European regulation that would only allow planes with outward opening doors to use their airports.
Do you know of any other airlines that have failed due to the failure of P&W engines? Perhaps it was a local maintenance issue with GoFirst?
😉
As you're so modest about anything British, I'll supply the link:
https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/ultrafan.aspx
The BBC reports suggest that the failed panel was in a location where some airlines have an additional emergency exit. I will be very interested when, in the fullness of time the report comes out on this.
I have had a look at lots of photos.
It does indeed look like the rear emergency exits have been blanked off to add an extra row of seats.
Just imagine if one of these planes with the blanked off emergency exits had been involved in something like that runway collision they had in Japan recently. They would never have got all the passengers off.
It does indeed look like the rear emergency exits have been blanked off to add an extra row of seats.
Just imagine if one of these planes with the blanked off emergency exits had been involved in something like that runway collision they had in Japan recently. They would never have got all the passengers off.
I have a slightly funny story about the DC10. Years ago my wife and I were flying from Perth to London and she had read somewhere that there had been safety issues with the DC10. Well, we booked our flight which happened to be on a DC10, but she didn't know. I wasn't aware of what she'd read.
We got on the plane late afternoon in Perth in summer, so the sun was streaming in the windows. She started talking about the plane we were on and what she'd read; I told her not to worry it wasn't a DC10 (as I didn't want her being nervous) but literally as I said it, I pulled down the window shade and the little handle has 'DC10' printed on it...she was looking straight at it... She punched me on the shoulder. Hard.
She's a lot sharper nowadays and knows a bit more about various airliners (and loves the A380 for its comfort), but back then she wasn't across these things!
We got on the plane late afternoon in Perth in summer, so the sun was streaming in the windows. She started talking about the plane we were on and what she'd read; I told her not to worry it wasn't a DC10 (as I didn't want her being nervous) but literally as I said it, I pulled down the window shade and the little handle has 'DC10' printed on it...she was looking straight at it... She punched me on the shoulder. Hard.
She's a lot sharper nowadays and knows a bit more about various airliners (and loves the A380 for its comfort), but back then she wasn't across these things!
That's not how it works.
14 CFR 25.807 lays out the rules for exit doors and the seat to door ratio. It's fairly complicated, but the overall effect is as the number of seats increases, the number of doors must increase.
So your above statement is absolutely incorrect.
The reason for an aperture in the fuselage built this way is if you have a cabin with lower seating density you can have the blank, but if you have higher density, you can install the escape hatch... and the factory that builds the fuselages can minimize the production differences. It actually is quite logical.
That it failed is obviously a significant issue, but the reason for it being built that way makes sense.
Example -
The three craft in these photos are all Airbus A319.
The Allegiant has (2) overwing plug doors, but the Air Canada and United only have one. Why?
Simple - Allegiant is a low-cost carrier and has a single-class cabin with capacity for 156.
The Air Canada is 2-class, with 120 total seats.
United is 2.5-class with seats for 126.
Again, this is incorrect. The seat to exit ratio is going to be maintained. Of course different certificating agencies have slightly different rules, but in the whole they are the same across the world.
References:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.807
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Allegiant_Air/Allegiant_Air_Airbus_A319.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canada/Air_Canada_Airbus_A319.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Airbus_A319_V2.php
Last edited:
Given that current planes have a mix of in and out doors, I think think that is incorrect. Got any evidence for that? I've seen plenty of inward opening planes on the ground - I've been flying since the 70s...
Inward opening doors are only allowed if there are effective means of preventing passengers from crowding and blocking the action of the door.
I didn’t just dream this up, do your own research!
I didn’t just dream this up, do your own research!
Ah - I see the confusion. You replied to @Charles Darwin who commented on Cargo doors, your comment was on emergency exits. I hadn't spotted you'd changed the subject.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.