Boeing's deadly mistake explained

[riscol]

I am glad the rest of the world isn't putting their trust on the FAA. In fact they are doing their own certification and ain't allowing the 737Max into their own airspace. This is costing Boeing dearly that will run up to billions of billions of losses. Competition from Airbus, Russian and Chinese counterparts will deal a huge blow to Boeing now that trust is gone. If the 737 Max does get the seal of approval it will only be allowed to fly in American airspace.

 

[khansaheeb]

 

[KungFuLee]

I am glad the rest of the world isn't putting their trust on the FAA. In fact they are doing their own certification and ain't allowing the 737Max into their own airspace. This is costing Boeing dearly that will run up to billions of billions of losses. Competition from Airbus, Russian and Chinese counterparts will deal a huge blow to Boeing now that trust is gone. If the 737 Max does get the seal of approval it will only be allowed to fly in American airspace.

Highly unlikely this would be the case.

If you remember history, this wasn't 737 first major problem, there were this stabiliser problem with rudder hard over that lead to 3 737 crashed and 1 crash landed in 4 separate accidents. The rudder hard over is also a design flaw with the 737 and even so, 737 continue to be the most popular mid-range widebody jet. And that rudder hardover deal more damage to Boeing than this MCAS system flaw, because it lost more people, more airframe and all of them happened in the United States.

Before I come to Australia, I was working at a Risk Control firm as they number pusher. People tend to forget stuff like this, along the same line everyone will stop and think about taking a trip on a plane after a major accident, but then it will always return to normal, that is because while these incidents do deal some undesirable effect, people generally focus on how they were being handle and being fixed. That is because we all accept the risk that aircraft is a complex piece of machinery, and there WILL be fault. And those risk are calculated in your head before you get on a plane.

The only way China or Russia can bump off Boeing is when they make a better plane than Boeing, but I don't see they are capable of that at this point. And to be honest, unless some serious business espionage happens, I don't ever see that. because Boeing and Airbus have been designing aircraft since 1960s, Russia and China is a new comer. There are a lot of technology that Boeing and Airbus have but not China and Russia, you don't need to look far, Comac C919 can only compare to 1970s Boeing 737-200 or 1980s A319 in terms of range, pax capacity and fuel consumption, and Su-100 is not even comparable to any Boeing or Airbus of the same kind

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

I think it's Karma.

Boeing didn't make a proper commuter jet when Embraer and Bombardier-Airbus were making newer better commjter jets. And Boeing tried to block Bombardier/Airbus new commuter jet a220(Bombardier c jet) in America. So I believe this is karma coming to bite Boeing.

Now commuter jet market is even tougher as in addition to Bombardier-Airbus and Embraer's Ejet family. New players such as Russia, even Japan and Turkey are entering the market. And we all know of China's copycat Comac jets which are direct rip offs of Embraer and Bombardier jets.

I am glad the rest of the world isn't putting their trust on the FAA. In fact they are doing their own certification and ain't allowing the 737Max into their own airspace. This is costing Boeing dearly that will run up to billions of billions of losses. Competition from Airbus, Russian and Chinese counterparts will deal a huge blow to Boeing now that trust is gone. If the 737 Max does get the seal of approval it will only be allowed to fly in American airspace.

 

[casual]

Highly unlikely this would be the case.

If you remember history, this wasn't 737 first major problem, there were this stabiliser problem with rudder hard over that lead to 3 737 crashed and 1 crash landed in 4 separate accidents. The rudder hard over is also a design flaw with the 737 and even so, 737 continue to be the most popular mid-range widebody jet. And that rudder hardover deal more damage to Boeing than this MCAS system flaw, because it lost more people, more airframe and all of them happened in the United States.

Before I come to Australia, I was working at a Risk Control firm as they number pusher. People tend to forget stuff like this, along the same line everyone will stop and think about taking a trip on a plane after a major accident, but then it will always return to normal, that is because while these incidents do deal some undesirable effect, people generally focus on how they were being handle and being fixed. That is because we all accept the risk that aircraft is a complex piece of machinery, and there WILL be fault. And those risk are calculated in your head before you get on a plane.

