The Boeing Future Small Airplane – A 737 MAX Replacement?

We’ve all heard about the NMA, Boeing’s new midsize airplane, dubbed the 797. But did you know there’s another pot bubbling on the stove too? The Future Small Airplane, or FSA, is a top-secret project that could produce a successor to the 737 MAX. Boeing has reportedly been discussing it quietly with some airlines around the world, but what do we know about the FSA so far?

Boeing FSA
The Boeing FSA could be the replacement for the MAX we need. Photo: PXhere

What could we expect from the Boeing FSA?

Boeing are working hard to keep the details of this little jet under wraps, and clearly there is still a long way to go before it’s officially launched as part of its project lineup. However, there are a few things we can expect to see in any new iteration at the short-haul end of Boeing’s spectrum.

Firstly, we would expect it to sit in the middle to top end of the current 737 MAX specifications in terms of passenger capacity. Somewhere in the 180 – 220 passenger range would be likely, making it slightly more capacious than the MAX 8. Range wise, it would need to be a jack of all trades, capable of being efficient on those shorter, high-density routes, but also able to have fuel tanks added to extend its range and keep it competitive with the competition.

Advertisement

And when we’re taking competition, Boeing should be looking towards the Airbus’ A321XLR for the top end of its product line. Meeting the passenger capacity shouldn’t be too hard; a stretch on the 180 – 220 pax airframe should put it within the maximum passenger capacity of the A321neo of 240. The range, however, would be dependent on Boeing getting smart with the way the aircraft is built.

Advertisement
Boeing could learn a thing or two from the XLR. Photo: Airbus

It’s unlikely Boeing would look to scale down the FSA, at least not to the extent of something like the 737 MAX 7. Anything less than 150 passengers is getting pretty close to what Embraer can accommodate with its largest E195, and with the Boeing Brasil thing poised to take off next year, the planemaker won’t want to cannibalize sales of either model with a new aircraft.

What does Boeing need to design into a successor to the MAX?

The main problem with the MAX is that it’s based on a 70-year-old airframe. Over the years, the 737 has been tweaked and wiggled to evolve from the Classic to the NG and eventually to the MAX. The superior range and efficiency of the MAX was only achievable thanks to those big, efficient engines; much bigger engines than were originally intended for that plane.

Advertisement

This subsequently meant things had to be done to the plane itself in order to accommodate said engines. Centre of gravity shift was compensated for with MCAS, the engines were flattened on the bottom for ground clearance and various other aspects were twiddled with in order to make it work.

737 MAX
The 737 has been reworked time and time again. Photo: Boeing

What we need, what Boeing and aviation in general needs, from a replacement is a complete and utter, back to the drawing board, clean-sheet design. Nothing should be carried forward from the MAX (apart from perhaps some learnings about certification and such) and the company should start all over again.

Boeing should be bringing to the party all the wonderful things it has done with the Dreamliner. The cabin pressurization, the composite wings, the new engine technologies. All of that in miniature, please Boeing. And it wouldn’t hurt them at all to take a look at what the competition is doing well with the neos and the A220s either.

Will the FSA get built?

Whether anything comes of this FSA rumor remains to be seen. Right now, Boeing has an awful lot on its plate. However, there is a strong possibility that the NMA (797) could be dropped in favor of working on the FSA instead.

As we’ve seen, both United and American Airlines have plumped for the already existing Airbus A321XLR as a replacement for their  Boeing 757s. While there’s no perfect replacement for the 767 as yet, the smaller Dreamliners and Airbus’ own A330-800 are filling in the gaps nicely. It may be a case of too late to the party for any NMA, considering it is yet to even be officially announced.

737 classic
The 737 has been a staple of Boeing’s business for many decades. Photo: Aero Icarus via Flickr. 

The 737 is Boeing’s biggest selling aircraft, and is the bread and butter of its commercial aircraft business. The world is crying out for an overhaul of the 737, and is in far more need of that than of this mythical 797 right now.

