Todos
← Back to Squawk list
US regulators order new fix for grounded Boeing 737 Max planes
Potential problem is in addition to flight-control system malfunction that resulted in 2 deadly crashes (www.cbc.ca) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
For the cost of all this, Boeing could have just spun up a re-jigged, re-engined, re-winged B-757 with new avionics suite and given away 5 free baggage belt loaders with every sale and still be be ahead of the game?
Too Much Pride
Too much 'we can cut costs by turning the 737 into a 757', than actually using the 757 as a base for an amazing plane.
Wish it was that easy, 757 was always my favorite Boeing jet. Geniuses there destroyed all the tooling so they'd basically be starting from scratch, no doubt more expensive than a "new" 737. There was/is supposed to be a NMA 757 type replacement but between the Max debacle and now wu-tang flu who knows if it will ever happen.
It probably would have needed MCAS to fly like the original and then they'd be in the same hole. I'm sure they wish they had done something else though.
yes, although with the higher stance they could kept the engines more under the wing. Guess Honda Jet was right LOL.
Whatchu talkin bout Willis? The 757 never needed MCAS or anything like it.
It's the 737 type-rating issue that bbabis is referring to, I believe.
Which is daft! They could have shortened the 757 easier than turning the 737 into a 757 lite.
It would have flown fine! The 757 didn't have the 737's 'legacy problems'. That's why they had to raise the engines. If they raised the fuselage with longer gear, they would have created a 'new' plane. Using the 757 cert, they could have fixed the issues that killed so many in the new 737. Think about it. It already had the taller gear to clear the asphalt.
So, all so the engines didn't suck tarmac in, they broke the design. Finding out the design was crap, they hid the 'fix' that killed over 300 people. BTW, why aren't the past president, and board not rotting it prison? Hmm...
It would have flown fine! The 757 didn't have the 737's 'legacy problems'. That's why they had to raise the engines. If they raised the fuselage with longer gear, they would have created a 'new' plane. Using the 757 cert, they could have fixed the issues that killed so many in the new 737. Think about it. It already had the taller gear to clear the asphalt.
So, all so the engines didn't suck tarmac in, they broke the design. Finding out the design was crap, they hid the 'fix' that killed over 300 people. BTW, why aren't the past president, and board not rotting it prison? Hmm...
Totally agree, but llike i said, it's about the type-rating. A physically different airplane with a different height off the ground (among so many other physical and flight characteristics) would force a new type rating. The 757 and 767 were big winners for the airlines because they had the same type rating and required minimal training for transition. Airbus learned from Boeing, on the smaller end of their lineup, but Boeing didn't learn from Boeing. (Used MCAS on a 737 instead. An eery repetition of its corporate/DoD decision which resulted in a similar situation with the KC 135R. History repeated itself.) But I digress..