The only way China or Russia can bump off Boeing is when they make a better plane than Boeing, but I don't see they are capable of that at this point. And to be honest, unless some serious business espionage happens, I don't ever see that. because Boeing and Airbus have been designing aircraft since 1960s, Russia and China is a new comer. There are a lot of technology that Boeing and Airbus have but not China and Russia, you don't need to look far, Comac C919 can only compare to 1970s Boeing 737-200 or 1980s A319 in terms of range, pax capacity and fuel consumption, and Su-100 is not even comparable to any Boeing or Airbus of the same kind

C919 offers better fuel economy then 737-next gen that makes up majority of the 737 fleets around the world. So your criticism is too harsh. In any case, it's success is pretty much guaranteed because of the chinese aviation market. Though I do expect the c919 to be competitive on price and will get it's target share of global market outside of China.

 

[POTTER]

C919 offers better fuel economy then 737-next gen that makes up majority of the 737 fleets around the world. So your criticism is too harsh. In any case, it's success is pretty much guaranteed because of the chinese aviation market. Though I do expect the c919 to be competitive on price and will get it's target share of global market outside of China.

It will take 8-12 years fella

 

[casual]

It will take 8-12 years fella

first deliveries are scheduled for 2021. might be optimistic but with the rate of test planes rolling out recently it seems realistic

 

[POTTER]

It will take time to produce considerable numbers. i.e 200 atleast

 

[Samlee]

I am glad the rest of the world isn't putting their trust on the FAA. In fact they are doing their own certification and ain't allowing the 737Max into their own airspace. This is costing Boeing dearly that will run up to billions of billions of losses. Competition from Airbus, Russian and Chinese counterparts will deal a huge blow to Boeing now that trust is gone. If the 737 Max does get the seal of approval it will only be allowed to fly in American airspace.

Was The Software Outsourced?????

 

[KungFuLee]

C919 offers better fuel economy then 737-next gen that makes up majority of the 737 fleets around the world. So your criticism is too harsh. In any case, it's success is pretty much guaranteed because of the chinese aviation market. Though I do expect the c919 to be competitive on price and will get it's target share of global market outside of China.

Where do you hear that C919 offer better fuel economy than 737 next gen?

In terms of Engine, yes, the CFM LEAP-1C is better than the CFM-56-7, but they are not by very far, however, 737NG have quite a few onboard technology that C919 is lacking, most prominent is the reduction of weigh to wing area ratio and also fly-by-wire system. Which mean with the larger thrust in the LEAP 1C, you burn more gas per km. Because unlike in automobile, you don't go from 0-100 on an aircraft engine, you go from 0 - 70 to 100, there are no between 0-70, the engine is either on or off.

Also, 737-900ER can take more pax for a longer journey.

And finally, I don't think C919 can get as much customer now than maybe 10 to 20 years later, COMAC already have been selling C919 since 2010, and their number is quite dismal, I think on top of my head it was about 400 firm order with about 1000 MOU, that's 9 years of sale coming to 10 years...If you compare it to Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus 321neo. Airbus sold around 7000 firm order A321neo in 7 years since 2012 and Boeing sold around 5000 firm order 737 Max since 2011.

As I said, unless there is some kind of drastic action taken by the Chinese Government, (like banning Boeing and Airbus and require all Chinese airline to buy C919) I don't see how China can take on either Boeing and Airbus in the next decade. And most definitely not with C919, maybe COMAC can make a better C929 with the Russian? But that remain to be seen.

It will take time to produce considerable numbers. i.e 200 atleast

I think that is the major problem for C919. Which is COMAC put them on the sale list too early.

Think about it, if I were to order a plane today to be used by my airline, I have 3 options. Airbus A321neo, Boeing 737MAX and COMAC C919. We actually have more but let's say just these 3. Which one should I choose?

Both 321neo and 737MAX is a current aircraft, which mean I can buy them and I can get in a queue getting them in a definite date. Yes 737Max would need some twitching after the current fiasco, but I am pretty sure 737Max would regain its certification and flew out faster than C919 putting into mass production, which mean if I were to buy C919 now, I am not getting an aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years (depends on where I am in the queue and how fast COMAC can turn out a C919) I can be getting the C919 in my flight line in 2030 if I order one today, if we use Airbus and Boeing Factory as a yard stick, Which is around 60 plane a year, by the time I got my hand on the brand new C919, Boeing and Airbus would have jump to the 737MAX and A321neo successor for sure. Then I may as well order them instead of C919.

