The 737 was quite revolutionary when first introduced; the two engine design meant drastically lower operating costs. Almost immediately airlines wanted out of their first generation 4-engine jets, it didn't make sense unless they were really large like a 747.
737 MAX 10
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
Boeing doesn't make engines. They've never made engines and are often engine agnostic. They leave that to Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, Rolls Royce, and at least one partnership (CFM).
I am kind of partial to GE. I've been watching a military aviation channel on YouTube where this guy says that "GE fixes a lot of Pratt's mistakes." I think this is a lot about military engines, but I heard a lot of airlines got ticked off about the interminable delays with the PW geared turbofans and changed their orders to CFM. But case in point with the military engines.
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ge-pratt-whitney-battle-over-f-35-engine-upgrade/
It's kind of odd that in the 60/70s that three-engine jets like the 727, DC-10, and L-1011 were still pretty common to bridge the gap between 2 and 4. Not sure why. The 727 was not a large plane.
The US Air Force is still flying their 707 based KC-135s, but I suppose they're being retired as the KC-46 comes into service. But at the very least they re-engined them with turbofans when they originally used less efficient turbojets.
Thanks for pointing that out. I guess Boeing could have stated a use case to GE or one of the other engine makers on a 2 engine design for a plane like the 747.
They were already using 4 GEnx engines in the 747-8. Not sure if they could manage something even bigger.
That’s what the 777-X is minus the hump of course. The new 777-X is pretty big. Listen to those engines wind up.
Those engines on the 777 look so big, similar in proportion to the engines on 737 Max engines.
The ground clearance is so low, and is similar to the 737 Maxx.
One advantage to Airbus's design is Airbus planes are much higher off the ground (with more ground clearance) than the Boeing planes, (at least from the side by side photos I've seen), so they can better balance having the larger heavier engines.
The ground clearance is so low, and is similar to the 737 Maxx.
One advantage to Airbus's design is Airbus planes are much higher off the ground (with more ground clearance) than the Boeing planes, (at least from the side by side photos I've seen), so they can better balance having the larger heavier engines.
The low ground clearance was the reason why the 737NG engines had oddly shaped nacelles.
From what I understand (Astro14 - please correct me if I am wrong), the two 737 Max 8 crashes were due to Boeing not doing a redesign of the body / height of the current 737 to better accommodate those large engines. Instead, it was a hack, where they just stuck the oversized engines onto the low ground clearance current 737, which made them top heavy. Then to compensate for that hack, they had to put in a 2nd hack which was the secret MCAS system, which then had bugs in it. Hack, after Hack to save time and money, and it resulted in about 600 deaths and severely damaged the safety reputation of Boeing for years.
Last edited:
What?
The ground clearance on that airplane is huge.
Because the airplane is huge. It grosses out at just above the 747-400 and well above the 747-100/200. It’s a bigger airplane than many 747s, in length, weight, and wingspan.
Look, it’s not the number of inches under the nacelle that matters, it’s both the roll angle at which a nacelle or wingtip contacts the ground, and the pitch angle at which the aft fuselage contacts the ground.
Your assessment of this airplane is completely wrong.
Your generalization of Boeing vs. Airbus is wrong.
For example, the Boeing 757, a 1980s design, has much more ground clearance in both roll and pitch than the A-320, a 1990s design, or the 321, a 2000s design. The 321 and 757 are about the same fuselage size/length.
My issues with the entire Airbus line is they seem to have mechanicals more often, in my experience. Just last week, we had already boarded
Captain: I'm sorry Ladies and gentlemen, there is going to be a delay while mechanics check out an indicator light.
Captain: Not great news. They have identified the problem but the parts aren't here in Denver. They are being put on a flight from Houston and will be here in 2 hours or so.
It's always some farfunugen valve or something that on Airbus planes that can't be easily fixed.
I know, I know, no real evidence but I'm just the opposite. If I can avoid an Airbus I always will. Not that I can do that easily, but when I have a choice.....
Boeing deserves every criticism for the Max. The decision to build it. The implementation of MCAS. All of it. Not a fan.
But not every Boeing is a bad airplane.
Boeing changed the industry and the world with the 747.
Airbus spent billions trying to beat it, with the A-380.
They ended up with an overpriced, overweight, money-losing white elephant that airlines are trying desperately to unload.
The contemporary 787, developed at the same time as the A-380, has sold over 1,000 aircraft, and is back-ordered for the next ten years.
But not every Boeing is a bad airplane.
Boeing changed the industry and the world with the 747.
Airbus spent billions trying to beat it, with the A-380.