As we said, all this is top secret (apparently, although it’s one of those secrets that everyone knows) so Boeing is suitably tight-lipped about the whole thing. For now, it’s a case of wait and see. Perhaps when their 777X finally gets its certification we’ll see which way the planemaker will jump.

Advertisement

97
Leave a Reply

21 Comment threads
76 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
35 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Brody Cyr

A new model will be nice but I will miss the classic workhorse look of the 737.

Nicholas Mackenzie-Rowe

Get rid, it is like a Porshe 911 in reverse in design terms. The original 911 was apalling and dangerous, but today is a well made car, that is extremely safe, if a little on the unimaginative side. The 737 on the other hand was a great aircraft to begin with, that in the last decade or so has been pushed beyond its limit to where it became dangerous. The classic workhorse you speak of was largely retired years ago.

K.P.

Again, all you Airbus Kool-aid drinkers, IF the MAX was soooo bad, why didn’t the airlines with the largest fleets have issues, the 2 crashes both have MAINTENANCE issues and piss-poor trained pilots, and NOBODY complained about how the plane handled, in fact, several airlines were singing its praises till the MCAS issue, which has been FIXED.

David C

Ok, I’ll bite. First off, there were rumblings on mainline American carriers about MCAS issues. There were only 351 of the MAX variant in operation, so very low hours in the air comparatively. What maintenance is done on an airframe with less than 2000 cycles besides the very basics? Nobody is replacing a fan blade assembly and quite frankly that was not the issue. And lastly, If it was just as simple as training and maintenance, how come there are hundreds of the MAX still sitting on the ground in Renton? (and around the world). Blame the foreign carriers, but… Read more »

K.P.

POLITICS – POLITICS – POLITICS –MCAS can be over-riden and dual imput and its still on the ground, why POLITICS! — If you look at all those pilot complaints, check the dates, they come after the groundings and court cases started for MONEY — and rumblings about MCAS issues, really, so how did all those pilots claim to know nothing about it and it wasn’t in the manuals? EITHER you knew or didn’t – can’t be both ways!!!!! Read the accident report, faulty maintenance, maintenance log pages MISSING, faulty part — what is all that about? Oh, and yes they… Read more »

Eamon

@David C
Do yourself a favor and don’t feed the trolls…

David C

LOL.. good point. After all, he appears to be an expert. I’m surprised he hasn’t cleared the MAX for commercial flights himself already.

Bayou M

Yea LOL
He can definitely bring the MAX back on the map. He just doesn’t want to.

Mulcher

If you knew what you were reading on the reports in the US. You would know not a one was actually MCAS related. Also the maintenance that was done done in tithe accident aircraft, was repair damage. The Lion Air was damage to the AOA vane that directly correlated to the accident. The pilots trading and safety records at both are horrible. Google those. MCAS was very simple to disable. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a snowflake rant!

Ozmander C

There were no “rumblings” from american carriers as we were not even advised of the existence of MCAS. That is the source of the biggest rumblings since the grounding. Googling pilots complain about the max will get you lots of post lion air results but show me a credible source of pilot complaints about the safety of the max pre lion air please. I had plenty of complaints but none safety related. As far as maintenance we are not talking about fan blades but you knew that didn’t you? We are talking about damaged AOA vanes and questionable sources of… Read more »

TPlows

Reply to KP do you work in Boeing mgmt to put the blame elsewhere or are you just as dimwitted as your BS POST

Gerry S

I don’t know why folks respond to you K.P. You offer nothing but bile.

Anonymous

MCAS has been fixed, but the FAA has not recertified the aircraft yet. Other pilots reported having troubles with the plane pointing at irregular angles and a flight simulator test pilot at Boeing had lots of trouble controling it as well. It wasn’t maintenance issues that brough the plane down, it was an issue with the MCAS software itself.

PETER LORENZONI

Boeing is secretly working on a replacement to the 737 family. Please. It’s so secret that no Boeing employees even know it exists. As we wait waits months, years for the replacement to the 757, the A320 family continues to eat both the 737 and 757.’s lunch. This is no less than the slow demise of Boeing Commercial.

