Not good for Boeing

[dave2013 1,141]

On 10/19/2019 at 3:45 AM, domkle said:

Un bel avion est un avion qui vole bien (a beautiful aircraft flies beautifully)  Marcel Dassault

’nuf said.

I believe the correct translation here is :

"A beautiful aircraft is an aircraft that flies well"

Anyhow, I don't know if the F35 flies well.  There are conflicting accounts where some say it is the most capable and effective fighter jet ever made, and others that say it doesn't fly well and is full of bugs.  What I do know is that many countries have ordered it and thus are willing to spend billions of dollars to buy it, so it must be pretty good.  Otherwise they would simply order more F18s, F16s, Dassualt Rafales, or Eurofighter Typhoons for a lot less money.

Dave

[Dominique_K 10,151]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

 

Dave, I was referring to a picture of the Boeing  X32 which is an ugly duckling, not the F-35.

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by domkle

[KrisJ 43]

On 10/19/2019 at 5:52 AM, Matthew Kane said:

Boeing stopped being innovative when they came up with this piece of junk:

 What a...

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Anyhow, I don't know if the F35 flies well. 

The picture is a Boeing X-32, which is not only ugly looking, it lacked any real innovation. Its VTOL was terrible as it was far too similar to the Harrier's design (which was also terrible). They also lost to the X-35 therefore a costly endeavor on Boeing's part.

We can leave the F-35 for a different thread as this thread is about Boeing

Edited October 21, 2019 by Matthew Kane

[HighBypass 2,339]

Just curious as to why the Harrier's VTOL was terrible? I would have thought the Harrier's VTOL was quite elegant (and far better looking than that X-32 IMHO): It (the Harrier) only used vectoring nozzles and thus did not need a huge lift fan in addition to the nozzle vectoring, a lift fan which is then just a waste of space, unnecessary complexity and dead weight in forward flight...

But we digress.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

3 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Just curious as to why the Harrier's VTOL was terrible? I would have thought the Harrier's VTOL was quite elegant (and far better looking than that X-32 IMHO): It (the Harrier) only used vectoring nozzles and thus did not need a huge lift fan in addition to the nozzle vectoring, a lift fan which is then just a waste of space, unnecessary complexity and dead weight in forward flight...

But we digress.

The first generation was like balancing on a knifes edge and was deadly, took a lot of skill to handle it. The second generation they were able to improve it considerably but it still took a lot of skill. Decades later it may look elegant from the outside but still very tricky, mad respect for the guys who fly them. One of the failures of the X-32 was using this same concept, Boeing made something that was already extremely tricky even worse. 

For me the issue with the Joint Strike Fighter program was the three in one platform, it is like a Jack Of All Trades, mediocre at everything. They should have just expanded on the F-22 for NATO Partners, then introduced a new Harrier for the marines and got Boeing to do a new F-18 for the navy, all of this too late now. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Matthew Kane

[F737MAX 5,696]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

The first generation was like balancing on a knifes edge and was deadly, took a lot of skill to handle it. The second generation they were able to improve it considerably but it still took a lot of skill. Decades later it may look elegant from the outside but still very tricky, mad respect for the guys who fly them.

The failure of the X-32 was using this same concept, Boeing made something that was already extremely tricky even worse. 

And yet despite the 'terrible VTOL' and 'knife-edge balancing', the puffer ducts helped to give fine control to the Harrier so that it was able to conduct S/VTOL day and night sorties against 'superior' Super Etendard and Mirage III during the 10-week Falklands War. The French-built jets numbered 3x the amount of Harriers and Sea-Harriers (42).

Of the 10 losses, 5 were caused by enemy action, 3 were poor weather-related, 1 was mechanical and 1 was due to landing on a metal airstrip, in exchange for 35 fighter and 34 other light attack aeroplane kills.

Yes, it was a challenge to fly and had a high accident rate, but for a 1960's aeroplane I think it proved it's capability and usefulness rather well in extremely challenging circumstances.

6 hours ago, KrisJ said:

 What a...

Agreed! The X-32B looks like a terrible version of the X-24A or the X-13 Vertijet, but in the latter two's defence, they didn't have 32 and 46 years respectively of aviation knowledge to draw upon.

Back to the 737-Max:

Quote

European regulators expect to clear Boeing’s grounded 737 MAX to return to service in January at the earliest, following flight trials by European test pilots scheduled for mid-December, Europe’s top aviation safety official told Reuters.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-easa-exclusive/exclusive-europe-regulator-to-clear-boeing-737-max-in-jan-at-earliest-idUSKBN1X021S

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

1 hour ago, F737NG said:

Yes, it was a challenge to fly and had a high accident rate, but for a 1960's aeroplane I think it proved it's capability and usefulness rather well in extremely challenging circumstances.

Agreed 100%, The Harrier was a fantastic aircraft for its time, very innovative. Boeing was building on a 1960's concept with the X-32 using a modern F119 Engine, they couldn't get that to work. Just like today Boeing is building on another 1960's concept with the 737-MAX. Perhaps it is time for Boeing to get its head out of patching things from the 1960's, it doesn't seem to be working out for them anymore

Only one exception, I do like the Boeing CST-100 Starliner, even though it is very similar to the Apollo Capsule, I think that NASA should have continued with that concept as the Soyuz Rocket did, over time a proven workhorse 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matthew Kane

[Jim Young 2,356]

A good investment opportunity once the dust settles.

[goates 576]

This article has a good overview of the impact on Southwest and other low cost carriers.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/23/20927213/boeing-737-max-southwest-planes-crash-budget-airlines-grounded-cost-maintenance

[dave2013 1,141]

On 10/21/2019 at 12:07 PM, domkle said:

Dave, I was referring to a picture of the Boeing  X32 which is an ugly duckling, not the F-35.

 

Oh, gosh, how embarrassing. 😳

I should have taken a closer look at the picture.  My bad.

Dave

 

[Luke 782]

On 10/21/2019 at 7:59 PM, F737NG said:

And yet despite the 'terrible VTOL' and 'knife-edge balancing', the puffer ducts helped to give fine control to the Harrier so that it was able to conduct S/VTOL day and night sorties against 'superior' Super Etendard and Mirage III during the 10-week Falklands War. The French-built jets numbered 3x the amount of Harriers and Sea-Harriers (42).

We mustn't forget, of course, that the Argentinians were operating at the edge of their range and had little time to engage, whereas the British had a much more local "airfield".

Not equipping Port Stanley to operate larger fighter aircraft was one of many grievous strategic errors on the part of the Argentinians.

[F737MAX 5,696]

On 10/22/2019 at 3:30 PM, Jim Young said:

A good investment opportunity once the dust settles.

Some already have, even before the dust has settled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48682123

 

[cowpatz 243]

44 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Some already have, even before the dust has settled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48682123

 

Boeing must have practically given them away.

[Jim Young 2,356]

35 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Some already have, even before the dust has settled.

Interesting link provided.  Having the BA owner IAG to submit to buying 200 737MAX's is something that should quiet some of the fears others are having.  Markets just closed with BA at 1.07% so it went down again after rising 2.8% after the announcement.  Think it will continue to fall until the 737MAX starts flying again by all of the airlines.