[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Maestro

As Long a Boeing does not allow people to fly it who are not as smart as the plane itself I think they will be fine.

We're screwed.

[eluded]

Today's pilots (i'm thinking of the emerging countries) need an aircraft that does not require a lot of skill to fly. I push button and we go. Much like driving a car now. Make it fancy and it can lead to a terrible chain of events in the cockpit.... not everyone has Sully flying the plane.

[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by anglo

And folding wingtips, new Wings as well, flight control systems...

Lets wait for the first long-term structural checks at the hinge section and their impacts of the total life cycles. Very cool gadget though.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by anglo

And folding wingtips, new Wings as well, flight control systems...

What will those Boeing people think of next? A commercial airliner that comes set up from the factory for carrier operation at sea.....

[Dang3r]

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by eluded

Today's pilots (i'm thinking of the emerging countries) need an aircraft that does not require a lot of skill to fly. I push button and we go. Much like driving a car now. Make it fancy and it can lead to a terrible chain of events in the cockpit.... not everyone has Sully flying the plane.

And you want to be on those planes.

As I have always said, I would not ride in self driving car unless I understand it prime directive. Does it do everything it can to save your ass if someone else does something wrong or does goes for the least common denominator solution and kills you in the process since you we more expendable than the deer that ran out in front of the car.

Yes the Planes can do a lot on their own, but you really want a pilot who understands the physics of flying in that seat when things go wrong.

[Run Silent]

I fly on a 777 at least once a year to Africa. Lovely plane but certainly showing it's age. I hope that this update rolls out quickly and specifically on the ATL to JNB route, as it could really make that flight more enjoyable for the 16 freaking hours I have to sit my boney ass in that seat.

[GtiGyver]

Originally Posted by 2000gsr

Are the engines moved more forward on this one like the 737 max to improve efficiency?

That's not why they were moved forward. At least not what from what I understand. It's more to do with the fact that the basic 737 design (dating back to mid 1960s) has its wings far closer to the ground than, say, the A320.
Engines of the day were physically smaller and longer than today's high efficiency turbojets. This was never a problem until the MAX, when they equipped it with engines of the largest diameter ever fitted to the 737 series.
The only way to have the engines with adequate clearance without a complete redesign of the wing/structure was to move the engines forward and up in front of the wing.

This caused a dramatic change in aircraft behavior in flight. Since the goal was to have the 737MAX operate without any need for pilots to perform retraining, changing the wing design was out of the question, and the (altered) handling characteristics of the aircraft due to the different CG and engine placement was masked by the MCAS system.
Its dual purpose was to:
1. Make the aircraft fly just like the 737-800
2. Inhibit the aircraft's (new) natural tendency to lift it's nose.

Basically, the A320NEO pushed Boeing to make many compromises and rush the development of a competing aircraft.
I'm sure it won't be the last time this happens. Lets just hope it won't be due to catastrophes such as this that we discover coverups/mistakes/lies.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

I have a dear friend and several less close friends that work there too. This is just a speed bump. They will be ok.

Such an American way to say things, just casualties of business right?

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by minn19

Such an American way to say things, just casualties of business right?

Are you looking for something to be offended by?

[minn19]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Are you looking for something to be offended by?

Even for you that is/was about as crude a description about Boeing's problems. The "speed bump" is/was people with relatives etc.

But, capitalism and business will bravely soldier on for the poor Boeing employees that have apparently suffered greatly.

I feel for the ones that truly tried to stop the criminal negligence (not just the 737 MAX, but other substandard products currently bilking the US taxpayer). But, unfortunately the people responsible for the deaths probably won't even be charged with a crime. They got let go with huge severance packages etc, what a burden.

Hopefully the new leadership at Boeing gets the company back on track for your family/friends and many others sake.

[MKSixer]

I literally don't know who you are right now. You continue to insult me with the syntax of this statement.

I will just disengage.

Originally Posted by minn19

Even for you that is/was about as crude a description about Boeing's problems. The "speed bump" is/was people with relatives etc.

But, capitalism and business will bravely soldier on for the poor Boeing employees that have apparently suffered greatly.

I feel for the ones that truly tried to stop the criminal negligence (not just the 737 MAX, but other substandard products currently bilking the US taxpayer). But, unfortunately the people responsible for the deaths probably won't even be charged with a crime. They got let go with huge severance packages etc, what a burden.

Hopefully the new leadership at Boeing gets the company back on track for your family/friends and many others sake.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

I literally don't know who you are right now. You continue to insult me with the syntax of this statement.

I will just disengage.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about you for quite awhile now. Don't worry, I've mostly fully disengaged already.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by minn19

Funny I was thinking the same thing about you for quite awhile now. Don't worry, I've mostly fully disengaged already.

Don't ever leave a job incomplete.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Don't ever leave a job incomplete.

Always get the last word.

[sethwas]

Originally Posted by GtiGyver

That's not why they were moved forward. At least not what from what I understand. It's more to do with the fact that the basic 737 design (dating back to mid 1960s) has its wings far closer to the ground than, say, the A320.

That's right - the efficiency gains have nothing to do with engine location - it's the engines themselves.
The more efficient engines have larger fans which have larger nacelles which simply don't fit on a plane with short legs. (the 757 has long legs because of this).
They can't get longer landing gear so the solution was to just move the engine forward until it reaches a point that it fits under the wing.

Of course at certain angles of attack (when the plane raises its nose which changes the airflow across the wing) this puts the top of the engine right in the airflow over the front of the wing which causes the nose to rise farther than the pilot had commanded. The MCAS adjusts trim in back to keep the nose still (again it's not the nose that's the issue, I'm just simplifying, but the airflow over the wing when nose is high). And we all know about MCAS.

The 777x is just making advancements to the 777 (specifically the ER model). Aside from the airline side benefits like modern interior/width and more seating (10 across), the benefit is again the engines and a redesigned wing which save in fuel cost (to compete with Airbus A350). Because the wingspan is so long, (it's a 787 wing that doesn't sweep as much which means its wider (you can picture a F14 wing or B1 wing sweep to get the idea)) it doesn't fit in standard gates and that would hurt sales since it limits customers, so they are able to fold (in about 20s) at the tips so it can be parked next to other planes.

Seth

[GtiGyver]

Originally Posted by sethwas

And we all know about MCAS.

Well, that's just it. Now we know about it, but at the time the system was hidden from pilots, undocumented and was able to overpower pilot inputs.
This is a HUGE no no in aviation. Worst of all, it had NO redundancy in case of sensor failure unless the operator selected to buy an option to do so.

As for the 777X, I don't know enough about it to comment. I just hope they have better QA than was the case with the MAX.