Anonymous

I don’t know about that, but if they are, it will be sad to see the 737 go. It truly is one of the most iconic sights in aviation.

Bryce

I think that, sooner or later, Boeing will have to see the writing on the wall and go for a clean-sheet FSA. Even before the LR and XLR versions of the A321 were introduced, the A321 neo was outselling the 737 MAX 10 by a factor of 5-to-1. And the MAX is currently the only “mainstream” airliner in the world that isn’t FBW. Even if they don’t want to, Boeing may HAVE to move to the FSA…and they may have to do that sooner rather than later. We saw last week that a senior manager at Transport Canada wants MCAS… Read more »

Frank

The -500 design is done and sitting…waiting. Rumours are that there is also a -700 out there. Airbus is set at the lower end of the market for the net decade, at least. The -500 won’t come yet for two reasons; 1) They don’t want to cannibalise the A320Neo sales (look what the A220 did to the A319Neo and the Max 7)
2) Airbus has an option to buy the A220 program outright, which kicks in, in a few years. Until then, they share the other 49%. The -500 will be announced when they own it outright

Bryce

I was referring to another possibility…namely some sort of lateral expansion of an A220 up to the fuselage width of an A320, so that it can take containerized cargo…

David C

change the fuselage in the A220 and you change the commonality. It will never have the capability of accepting a ULD. But then again, neither did the 737 and that aircraft is not going away for a long time. the logistics to load and unload non ULD aircraft is common at every airport.

Bryce

“Commonality” with what?
I’m talking about laterally expanding an A220, so as to make a new airplane with the width of an A320, and then adjusting other parameters accordingly.

Andy

Trouble is; then you will have an A320!

Bryce

@Andy
No, you won’t have an A320…because you’ll have a composite fuselage, a different nose profile, different wing and different avionics…

Anonymous

So basically a heavily improved A320

David C

The A220 – 500 has already flown on paper. Same wing-box, same wing, same landing gear configuration and same avionics & flight management. I am betting Bombardier could produce a FTV in less than 18 months. The A220 – 100 is a compressed version of the 300. The 300 was the original model. Bombardier did not produce a 500 as they knew up front that they could not directly compete against both Boeing and Airbus. Now that Airbus has control of the program (and they do), I bet the 500 is not far in the offing. If Boeing announces a… Read more »

K.P.

A220 engine problems when applying near-max levels! What exactly are they gonna fly those with ? Airbus has to make sure the -300 can run at higher levels before they increase the size and weight and sure want to know how a plane with Engine issues (no alternative engine available) got an extended ETOPS — guess Airbus owns the EASA so it wasn’t an issue.

JFP

As The Real Don Steele would’ve put it, “WInner! WInner! WInner!”

“…Airbus owns the EASA so it wasn’t an issue…”

If the Comet I were built today, it would’ve never been grounded.

David C.

Hows that CFM-56-7B engine working these days there K.P.? Asking for a friend of course.

TonytTDK

Interesting what you say about the Canadian Board……… I’d not seen that.!
I wonder why issue of the engine CoG issue couldn’t have been resolved by trimming the aircraft with a couple of little tabs, either permenantly or which were actuated when the nose-up creating circumstances were encountered/activated.?
I’m not an avionics expert, so there may well be a blindingly obvious reason why Boeing went for MCAS rather than trim tabs, but I’m prepared to look stupid, if someone’s prepared to take the time to explain the errors of my thinking.?

Nicholas Mackenzie-Rowe

You are thinking of things in the wrong perspective. Fixing the problem using engineers costs more money than a software program. Boeing isn’t run by engineers like it once was. I’ve not got an axe to grind, but it reeks of cost cutting. Along with allegedly not training pilots on the fix and making the warning of a problem optional. Criminal? Some might say so. But I’m not a legal expert. Engineers would never have built the max. If this above project exists already on paper, why did the board insist on the further stretch of an airframe dinosaur (737)… Read more »

K.P.

