New Boeing Airliner Decision Coming in 2019

[Ecl!pse]

In order to get that kind of range, from the plane, it will take more than a re-wing. They're going to be putting more auxiliary fuel tanks on this proposed 797 fighter. At the heavy cost to cargo space. That if anything its where the 797 will be more competitive as a clean-sheet design.

What you are referring to is the “A321 XLR” - same A321neo, just with another auxiliary fuel tank in the belly. What @jtrain609 is referring to is an upgrade to the A321 above/beyond that. A new wing that allows for higher takeoff weights (and thus, better range / takeoff performance), and with the added volume in the larger wing you will have greater fuel capacity, so they can remove auxiliary fuel tanks from the belly.

The impact of cargo is usually largely overstated on the internet. And global carriers are split on what this airplane should be capable of from a cargo perspective — Asian carriers want some level of cargo capability, while North American carriers have been pretty vocal about sacrificing cargo for better fuel performance.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

When the last Airbus is taken to the plastics recycling factory along with the rest of the soda bottles and household plastics, the crew will ride home in a 737. Perhaps even a Classic.

No, no, no. They’ll be riding home on some sort of DC-9 variant.

 

[FloridaLarry]

No, no, no. They’ll be riding home on some sort of DC-9 variant.

...with Allegiant paint and iffy mantainence.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

...with Allegiant paint and iffy mantainence.

They’re bulletproof. Even Allegiant can’t hurt them.

 

[mikecweb]

I love the internet.

 

[SeanD]

Yes, please put the 737 to rest. Immediately.

It's the airplane equivalent of an over-requested karaoke song.

It's the Baby Got Back of the airliner manufacturing industry.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

If it's possible, for just a moment, let's leave aside any tribal animosity or religious belief.

Now let me ask a serious question. What is wrong with the 737? Why all the hate for it?

I have no axe to grind nor any dog in any fight that may or may not exist around Boeing vs Airbus, so I don't want to hear about other brands, etc, or hear hackneyed opinions repeated... again.

I'd simply like to know if there are any REAL functional, operational, aerodynamic, or economic reasons for despising the 737.

 

[jtrain609]

If it's possible, for just a moment, let's leave aside any tribal animosity or religious belief.

Now let me ask a serious question. What is wrong with the 737? Why all the hate for it?

I have no axe to grind nor any dog in any fight that may or may not exist around Boeing vs Airbus, so I don't want to hear about other brands, etc, or hear hackneyed opinions repeated... again.

I'd simply like to know if there are any REAL functional, operational, aerodynamic, or economic reasons for despising the 737.

I mean, even taxing a 737-900 comes with the threat of a tail strike.

 

[Roger Roger]

If it's possible, for just a moment, let's leave aside any tribal animosity or religious belief.

Now let me ask a serious question. What is wrong with the 737? Why all the hate for it?

I have no axe to grind nor any dog in any fight that may or may not exist around Boeing vs Airbus, so I don't want to hear about other brands, etc, or hear hackneyed opinions repeated... again.

I'd simply like to know if there are any REAL functional, operational, aerodynamic, or economic reasons for despising the 737.

@Derg explained once, but the tl:dr is that to keep the common type rating they’ve refrained from automating a lot of the systems busywork that could easily be automated. Which of course increases opportunities for oopses. Actually seems like a pretty valid criticism to me.

 

[skatergeek]

@Derg explained once, but the tl:dr is that to keep the common type rating they’ve refrained from automating a lot of the systems busywork that could easily be automated. Which of course increases opportunities for oopses. Actually seems like a pretty valid criticism to me.

I always thought it was a sim issue? That a certain airline with “blue” painted planes didn’t want to have to get new sims. I bet the FAA would sign off on a common type...I mean the DC-9-10 and the B717 are common types and they only thing similar is the fact that they look kinda the same.

 

[skatergeek]

If it's possible, for just a moment, let's leave aside any tribal animosity or religious belief.

Now let me ask a serious question. What is wrong with the 737? Why all the hate for it?

I have no axe to grind nor any dog in any fight that may or may not exist around Boeing vs Airbus, so I don't want to hear about other brands, etc, or hear hackneyed opinions repeated... again.

I'd simply like to know if there are any REAL functional, operational, aerodynamic, or economic reasons for despising the 737.

I don’t fly either but I might end up on the 737 soon. Just from jumpseating around, the busy cockpit is roomy and sorta quiet where the 73 is crammed and sorta loud. Other than that I think it just comes down to laziness. Bus is less work.

 

[FloridaLarry]

If it's possible, for just a moment, let's leave aside any tribal animosity or religious belief.
...
I'd simply like to know if there are any REAL functional, operational, aerodynamic, or economic reasons for despising the 737.

No dog in this fight. IMHO, it's what the 737s do or don't do but coulda/shoulda.