Why would COMAC push C919 on the market so quick before any certification work is done is baffling to me, that is working against C919, I hope they know that.

 

[casual]

Where do you hear that C919 offer better fuel economy than 737 next gen?

In terms of Engine, yes, the CFM LEAP-1C is better than the CFM-56-7, but they are not by very far, however, 737NG have quite a few onboard technology that C919 is lacking, most prominent is the reduction of weigh to wing area ratio and also fly-by-wire system. Which mean with the larger thrust in the LEAP 1C, you burn more gas per km. Because unlike in automobile, you don't go from 0-100 on an aircraft engine, you go from 0 - 70 to 100, there are no between 0-70, the engine is either on or off.

Also, 737-900ER can take more pax for a longer journey.

And finally, I don't think C919 can get as much customer now than maybe 10 to 20 years later, COMAC already have been selling C919 since 2010, and their number is quite dismal, I think on top of my head it was about 400 firm order with about 1000 MOU, that's 9 years of sale coming to 10 years...If you compare it to Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus 321neo. Airbus sold around 7000 firm order A321neo in 7 years since 2012 and Boeing sold around 5000 firm order 737 Max since 2011.

As I said, unless there is some kind of drastic action taken by the Chinese Government, (like banning Boeing and Airbus and require all Chinese airline to buy C919) I don't see how China can take on either Boeing and Airbus in the next decade. And most definitely not with C919, maybe COMAC can make a better C929 with the Russian? But that remain to be seen.



I think that is the major problem for C919. Which is COMAC put them on the sale list too early.

Think about it, if I were to order a plane today to be used by my airline, I have 3 options. Airbus A321neo, Boeing 737MAX and COMAC C919. We actually have more but let's say just these 3. Which one should I choose?

Both 321neo and 737MAX is a current aircraft, which mean I can buy them and I can get in a queue getting them in a definite date. Yes 737Max would need some twitching after the current fiasco, but I am pretty sure 737Max would regain its certification and flew out faster than C919 putting into mass production, which mean if I were to buy C919 now, I am not getting an aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years (depends on where I am in the queue and how fast COMAC can turn out a C919) I can be getting the C919 in my flight line in 2030 if I order one today, if we use Airbus and Boeing Factory as a yard stick, Which is around 60 plane a year, by the time I got my hand on the brand new C919, Boeing and Airbus would have jump to the 737MAX and A321neo successor for sure. Then I may as well order them instead of C919.

Why would COMAC push C919 on the market so quick before any certification work is done is baffling to me, that is working against C919, I hope they know that.

fuel economy rating mainly comes from the engines. the CFM LEAP-1C is 10-12% more efficient then CFM-56-7

737NG doesn't have fly by wire control. it does, however, carry a much larger fuel tank thus the longer range on the 900ER variant. Anyhow, range and pax needs are depending on the flight route the plane is assigned to. Higher doesn't mean better and it's important to have different trims to tailor fit for the needs.

Anyhow C919 is still in development. If it can keep to schedule and deliver planes in 2021 then I expect a strong market for it.

 

[khail007]

Was The Software Outsourced?????

Sir G, I do not remember the site, but some where I read that software outsourced to some Indian firm.

Edited to include the link:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-to-9-an-hour-engineers?utm_source=url_link

 

[KungFuLee]

fuel economy rating mainly comes from the engines. the CFM LEAP-1C is 10-12% more efficient then CFM-56-7

737NG doesn't have fly by wire control. it does, however, carry a much larger fuel tank thus the longer range on the 900ER variant. Anyhow, range and pax needs are depending on the flight route the plane is assigned to. Higher doesn't mean better and it's important to have different trims to tailor fit for the needs.

Anyhow C919 is still in development. If it can keep to schedule and deliver planes in 2021 then I expect a strong market for it.