Its caused Boeing has to make a profit to pay bills, they can’t do like Airbus and stick tax-payers with the bills to keep prices down. So yes, they have to keep costs down to compete.

K.P.

Hey Nicholas, Blah, blah, blah — SOMEWHERE an Engineering team had to sign off or the MAX would never have left drawing board, nothing ever does, 2nd – Have you seen what Boeing Engineers get paid, no wonder they want to lay them off – plane prices would double and unlike Airbus – they can’t make tax-payers subsidize the aircraft— love the Monday-morning armchair quarterbacks telling everybody how they would have done it differently when I am sure they have screwed up alot of things in life also.

papercut23

K.P. Boeing is highly subsidized by the usa govt through it’s vast military contracts. IMO this is the toxic thing that is killing Boeing. It is a strange but common delusion that somehow all these huge companies are apart of the government. like thinking your arms are somehow independent from your legs. The development of modern aviation has been from the start a fundamentally military project with some nice civilian spin offs.

K.P.

REALLY, according the GAO, the number crunchers over here, Boeing Military projects like F/A 18 and P-8 are under budget and prices going down. Guess, your logic is if Boeing gets a military contract it’s a subsidy? KC-46 issues are costing Boeing and if you want to see a subsidized contract, Look at the F-35, Lockheed-Martin and the future business partner of Airbus, cost climbing over and over and government paying for it all. Guess, you want an-all government run aerospace industry, oh yeah, AIrbus again.

Eamon

@papercut23
Don’t feed the trolls…

Eamon

Stupid comments about Eads and taxpayer’s money. States are investment funds that return jobs, roads, infrastructure etc. Private investorsl could not care less about the workers, infrastructure,… Only about dividends earned on the back of the states push for cheap capital and easy money. The bubble will burst and the taxpayer have to compensate for the failing us banks. Remember Lehman? Think hard.

David C.

Canada used to have to flight certify every aircraft for Canadian airspace until a couple of decades ago. This included advanced flight testing in Canada with Canadian test pilots. (True story) Then with streamlining of North American regulations, it became more “shared” certification with the FAA. Though I doubt Canada will ever go back to having Transport Canada working completely independently of the FAA, I suspect that they are going to be a lot more hands apart going forward.

Gerry S

The new BIG engines on the MAX were in effect squeezed in. Moved closer to the fuselage and placed much higher up on the wing. This affected the airflow over the top of the wings making the a/c very susceptible to stalling. You could not climb as steep as the non-MAX versions. Pilots familiar with the older a/c were therefore at a great disadvantage when flying MAX. Boeing was negligent in not communicating this to all.

Bryce

@TonytTDK
On the 747-8, Boeing had some success with using a simple piece of software to correct a flutter problem; the software continually adjusts aileron positions during flight so as to correct flutter effects. It was a much cheaper solution than aerodynamically tweaking the airframe.
Perhaps they thought that they could repeat that success in the case of the MAX, and again use a piece of software (MCAS) instead of performing aerodynamic corrections…but they screwed up badly.

Trent

The MAX murdered the 797.

That simple. The whole idea of the MAX was to squeeze another development cycle out of the old 737. Not only was that a bad idea (two crashes) the MAX is less competitive in all aspects besides price to the A320 family. Boeing’s profit center has been grounded for nearly a year, so Boeing would be wise to scale up FSA to compete head to head size and range wise with the A320 and beat it. The A320 is no spring chicken either.

Frank

The A320 is no spring chicken either.

No – but the A220 is.

Trent

Totally agree. The A220 is a big feather in the Airbus cap, and is a big reason why Airbus is SO well positioned in the single isle market!

Smart move to get that program by Airbus!

Niklas Andersson

absolute…looking for ward How Boeing will get it!

K.P.

