My comment is not specifically about the stretch … It’s about the ability to get the nacelles they need for PP - and even the 319 has more room than 37‘s … Bothers me to see Boeing let this happen
Edit: would also seem a new plane could bring the efficiency and comfort that the 87 brought to the entire sector …
As one of the shorter-fuselage versions in Airbus’ single-aisle A320 jetliner family, the A319 offers excellent versatility with its seating options ranging from a 110-seat configuration to 160 seats, with all offering the highest levels of passenger comfort.
aircraft.airbus.com
And on that we agree, the max was a strategic mistake.
Boeing took a 1967 design, a design it’s been flying for over 50 years, and tried to turn it into a modern airliner.
The bottom line is that the landing gear doesn’t allow enough room for modern engines. So, despite the new wing, and the new engines, it’s still like getting a 1967 Chevy nova, and saying hey, I can put a turbo four-cylinder in this and some new Bluetooth and leather seats and it’s every bit as good as a modern car.
We all know that’s not true.
Boeing was caught in a difficult spot. Airbus was able to spend about $1 billion on R&D to re-engine the 320 series aircraft, and the NEO is a good airliner.
O
To compete economically, Boeing tried to do an update to the 737. What they really needed was a clean sheet aircraft, but the cost of R&D would’ve been around $10 billion.
The critical problem with the 737 is that it was designed as the regional jet of its day. The stubby landing gear, both saved money, and allowed the aircraft to be serviced from the ground without equipment like belt loaders, so baggage handlers, at small airports that the airplane was designed to service, could throw the bags directly into the cargo compartment. Every other aircraft of that size requires ground support equipment, you can’t just go chucking bags into the back of the 320 without having a belt loader.
But that 1967 design goal has severely hampered the airplane since.
Short landing gear means that long fuselages will impact the tail at very modest angles, requiring ridiculously high approach speeds and ridiculously high takeoff speeds. That short landing gear caused all the handling problems when they tried to stick bigger, more modern, more fuel, efficient engines on the wing of the Max.
20 years ago, Boeing was committed to designing what was known as NMA, the new midsize airplane. A fuel efficient 757 replacement, instead, they committed to turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse. Boeing was under tremendous pressure from one particular airline that operated only 737. That airline needed the 737 in order to continue its business model - which included minimizing the cost of pilot training and minimizing the cost of other training by keeping that one aircraft type in production so they could buy a new airplanes, while not having to pay for a new fleet type.
I get why Boeing made the decision, they saved a lot of money on R&D, but they developed an inferior product. A deadly product in the case of Lion air and Ethiopian. The problems with the MCAS system have been fixed, but you will never fix the problem in that airplane’s basic design, and short landing gear.