Will the 777X be another 737MAX?
Apr 6, 2019, 12:54 pm
#2
Join Date: Feb 2018
Programs: Bonvoy :Ambassador , ALL :Diamond, Skywards :Silver, Krisflyer :Silver
Posts: 2,804
I do wish EK purchase more A380.
About 777x, I doubt the same mistake repeated again there.
737MAX fiasco will tighten the certification process and doubt Boeing will be dumb enough to repeat such fatal mistake.
About 777x, I doubt the same mistake repeated again there.
737MAX fiasco will tighten the certification process and doubt Boeing will be dumb enough to repeat such fatal mistake.
Apr 6, 2019, 1:15 pm
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
The first 777X was rolled out on March 13, 2019, so any issues from overstretching are already baked in. Just have to sit back and hope the certificaton process works this time.
Apr 6, 2019, 1:22 pm
#4
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
It's an entirely different aircraft with very different weight and balance characteristics. To compare the two is foolish. It's an anomaly of putting large engines on the 737 frame which is too low to the ground to fit the engines, the 777 already has massive engines in the previous versions and as a widebody is higher off the ground, as a longer and heavier aircraft in general it also is less susceptible to large center of gravity changes from just the engines having a longer arm.
Anyway, whatever software fix they come up with for the 737 would work for the 777 as well if it were the same issue (obviously adapted to the 777X's physics model). The 737MAX is not unsafe, it appears the software is faulty, and a fix for that would render the aircraft perfectly safe once again. All the fear mongering and sensationalism around the 737 MAX by amateur aviation analysts is rather annoying
Anyway, whatever software fix they come up with for the 737 would work for the 777 as well if it were the same issue (obviously adapted to the 777X's physics model). The 737MAX is not unsafe, it appears the software is faulty, and a fix for that would render the aircraft perfectly safe once again. All the fear mongering and sensationalism around the 737 MAX by amateur aviation analysts is rather annoying
Apr 6, 2019, 8:32 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
Pprune, the piolts rumor board has nearly 4,000 posts on the 737 MAX. Often fairly technical discussion. A few pprune posters raised questions about the 777x::
Quote:Originally Posted by Helix Von Smelix [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/img]Just looking at the Boeing 777-9 rollout photos. My question is, Have Boeing done a similar thing with the engine position on the 777-9 as they did with the 737-MAX? Forward and high.
They have actually lengthened the main gear legs to 16ft, the longest ever used on an airliner, but yes the diameter of the engine means that it does sit higher and farther forward.
Of course with the FBW 777 that should be less of a problem.
Trivium: the manufacturer of the 777X MLG, Héroux Devtek in Quebec, also supplied the legs for the Apollo Lunar Module.
Quote:Originally Posted by dinbangkok [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/img]Regardless of whether you're a pilot or not, surely the question that needs to be answered is simple: How is it remotely OK for Boeing (or any other manufacturer), to sell a passenger aircraft that needs software to correct an aerodynamic imbalance in the design of the aircraft (prone to pitching up)?
There are several exhibits of this out in the market: 777, 787, and soon to come 777X. These models all have full FBW systems that enable the bare airframe to have aerodynamic characteristics that with out any control system functionality at all would not be certifiable. The motivation is that these models have been able to design in improved performance because they have been able to take advantage of control system functions to yield certifiable handling qualities. The key, of course, is that the availability and reliability including any failure mode effects must be acceptable. Certification requirements cover all aspects of this.
I see Boeing have quietly rolled out a new B777 as well.
Did they fast track/fiddle that certification as well?
Quote:Originally Posted by Helix Von Smelix [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/img]Just looking at the Boeing 777-9 rollout photos. My question is, Have Boeing done a similar thing with the engine position on the 777-9 as they did with the 737-MAX? Forward and high.
They have actually lengthened the main gear legs to 16ft, the longest ever used on an airliner, but yes the diameter of the engine means that it does sit higher and farther forward.
Of course with the FBW 777 that should be less of a problem.