So is that why Europe is trying so hard to stop the Boeing – Embraer deal? So they can still dump planes for orders (everybody agrees the A220 is way more expensive than an E-jet) and Boeing still won’t be able to counter in court as the A220 doesn’t compete with B737? And How did Airbus get an EXTENDED ETOPS for an aircraft having engine issues at higher power settings? I just figured if one engine goes, the 2nd is gonna work hard, but i don’t work for EASA (Airbus owned).

Gerry S

This is the last time I comment about obvious Boeing haters and Airbus haters. Some of us (most?) just love airplanes. Some a/c are not as good as others or are different in performance etc. I like Airbus but refuse to spill stuff on others just to be venomous.
Battles between Boeing fans and Airbus fans I am certain occur only among those who never fly anything other than their simulator. You can knock another’s a/c about it’s failings etc., but to vent vitriol against the manufacturer exceedingly is so…. Ah, I’m done.!

pats

^ this is what I have been yapping about – ditch the MAX and start a new type that won’t have the stigma attached to the MAX name.
Leave the 737 NG alone and don’t build upon it again and again after 60 years of the old frame design…

Of all the Boeing planes I love to fly has got to be the 787 Dreamliners. Make a NMA or FSA based on that but a new type certification.
Sure it will cost more to have it type certified and train pilots but at least Boeing will be ahead of the MAX debacle…..

PETER LORENZONI

Please. Just ditch a entire product line. You convinced the World to buy 5,000 plus copies and then you ditch it. It doesn’t work that way. Boeing is cornered.

PETER LORENZONI

And how long would that take? Boeing has dragged its feet too long. We will see the price tag in the coming months and years.

Trent

What would be exciting is to see Boeing launch a new line of planes that encompass FSA and NMA, like what they did with the 757 and 767.

PETER LORENZONI

Now you are on to something! The ultimate example of product commonality. They should have thought of this years ago but I don’t think aircraft are as simple as cars

Gerry S

Kind of late to the game. By the time this bird is ready the competition will already be working on their improvement. In hindsight, Boeing should have given up on the B737 improvement program. This new a/c however should restore their reputation. Boeing wants to go big to win big. Should be a winner, this.

Niklas Andersson

Pragmatic comment! good!

ATS

They need to commit to a brand new FSA before a brand new NMA. The NMA issue could simply be solved by shrinking the 787-8 (a “787-7”) as that would put it close in passenger capacity to the 767-300. No one wants the 737 max.

Frank

Shrinks never seem to work – too much weight carried from a design that is not optimised for less seats/range.

TonytTDK

Whilst shrinking a larger aircraft down is eminently possible, the bottom-line is inevitably that there’s too much airplane for what the customer actually wants. It’s designed to be bigger, so it’s made of sturdier stuff than a smaller plane would be, so it’s heavier than a designed-for-purpose airframe would be. You can obviously strip-out stuff you don’t need, but the user airline will always be burdened by the fuselage being too heavy & the landing gear being way too big & other stuff like that. Boeing may do a really good job of paring it down, but ultimately it’ll still… Read more »

ATS

It would be the “quick” solution, however, which seems to be exactly what Boeing wants

Frank

…and how did that work out for Boeing last time round – that ‘quick’ solution?

pats

Boeing’s quick solution by slapping on the LEAP engines onto a 60 year old plane was a bad idea wasn’t it ? Boeing should never have taken the pressure from a carrier (customer) to re-do the 737 again. Boeing should have created a new airframe and new type certification to handle the larger more powerful & fuel efficient LEAP engine.

Gerry S

Same problem Alaska had with their A318’s. Too much aircraft.

AirlinerSpotter

“No one wants the 737 max” Thank you for saying that. I completely share your opinion. And no pax wants to fly the 737 max; RIP!