Boeing's decisions of what to update, where to put new technology and where to stay the same, have been made for a myriad of reasons, including requests from customers. Certainly ditto Airbus.

Whether from the outside or the cockpit, Airbus's choices appear more modern, include more of today's technological possibilities. When you look at the 777 or 787, then look back and think "Wouldn't it have been wonderful if they put these whizz-bangs in the new 737s!" the older designs will suffer by comparison. When I sit in the middle cabin on a 319-321 series and hear the flaps motors whining....

I can't wait for 797. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

No dog in this fight. IMHO, it's what the 737s do or don't do but coulda/shoulda.

Boeing's decisions of what to update, where to put new technology and where to stay the same, have been made for a myriad of reasons, including requests from customers. Certainly ditto Airbus.

Whether from the outside or the cockpit, Airbus's choices appear more modern, include more of today's technological possibilities. When you look at the 777 or 787, then look back and think "Wouldn't it have been wonderful if they put these whizz-bangs in the new 737s!" the older designs will suffer by comparison. When I sit in the middle cabin on a 319-321 series and hear the flaps motors whining....

I can't wait for 797. Hope springs eternal.

777 & 787 flap hydraulic actuators don't whine?

 

[Ecl!pse]

If it's possible, for just a moment, let's leave aside any tribal animosity or religious belief.

Now let me ask a serious question. What is wrong with the 737? Why all the hate for it?

I have no axe to grind nor any dog in any fight that may or may not exist around Boeing vs Airbus, so I don't want to hear about other brands, etc, or hear hackneyed opinions repeated... again.

I'd simply like to know if there are any REAL functional, operational, aerodynamic, or economic reasons for despising the 737.

I can't comment on the cramped flight deck as I've never had to work in it, but from a performance perspective, the only real limitation I see with the 737 family is the short landing gear - and that really only affects the 737-900/ER, MAX 9, and MAX 10. It's a function of the legacy design of the 737, and it is part of the 737 evacuation strategy - with the short gear, there's no need for over-wing slides and hence they 737 is generally slightly lighter than the A320 family from an empty weight perspective.

As @jtrain609 points out, the short landing gear makes a tail strike on rotation a big risk. This is why the 737-900/ER, MAX 9, and MAX 10 will have longer takeoff runs (and at times, worse range) than the A321ceo/neo. The short landing gear of the 737 prevents the aircraft from rotating to an angle-of-attack that generates sufficient lift at lower takeoff speeds, so the aircraft must accelerate to a higher takeoff speed in order to generate that lift to get off the ground.

Heightening the landing gear would be the "easiest" solution, however that in and of itself isn't without tradeoffs and limitations. This is exactly why when Boeing created the MAX 10, a further stretch of the MAX 9 (and -900ER), it required a new main landing gear design. The new design helps "maintain" the field performance of the MAX 9 by moving it's rotation point aft, allowing the aircraft to rotate without smacking the tail on departure and it keeps the takeoff roll within most acceptable field lengths. It's field performance still worse than the A321neo, but it will do more than 95% of the missions asked of it and it will be at near-parity with the A321neo from a seating capacity perspective.

 

[NovemberEcho]

Nothing against Boeing, but just saying the E145 and E175 I flew in this weekend were more comfortable than the 737-800.

 

[MikeD]

I can't comment on the cramped flightdeck, as I've never had to work in it

I don't find the 737 cockpit particularly cramped, but I also came from fighter jets, if you want to talk truly experiencing cramped cockpits. You don't know cramped until you've experienced that, only slightly more comfortable than a Mooney. I don't know what people are expecting, but I certainly don't expect a DC-10 size cockpit for a plane the size of a 737 and which has a conventional yoke. That's simply not a realistic expectation.

 

[trafficinsight]

Nothing against Boeing, but just saying the E145 and E175 I flew in this weekend were more comfortable than the 737-800.

The 175 for sure but as far as the 145 goes, lies.


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[trafficinsight]

I don't find the 737 cockpit particularly cramped, but I also came from fighter jets, if you want to talk truly experiencing cramped cockpits. You don't know cramped until you've experienced that, only slightly more comfortable than a Mooney. I don't know what people are expecting, but I certainly don't expect a DC-10 size cockpit for a plane the size of a 737 and which has a conventional yoke. That's simply not a realistic expectation.

My shins don't enjoy either the Boeing or the Airbus, but I've ridden both to Minneapolis several times without issue.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[NovemberEcho]

The 175 for sure but as far as the 145 goes, lies.


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Well, alright that was cheating since it was literally row 1 (after “first class”) so extra leg room

 

[Roger Roger]

The 175 for sure but as far as the 145 goes, lies.


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Yah, the E-jets are a p good passenger experience especially newer Skywest birds (vs ragged out Compass ones). The WSCOD on the other hand...