Trivium: the manufacturer of the 777X MLG, Héroux Devtek in Quebec, also supplied the legs for the Apollo Lunar Module.
Quote:Originally Posted by dinbangkok [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/img]Regardless of whether you're a pilot or not, surely the question that needs to be answered is simple: How is it remotely OK for Boeing (or any other manufacturer), to sell a passenger aircraft that needs software to correct an aerodynamic imbalance in the design of the aircraft (prone to pitching up)?
There are several exhibits of this out in the market: 777, 787, and soon to come 777X. These models all have full FBW systems that enable the bare airframe to have aerodynamic characteristics that with out any control system functionality at all would not be certifiable. The motivation is that these models have been able to design in improved performance because they have been able to take advantage of control system functions to yield certifiable handling qualities. The key, of course, is that the availability and reliability including any failure mode effects must be acceptable. Certification requirements cover all aspects of this.
I see Boeing have quietly rolled out a new B777 as well.
Did they fast track/fiddle that certification as well?
Apr 6, 2019, 8:43 pm
#6
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
Pprune, the piolts rumor board has nearly 4,000 posts on the 737 MAX. Often fairly technical discussion. A few pprune posters raised questions about the 777x::
Quote:Originally Posted by Helix Von Smelix [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gifJust looking at the Boeing 777-9 rollout photos. My question is, Have Boeing done a similar thing with the engine position on the 777-9 as they did with the 737-MAX? Forward and high.
They have actually lengthened the main gear legs to 16ft, the longest ever used on an airliner, but yes the diameter of the engine means that it does sit higher and farther forward.
Of course with the FBW 777 that should be less of a problem.
Trivium: the manufacturer of the 777X MLG, Héroux Devtek in Quebec, also supplied the legs for the Apollo Lunar Module.
Quote:Originally Posted by dinbangkok [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gifRegardless of whether you're a pilot or not, surely the question that needs to be answered is simple: How is it remotely OK for Boeing (or any other manufacturer), to sell a passenger aircraft that needs software to correct an aerodynamic imbalance in the design of the aircraft (prone to pitching up)?
There are several exhibits of this out in the market: 777, 787, and soon to come 777X. These models all have full FBW systems that enable the bare airframe to have aerodynamic characteristics that with out any control system functionality at all would not be certifiable. The motivation is that these models have been able to design in improved performance because they have been able to take advantage of control system functions to yield certifiable handling qualities. The key, of course, is that the availability and reliability including any failure mode effects must be acceptable. Certification requirements cover all aspects of this.
I see Boeing have quietly rolled out a new B777 as well.
Did they fast track/fiddle that certification as well?
Quote:Originally Posted by Helix Von Smelix [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gifJust looking at the Boeing 777-9 rollout photos. My question is, Have Boeing done a similar thing with the engine position on the 777-9 as they did with the 737-MAX? Forward and high.
They have actually lengthened the main gear legs to 16ft, the longest ever used on an airliner, but yes the diameter of the engine means that it does sit higher and farther forward.
Of course with the FBW 777 that should be less of a problem.
Trivium: the manufacturer of the 777X MLG, Héroux Devtek in Quebec, also supplied the legs for the Apollo Lunar Module.
Quote:Originally Posted by dinbangkok [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gifRegardless of whether you're a pilot or not, surely the question that needs to be answered is simple: How is it remotely OK for Boeing (or any other manufacturer), to sell a passenger aircraft that needs software to correct an aerodynamic imbalance in the design of the aircraft (prone to pitching up)?
There are several exhibits of this out in the market: 777, 787, and soon to come 777X. These models all have full FBW systems that enable the bare airframe to have aerodynamic characteristics that with out any control system functionality at all would not be certifiable. The motivation is that these models have been able to design in improved performance because they have been able to take advantage of control system functions to yield certifiable handling qualities. The key, of course, is that the availability and reliability including any failure mode effects must be acceptable. Certification requirements cover all aspects of this.
I see Boeing have quietly rolled out a new B777 as well.
Did they fast track/fiddle that certification as well?