Victor K

Probably they are already working on it. When they bring this news within a year they actually admit that the Max is a peace of ****. So you al have to wait a little longer guys

TonytTDK

Boeing have been talking this particular talk for at least 5 or 6 years that I know of personally & others I knew told me at the start of that involvement, that Boeing had already been talking the same talk for 5 years or so then.? I am extremely dubious that there are any prospects of Boeing ever getting another wholly-new airframe into service. They lost money hand-over-fist on the 787. It was massively over-budget by the time it actually came into service & then it got grounded. All the delays cost Boeing massive amounts in compensation or in sales-discounts,… Read more »

Bryce

If Boeing don’t have enough money (and I agree with you on that point), then Uncle Sam will jump in to save them…

JFP

Not going to happen. The U.S. Government is anti-business. They will let Boeing fail.

Paul

Not propping up a business is anything but anti-business, subsidizing a non-competitive one is however. That said, Boeing isn’t dead yet but needs to do whatever is necessary to become competitive again.

JFP

“… I’ll be amazed if they ever actually produce another ‘clean-sheet’ commercial aircraft ever again…”

You are an optimist!

eolosbcn

A lot of plans from Boeing, but the reality is what it is. An old upgraded plane version that doesn’t work, the MAX, and another one, the 777X, with a lot of problems and delays.

A320 being the top sold airplane of the history (and sales begun 23 years later than the 737). So I would recommend to Boeing to start to focus more in the tech and much less in marketing and stock exchange market.

WR2

As a Boeing stockholder, I was always skeptical of the economic viability of the 797. I hoped it was just an empty threat to force Airbus to react. I do hope they instead pursue a new 737 airframe since that’s where the majority of their sales are, and that’s where confidence has been eroded.

AirlinerSpotter

I believe the FSA was actually the plan before American Airlines hint they would buy a new B737, which triggered Boeing to build the MAX. The rest is history, sadly.

pats

100% correct – it was AA that pressured Boeing into slapping on the LEAP engines onto an airframe that was historically very stable and reliable workhorse and created the MAX. With the 737 now tainted by the MAX, it’s time for Boeing to do what they originally were thinking – new type certification!

Lalo Galo

For us florida people, the FSA is the most annoying thing ever

Gerry S

@LaloGalo: This Florida person has no idea what you are talking about.

Mark Smith

Boeing should standardize its cockpits over all of its models, using fly-by-wire. This reduces the need for retraining pilots and is one of Airbus selling points. 737 replacement could be a shrunk down 787. This is a contentious debate but many pilots love the Airbus sidestick because it leaves room for a desk with keyboard in front of them, this gives the Airbus cockpit a more roomy, airy feeling and a lot less cramped. Some pilots feel the ergonomics of the Airbus is simply better because of that. Boeing should consider it. 737 should have been retired long ago and… Read more »

Mark Ellsworth

Boeing has been talking to airlines for years about a 737 replacement. Lack of interest is why they did the Max instead. It’s cheap, it is known, and it is more efficient than the competition. That’s what the market wanted, a money maker. The alternative A-320 is also quite good. New is not always good if you are happy with what you have, particularly if the impact hits, this quarter. So no. Boeing will not replace the Max only until sales fall through the floor, which at the moment is unlikely. Cheap and known quantities are good in the airline… Read more »

Gerry S

You hit it right on the head Mark. An informed avgeek. Looking forward to more of your postings.

Bryce

So, on the one hand you say that existing airframes are good, because they’re cheap.
And, on the other hand you say that new airframes are good, because they’re cheaper in the long run.
That’s somewhat convoluted…

Blair

“Boeing are”? Shouldn’t that be be ‘Boeing is’?

Gerry S

@Blair: Yes it should. I’ve given up pointing out grammatical errors on this site. I attribute it (errors) to contributors for whom English is not their first language. I just enjoy the article and ignore the errors. In time, so will you. A great blog notwithstanding.

Eamon

@Gerry S:
Just above, you said: “Boeing should have given up on the B737 improvement program. This new a/c however should restore THEIR reputation.” (emphasis added)
By your own rules, this should have been: “…restore ITS reputation.”

You also said: “Same problem Alaska had with THEIR A318’s. Too much aircraft.” (emphasis added)
Same error.

Somewhat inconsistent, don’t you think?

