Originally Posted by
fly18725
- Airbus designed the A320neo because the A320ceo’s range and economics on some routes lagged behind the NG, which had engines and wings that were a generation newer.
- Boeing wanted to try and maintain an advantage over Airbus. It’s customers didn’t want to pay more for a clean sheet airplane, so it went with the MAX.
- Boeing has been consistent in saying that it would have preferred a clean sheet narrow body, but the market had no interest. You don’t invest billions in a product your customer won’t buy.
- The C-Series/A220 is made of aluminum and destroyed Bombardier. It is a horrible example of a development program.
- There’s no feasible plan to economically make 50-70 carbon fiber airframes a year. It’s not clear there’s a benefit to have a carbon fiber narrow body.
- All modern airplanes have aerodynamic flaws that are corrected by software. If you don’t want to fly on an airplane with software, you need to stay home.
- As the public and airlines push for more fuel efficiency, there will be more substantial software corrections required.
- Engine placement on the MAX improved the COG and handling characteristics. Under certain extreme conditions, there’s too much lift and MCAS is intended to smooth out the handling. A good analogy is a car: you want linear increase in force as you steer and brake. If it got easier, it’d be difficult to respond.
The problem I have with this analysis is the treatment of the Boeing/Airbus rivalry and the "lack of interest" in a clean sheet narrowbody as somehow justifying what Boeing did. If it really was impossible to put out a new plane that avoided the design defect of the MAX, another option was to put out no new plane at all and cede that end of the market to Airbus.
The point is anything is better than putting too large an engine onto a 50 year old design and causing two crashes and hundreds of fatalities. So what if Boeing loses some market share or puts out a plane nobody buys? That pales in comparison to what Boeing actually did.