It's like saying Airbus aircraft and Boeing aircraft both have wings, so they're the same.
I am familiar with pprune, and just because it is frequented (not exclusively) by professional pilots doesn't make it a reliable source of this type of information (neither is Flyertalk). I'm sure you're aware the R in PPRUNE stands for Rumour. It's speculation.
And that being said, pilots aren't the right people to ask anyway, you'd need to ask aeronautical engineers.
FWIW, I'm a private pilot so I do understand the physics behind aircraft w&b and COG. Some aircraft are intentionally designed to be unstable, and fighter jets are often unable to be flown without supporting software, so the concept of an aircraft depending on software to maintain maneuverability isn't new or unusual.
Apr 6, 2019, 9:28 pm
#7
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Israel/United States
Posts: 1,234
I don't remember the details or the fix. I DO remember the 727 being grounded for awhile. This was years and years ago--after multiple accidents. I sincerely believe the same way Boeing recovered and the 727 flew until recently, the same will happen with the 737 MAX.
Apr 7, 2019, 12:25 am
#8
Ambassador, Emirates
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LGW / AMS / CPT
Programs: SA KL BA EK
Posts: 4,267
My concern would not at all be that the 77X has the same or even remotely similar design ‘flaws’ as the 737MAX. It is more that there appears to be a possibility (and with a clear accent on appears) that the registration authorities in the US could have aided Boeing to get this aircraft ready for flight too quickly for commercial reasons and that they might have done something similar for other new types.
Apr 7, 2019, 3:16 am
#9
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,602
My concern would not at all be that the 77X has the same or even remotely similar design ‘flaws’ as the 737MAX. It is more that there appears to be a possibility (and with a clear accent on appears) that the registration authorities in the US could have aided Boeing to get this aircraft ready for flight too quickly for commercial reasons and that they might have done something similar for other new types.
If it now needs to go through a formal certification process (which would seem likely), it won't be flying for months. However, I'd expect the FAA to speed through the process... Other regions won't be as keen to rush it through.
Apr 7, 2019, 5:15 am
#12
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
Who is taking it lightly? It is a very serious matter which is why speculation and fear mongering is exactly not appropriate. People are jumping to conclusions and people are going to be terrified to fly a 737 max even in a year's time when everything is resolved because of it. Now people are speculating, without any actual insider knowledge, that other, completely unrelated, aircraft models, with a different physical and architectural foundation, may suffer from the same issue... it's reckless.
Apr 7, 2019, 5:30 pm
#14
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Programs: QR Gold, Skyteam Silver, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum
Posts: 144
Whatever software fix they come up with: it is not going to fix the fundamental structural instability problem of the 737 max..this is going to remain with this aircraft as long as its design is not changed...this will definitely not be resolved in a year or two. I am not an expert..but i am not aware of any other aircraft which has comparable structural faults causing instabilities which require to be addressed by a counterbalancing software..and I am not convinced by the FBW examples given above..there is a difference between an aeronautical instability and a design which systematically pushes this instability to the limit. I´d rather fly in an aircraft which just flies with the help of a skilled pilot. AFAIC, I will totally avoid the max in the future..and my trust in Boeing and the FAA is fundamentally disturbed..so I personally will give it quite some time before boarding a 777X.
Last edited by homer3152; Apr 7, 2019 at 5:39 pm
Apr 7, 2019, 8:39 pm
#15
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
Whatever software fix they come up with: it is not going to fix the fundamental structural instability problem of the 737 max..this is going to remain with this aircraft as long as its design is not changed...this will definitely not be resolved in a year or two. I am not an expert..but i am not aware of any other aircraft which has comparable structural faults causing instabilities which require to be addressed by a counterbalancing software..and I am not convinced by the FBW examples given above..there is a difference between an aeronautical instability and a design which systematically pushes this instability to the limit. I´d rather fly in an aircraft which just flies with the help of a skilled pilot. AFAIC, I will totally avoid the max in the future..and my trust in Boeing and the FAA is fundamentally disturbed..so I personally will give it quite some time before boarding a 777X.