Gerry S

@Eamon: See Bruce’s comment.

Bryce

@Blair
You’re in a grey area here.
If Boeing is construed as a legal entity, one should use “is”.
But Boeing can also be construed as a collection of people, in which case it can be acceptable to use “are”. This is regularly applied to the police, for example, whereby one customarily says that “the police have a new commissioner” (or the police FORCE HAS a new commissioner).
If you look at the Boeing website, the headers refer to “OUR history”, “OUR principles”, “OUR company”…suggesting a group of people rather than just a legal entity.

Chris Loh

@Blair and @Gerry – it’s North American English vs British English. In the UK, you’d use plural language when talking about a company. As a Canadian it took me a few months of living in Scotland to figure that one out.

Gerry S

@Chris Loh: Thanks much pal. Appreciate the info.

pavkoz

They probably would make a single family of aircraft with the capacity of B737-800 and B757-200.

Andy

In WW2 Germany was producing the Junkers 88 medium bomber; it was fast in its day but by the end of WW2 it was damned by its pilots as being unruly and very tricky to fly, owing to the weight and equipment increases. If the Germans couldn’t push the design any further – and had to produce the improved 188, etc – there’s a lesson in this somewhere. Each new aircraft is designed around all its components; just adding bigger engines won’t fix everything, and you will eventually come unstuck. Boeing do need a whole new 737 – as Joanna… Read more »

TheDude

All this clean sheet talk…must be nice to constantly blather about it when you don’t have to fork over the start up capital for it. A380 was a clean sheet and now it is basically gone in a short amount of time. A350 is good. 787 is good.

Transworld

MCAS had nothing to do with center of gravity. At a stall which no airline pilot sees outside a simulator the engines surface provides more pitch up than the regs allowed. That is what MCAS was about, to smooth that feel out and duplicate the NG. its not stall protection and the aircraft can be flow with it OFF (MCAS 1.0 meant turning the stab motors off as well) Also of note is the fact that the A220 is big enough that its past scope, the Embraer 175E2 and 195E2 is too heavy for scope but is limited range. In… Read more »

TheDude

Finally someone who understands MCAS.

Nirmalya Palchaudhuri

@Thedude,
From the number of dislikes your comment have drawn, it appears that there are many who understands MCAS, and not one person, 🙂

Eamon

It must be fun to live in a parallel reality:
Southwest’s pilots were told that MCAS was stall prevention software…but, then again, they’re only pilots, right? 😉

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

Gerry S

@Transworld: Because of the high top surface of the MAX’s engines which fairly abut the wing’s top surface, at high pitch airflow is retarded. This causes a STALL problem. MCAS was intended to lower the nose to prevent this from occurring. Say this three times: STALL. STALL. STALL.

JFP

I’m sure Boeing already has a name for this aircraft: “Sonic Cruiser II”

Bryce

Better yet: “Titanic” 😉

Gerry S

@Bryce: Can’t help this. Why don’t you get together with K.P. in a ring wearing boxing gloves and go at it? Let me know how it turns out.

Bryce

@Gerry S: Can’t help this. Why don’t you go live in a convent, where you won’t have to be confronted by people who actually have an opinion, and are able to articulate it? While you’re at it, you might have the opportunity to learn the difference between a structureless rant and an opinion that happens to be negative…

p.s. How’s the retirement home in Florida working out for you? Is the food easy to digest? 😉

Gerry S

@Bryce: I apologize for getting your panties in a bunch. I was being funny. Seems I forgot to end with lol. I take it back.

Bryce

I don’t wear panties, Gerry S…do you? 🙂
It seems you forget a lot of stuff in your posts; maybe you should ask a nurse to check the text for you before you submit it 😉

Anonymous

It does seem like right now every manufacturer except Bombardier/Airbus with the C-Series/A220 is building off of their previous designs, like with the 737 MAX, 777x, A320neo family, and A330neo. The best thing to do may just be to start from scratch with a new aircraft type.