Fuel economy in Aviation does not solely come from the engine, it is a matrix of fuel load, engine output, pax carry, and range, which involve a series of parameter, such as how heavy with the aircraft, how much lift generated by wing area and so on. Just because the LEAP engine is 10% more efficient, that does not mean they use less fuel than 737NG with CFM-56-7, you still need to consider how the aircraft shaped, how heavy is the airframe and how software control engine flow.

737NG do have FBW, not the same as the one in 320neo, nor 777, nor the newer 737MAX, FADEC is a electric control thrust management system that can be compare to Fly-By-Wire, although they weren't using the name FBW.

And one final thing is, people who bought 737NG would not buy another 737NG to replace it when they are end of their airframe cycle. Which mean when an airline need to buy a new airframe now to replace 737NG or whatever airframe they are using, they will buy 320neo family, 737 Max and if you want to put it, C919. You don't compare C919 to 737NG, which is a 20 years old technology, you compare C919 to 737MAX or A320neo Family if you want to compete, which is basically pointless as the Boeing and Airbus Airframe are at least 20 years more advance than C919, and another thing is, even if you order today, you won't get a new C919 frame in 8 to 10 years, by the time you get a brand new C919, it would already been lapped by another generation of Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 series. Which mean whoever is buying C919 now is basically waste their money and going backward.

That is the reason why C919 in general sold less than 1/10 of Airbus and Boeing Combine, 1/20 if we only count Firm order. You may get a better sale with C929 or later model, but I firmly believe C919 is a lost clause, unless Chinese government interfere with local airline.

 

[casual]

Fuel economy in Aviation does not solely come from the engine, it is a matrix of fuel load, engine output, pax carry, and range, which involve a series of parameter, such as how heavy with the aircraft, how much lift generated by wing area and so on. Just because the LEAP engine is 10% more efficient, that does not mean they use less fuel than 737NG with CFM-56-7, you still need to consider how the aircraft shaped, how heavy is the airframe and how software control engine flow.

737NG do have FBW, not the same as the one in 320neo, nor 777, nor the newer 737MAX, FADEC is a electric control thrust management system that can be compare to Fly-By-Wire, although they weren't using the name FBW.

And one final thing is, people who bought 737NG would not buy another 737NG to replace it when they are end of their airframe cycle. Which mean when an airline need to buy a new airframe now to replace 737NG or whatever airframe they are using, they will buy 320neo family, 737 Max and if you want to put it, C919. You don't compare C919 to 737NG, which is a 20 years old technology, you compare C919 to 737MAX or A320neo Family if you want to compete, which is basically pointless as the Boeing and Airbus Airframe are at least 20 years more advance than C919, and another thing is, even if you order today, you won't get a new C919 frame in 8 to 10 years, by the time you get a brand new C919, it would already been lapped by another generation of Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 series. Which mean whoever is buying C919 now is basically waste their money and going backward.

That is the reason why C919 in general sold less than 1/10 of Airbus and Boeing Combine, 1/20 if we only count Firm order. You may get a better sale with C929 or later model, but I firmly believe C919 is a lost clause, unless Chinese government interfere with local airline.

FBW was never about thrust management, it is about control surfaces. 737NG do not feature FBW. It is controlled by a mechanical system with hydraulic power assistance. Even the MAX only has FBW on the spoilers. In any case, specs for the C919 are only a estimation at this point. I don't see any reason why it would perform worse then the 737MAX and A320neo as the engine, avionics are all of the same gen. Wing surface area, aerodynamic design, and empty weight is also similar. As for range, I'm sure they can produce another trim with a larger fuel tank. Since most airlines in China is state owned, I have no doubt this plane will be successful.

 

[OIO]

FBW was never about thrust management, it is about control surfaces. 737NG do not feature FBW. It is controlled by a mechanical system with hydraulic power assistance. Even the MAX only has FBW on the spoilers. In any case, specs for the C919 are only a estimation at this point. I don't see any reason why it would perform worse then the 737MAX and A320neo as the engine, avionics are all of the same gen. Wing surface area, aerodynamic design, and empty weight is also similar. As for range, I'm sure they can produce another trim with a larger fuel tank. Since most airlines in China is state owned, I have no doubt this plane will be successful.

The first version of C919 is not using too much composite material, range maybe shorter, will improve in next version.