They ended up with an overpriced, overweight, money-losing white elephant that airlines are trying desperately to unload.
The contemporary 787, developed at the same time as the A-380, has sold over 1,000 aircraft, and is back-ordered for the next ten years.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
I strongly disagree.
21 years on Airbus, high time pilot Airbus guy who never bothers even packing a suitcase, ever, when I go to work.
Thats how confident I am in its reliability.
Maybe the maintenance is the problem.
I have broken down 4 times in 21 years ( twice in Dominican Republic, once in Phoenix and last time in Las Vegas. ).
Going to work tomorrow, with no suitcase.
Edit: I do extremely long turns ( land, refuel, head back ) close to the maximum duty day allowed. Any mechanical issues would cause us to run out of duty day but I do not have that issue.
So far, I have had a very boring career on the Airbus , problems wise ( plane ).
Last edited:
Only 4? I've had 2 Airbus breakdowns this year alone. However, maybe it is on United Maintenance, that certainly could be.
Age of the aircraft matters, too. It’s not just the model, or even the airline maintenance, that matters because more parts start hitting their average lifespan as the airplane ages.
We started taking delivery of our A-320 fleet in 1993, so, some of them are getting pretty long in the tooth. Not quite as old as our 767-300 fleet (which has been very reliable) but I’m betting they’re quite a bit older than your fleet.
Just took 4 flights to get to and from Orlando from Calgary through Toronto. A321-200, A330-300 and an A220 were the planes. Apparently air canada is buying airbus.
The outbound flight from Calgary to Toronto was delayed once we had all boarded because the fuel calculation was incorrect and more fuel needed to be added. Is this common? Better to catch it on the ground than 1/2 way there.
The flight from Orlando to Toronto on the return leg was delayed 2h10min. Interestingly, due to new regulations, Canadian carriers have to compensate customers for delays more than 2 hours, but air canada just bumped the flight time by 1/2 hour a few times and then called the flight "on time" so it looks like they found a way around that.
Have flown a number of larger 737 models to Hawaii with Westjet over the years and those seem clunkier and rougher than the Airbus flights recently.
The outbound flight from Calgary to Toronto was delayed once we had all boarded because the fuel calculation was incorrect and more fuel needed to be added. Is this common? Better to catch it on the ground than 1/2 way there.
The flight from Orlando to Toronto on the return leg was delayed 2h10min. Interestingly, due to new regulations, Canadian carriers have to compensate customers for delays more than 2 hours, but air canada just bumped the flight time by 1/2 hour a few times and then called the flight "on time" so it looks like they found a way around that.
Have flown a number of larger 737 models to Hawaii with Westjet over the years and those seem clunkier and rougher than the Airbus flights recently.
Then they shifted all final assembly to South Carolina when it used to be split between Everett and South Carolina. I've heard of numerous issues with quality at the SC assembly line.
I have, too. But the 787 is a great performer, and selling well.
In contrast with the A-380, that was bought by state-supported airlines for prestige.
Airlines that are turning them back in before the lease is up, because of poor performance, economically, and operationally.
There is no doubt in my mind that the A320 family is a better airplane than the 737. After all, one first flew in 1968, and one in 1988.
The 737 was designed as a very short haul jet, with stubby landing gear to enable operation at small cities without ground support equipment. Baggage folks could climb in and load it without belt loaders. It was the regional jet of its day.
The A320 was built for a much broader mission.
50 years after the 737 first flew, it's been heavily modified to fit different missions, and the design compromises from the original intent continue to haunt it.
But you cannot apply the problems of the 737 across the Boeing product line. The 747 changed the world. The 757 still outperforms most airliners. The 767 is a reliable workhorse with a 40 year production run. The 777 is one of the best selling airplanes of all time. The 787 is in high demand, with over 1,500 delivered or on order.
The 737 was designed as a very short haul jet, with stubby landing gear to enable operation at small cities without ground support equipment. Baggage folks could climb in and load it without belt loaders. It was the regional jet of its day.
The A320 was built for a much broader mission.
50 years after the 737 first flew, it's been heavily modified to fit different missions, and the design compromises from the original intent continue to haunt it.
But you cannot apply the problems of the 737 across the Boeing product line. The 747 changed the world. The 757 still outperforms most airliners. The 767 is a reliable workhorse with a 40 year production run. The 777 is one of the best selling airplanes of all time. The 787 is in high demand, with over 1,500 delivered or on order.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
We were the first Airbus operator in North America ( pretty sure, will check later ) and some are pretty old.
We have some newer ones but old ones too.
