-
1
- #1
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
first thread
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Boeing again pt2. 16
- Thread starter Alistair_Heaton
- Start date
- Status
first thread
- Moderator
- #41
Always been that way. Even before AA.
That happened when they switched from THE company owner's money to OPM and the incompetence range expanded to equal IPO valuation.
--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."
That happened when they switched from THE company owner's money to OPM and the incompetence range expanded to equal IPO valuation.
--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."
-
1
- #43
"The 737 size should have been clean sheeted then"
That is a popular claim. Which airline went to Boeing and said - we need a clean sheet design so all our current pilots won't be type rated to fly it, none of our mechanics will be trained to repair it, none of the tools will fit to fix it, and we really look forward to a number of new things that can fail in new ways.
The now-A220 was clean sheet. It nearly bankrupted Bombardier to do it.
Wasn't the A380 clean sheet also? Didn't that lose money for Airbus?
Meanwhile Boeing has been making money selling 737s to airlines which want to buy them and still has a backlog in the thousands.
That is a popular claim. Which airline went to Boeing and said - we need a clean sheet design so all our current pilots won't be type rated to fly it, none of our mechanics will be trained to repair it, none of the tools will fit to fix it, and we really look forward to a number of new things that can fail in new ways.
The now-A220 was clean sheet. It nearly bankrupted Bombardier to do it.
Wasn't the A380 clean sheet also? Didn't that lose money for Airbus?
Meanwhile Boeing has been making money selling 737s to airlines which want to buy them and still has a backlog in the thousands.
-
1
- #44
3DDave, your point is well taken. To insure a clean sheet would have to be a regulatory process, at a point in the design program that makes sense for safety. Otherwise the financial departments of the airlines would certainly follow the logic trail you stated. Star for you.
- Thread starter
- #45
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
3DDave said:
Come on it was in the full frontal assault of Boeing trying to kill it off.
Boeing got out played.
Over 1/3 of the development costs were spent on the avionics and flight control system, and network.
The airframe was 2 basic sizes but it already been stressed for 4-5 sizes. And apparently they have a wide body already on paper but there is no way that Airbus is going to let that mess with the A330.
Eufalconimorph
Computer
Yet another Boeing 702MP satellite has broken up in geostationary orbit. After the one in 2019 that's 2/7 launched that have broken up in orbit.
"broken up" really doesn't describe the condition to me, given the widespread debris field. It was either an impact or explosion; the former would not be Boeing's fault, while the latter might be, but an explosion after 8 years in orbit seems unlikely.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
Brian Malone
Industrial
Definitely too early to lump the satellite in as a Boeing failure. As just noted, this could have been an impact event.
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Was the cause of the 2019 failure ever released? There was a gas release which could indicate an explosion or an impact involving certain parts of the satellite. It appears now that two have "exploded". Do odds favor a debris impact in a portion of the satellite that could cause an explosion or is there a condition within the satellite causing the explosions?
Are geosynchronous satellites more susceptible to impact damage?
Are geosynchronous satellites more susceptible to impact damage?
- Thread starter
- #51
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
Maybe its door fell off it?
![[bigsmile]](/data/assets/smilies/bigsmile.gif "[bigsmile] [bigsmile]")
- Thread starter
- #53
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
I reckon someone looked at a yogurt pot in the office with 4 bolts in it when the news broke...
- Moderator
- #54
- Moderator
- #56
Gautam Mukunda is not making a good comparison.
Welch divested of production to get out of making products. Boeing needed a more flexible supplier to support production without having the boom-bust cycle affecting it's own employees. GE lost orders, Boeing has a backlog.
Gautam Mukunda's fix for Boeing's problems is to fix them. Then he goes on to note that much of the problems are rooted in government and the intentional lack of oversight. That's because of the Senate and the House, which are a product of the American voters.
One failure in the arguments is that Boeing is not just an aircraft manufacturer, which is why there was a move to Chicago, to give more equal support to all the areas of Boeing and not just those in Washington state.
He suggests they need a new airplane, clean sheet (so all new problems that aren't obvious) and that this will enervate the engineers. OK. The last development engineering effort was the 787. Has Boeing been paying them to sit in cubicles since then? What do the development engineers do now? I think he's far removed from what engineering is. He wants it to be new and great and better than Airbus. But the history of aviation isn't the history of Boeing. The history of aviation is the history of propulsion. Every great leap forward in aviation is because there was a great leap forward in propulsion.
The USAF still depends on the B-52; it is approaching 100 years for that design. It has a design point - long range delivery of a large amount of bombs. As long as the design point doesn't change there's no definite reason for the "airframe" to change. Commercial passenger aircraft are for long range delivery of passengers. Passengers like seats and windows.
The confusion over the rate of serious incidents, when those incidents are not due to unrecoverable hardware failure, is astonishing. The change in the pilot culture by the expansion into airlines that don't have a culture of safety is a problem.
He's well meaning, but he is ignoring that the MAX exists because airlines worldwide wanted a 737 variant with more efficient engines. They don't want a clean sheet airplane. They want one with a known track record that they can add to their fleet with minimal conversion costs.
His summation - fix the world economy in order to fix Boeing.
OK, I'll get right on that.
Welch divested of production to get out of making products. Boeing needed a more flexible supplier to support production without having the boom-bust cycle affecting it's own employees. GE lost orders, Boeing has a backlog.
Gautam Mukunda's fix for Boeing's problems is to fix them. Then he goes on to note that much of the problems are rooted in government and the intentional lack of oversight. That's because of the Senate and the House, which are a product of the American voters.
One failure in the arguments is that Boeing is not just an aircraft manufacturer, which is why there was a move to Chicago, to give more equal support to all the areas of Boeing and not just those in Washington state.
He suggests they need a new airplane, clean sheet (so all new problems that aren't obvious) and that this will enervate the engineers. OK. The last development engineering effort was the 787. Has Boeing been paying them to sit in cubicles since then? What do the development engineers do now? I think he's far removed from what engineering is. He wants it to be new and great and better than Airbus. But the history of aviation isn't the history of Boeing. The history of aviation is the history of propulsion. Every great leap forward in aviation is because there was a great leap forward in propulsion.
The USAF still depends on the B-52; it is approaching 100 years for that design. It has a design point - long range delivery of a large amount of bombs. As long as the design point doesn't change there's no definite reason for the "airframe" to change. Commercial passenger aircraft are for long range delivery of passengers. Passengers like seats and windows.
The confusion over the rate of serious incidents, when those incidents are not due to unrecoverable hardware failure, is astonishing. The change in the pilot culture by the expansion into airlines that don't have a culture of safety is a problem.
He's well meaning, but he is ignoring that the MAX exists because airlines worldwide wanted a 737 variant with more efficient engines. They don't want a clean sheet airplane. They want one with a known track record that they can add to their fleet with minimal conversion costs.
His summation - fix the world economy in order to fix Boeing.
OK, I'll get right on that.
LionelHutz
Electrical
No, they wanted a more efficient plane which could be delivered quicker than the more efficient Airbus planes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question