Boeing 737 Max - Page 43
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 43 of 47 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 860 of 933

Thread: Boeing 737 Max

  1. #841
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    441
    Likes (Received)
    1744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    So you're up on this stuff, janc ... I was just reading where the army wants some prop-driven ground attack planes. There are two competing possible designs, etc etc ...

    What's wrong with those dorks ? Build Skyraiders. Known quantity, 25 years experience, nothing they "design" is going to be any better ... heck, not even as good - as a plane that was beloved by everyone who flew it. How many hundreds of millions of dollars would they save by doing that ? Even using P&W round motors would still be cheaper.

    Oh yeah. It's not their money. Why should they care ...
    You're talking about the USAF LAAR (OA-X) program- Light Attack and Reconnaissance. It's been stop-and-go for almost a decade now.

    Its not really for us- hell the USAF doesn't even want to keep the A-10. The idea is to get a small fleet of them for training in the US, and give them to poor countries for CT and COIN missions. The Marine Corp may field a handful for joint ops with third world countries. There is language in the 2020 NDAA to procure 20 frames for SOCOM, if the chair force chooses not to go ahead with the program.

    The Beechcraft AT-6 and the Embraer A-29 are the candidates, we bought 3 of each for testing and training.

    We provided the Afghans with 20 A-29's, and they are currently operated by a few other countries, mostly in South America.

    It wouldn't make sense to create a new production line for a handful of planes, we want a current production platform. We also want a 2-seater so it can be used as a trainer- the AT-6 is already used in that role in the USAF.

    Relatively cheap to acquire and fly in low threat environments, rough field capable, and a long loiter time. Modern glass cockpits, a pretty broad choice of loadout combinations, some basic organic ISR functionality. Suitable for anti-FARC and counter terror type missions, but it has no real place in the USAF's OOB.

  2. #842
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4007
    Likes (Received)
    12665

    Default

    Given that allies now and then become enemies the USA and others could (and they often do) end up fighting against their own planes and weapons.

    Probably one of the big disadvantages in making military equipment for sale and export.

    If it's needed for "defense" why sell it to other countries? Seems a bit contradictory.

  3. #843
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    441
    Likes (Received)
    1744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    ...If it's needed for "defense" why sell it to other countries? Seems a bit contradictory.
    For the same reason Denmark is buying F-35, and before that the F-16. Interoperability.

    Almost all US arms sales are to NATO or ABCA countries, or mid-east allies. There are security guarantees and workshare offsets that accompany the sales, and these countries want those security guarantees, and they want the domestic jobs and technology transfers that come with the offsets.

    Your pilots come here for training, because we have the instrumented test ranges. We also train your trainers and maintainers, and you participate in joint exercises like Red Flag, etc.

    What we sell and to whom is a matter of public record. If you want detail, go the the SIPRI Arms Transfer database and query the database with the US as the supplier. What you will see is that a large portion of the transfers are defensive systems. Air defense radars, anti-missile systems, airborne early warning and ASW patrol aircraft, various engines for existing aircraft and vehicles, transport aircraft, utility helicopters, etc.

  4. #844
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    Its not really for us- hell the USAF doesn't even want to keep the A-10. The idea is to get a small fleet of them for training in the US, and give them to poor countries for CT and COIN missions.
    In other words, it's something we should not be doing at all.

    It' anti-American.

    (I still think the Skyraider is vastly superior to some stupid Embraier. It will cost more in the end to take some wannabe and turn it into even a half-ass functional device than to build 50 of the real thing in the first place. The military is proven penny-wise and pound-foolish.)

  5. #845
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    In other words, it's something we should not be doing at all.

    It' anti-American.

    (I still think the Skyraider is vastly superior to some stupid Embraier. It will cost more in the end to take some wannabe and turn it into even a half-ass functional device than to build 50 of the real thing in the first place. The military is proven penny-wise and pound-foolish.)
    The people driving the Skyraiders would have to know how to fly. I'm not sure the folks that fly any military fighter/attack airplanes today even use rudder pedals, do tail dragger transition training ?

    The Skyraider and maybe some A26 invaders would do great work in close air support in may places.

    Steve

  6. #846
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4007
    Likes (Received)
    12665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    For the same reason Denmark is buying F-35, and before that the F-16. Interoperability.

    Almost all US arms sales are to NATO or ABCA countries, or mid-east allies. There are security guarantees and workshare offsets that accompany the sales, and these countries want those security guarantees, and they want the domestic jobs and technology transfers that come with the offsets.

    Your pilots come here for training, because we have the instrumented test ranges. We also train your trainers and maintainers, and you participate in joint exercises like Red Flag, etc.

    What we sell and to whom is a matter of public record. If you want detail, go the the SIPRI Arms Transfer database and query the database with the US as the supplier. What you will see is that a large portion of the transfers are defensive systems. Air defense radars, anti-missile systems, airborne early warning and ASW patrol aircraft, various engines for existing aircraft and vehicles, transport aircraft, utility helicopters, etc.
    At times the line between defense and offence is very thin. I suppose it should be a relief to all that even although nuclear weapons are over 70 years old it's only been used twice.

    At that time it was the right thing to do and partly because there was no retaliation on the same scale possible.

    Who today would go to war prepared to use nuclear weapons? Suicidal would be an understatement.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/cou...clear-weapons/

  7. #847
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    marysville ohio
    Posts
    9,260
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2643
    Likes (Received)
    6118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post

    Who today would go to war prepared to use nuclear weapons? Suicidal would be an understatement.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/cou...clear-weapons/
    Most any of the ragheads in the middle east would be happy to use them. It would be an honor to end it all in flame as is called for in their version of the good book.

  8. #848
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    The people driving the Skyraiders would have to know how to fly.
    Well, that leaves South Korea out for sure

  9. #849
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    5,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    177
    Likes (Received)
    1475

    Default

    Back to the original topic ... who knows anything about the status of 737 Max .

    Regards.

    Mike

  10. #850
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1928
    Likes (Received)
    2129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    Back to the original topic ... who knows anything about the status of 737 Max .

    Regards.

    Mike
    NYT’s is running a piece just now:

    What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max? - The New York Times

  11. Likes jancollc liked this post
  12. #851
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    marysville ohio
    Posts
    9,260
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2643
    Likes (Received)
    6118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    I don't think they should have grounded it in the first place. The 2 that crashed were a combination of incompetent mechanics and pilots.

  13. #852
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    8,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1149
    Likes (Received)
    5091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonlight machine View Post
    I don't think they should have grounded it in the first place. The 2 that crashed were a combination of incompetent mechanics and pilots.
    That's fine, just don't expect me to fly in one in the immediate future.

    Regards Tyrone.

  14. #853
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4007
    Likes (Received)
    12665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonlight machine View Post
    I don't think they should have grounded it in the first place. The 2 that crashed were a combination of incompetent mechanics and pilots.
    You probably don't fly that often. Those planes weren't small privately owned.

    I'd imagine an airline with "incompetent mechanics and pilots" would get publicity.

  15. #854
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1928
    Likes (Received)
    2129

    Default

    I had mentioned early in the thread that one of my clients is a FAA accident investigator.
    One of his insights was their process involves the description of influences far broader than design of airframe- company culture, selection of key personnel and how they operate within that institution.

    His training is a PHD in human systems or the like.

    Here is another bit on building blocks to the accidents:
    (Not endorsing- just a sign post on the ‘talk’ about issue..).

    Crash Course | The New Republic

    And the real deal:

    FAA Updates on Boeing 737 MAX

  16. #855
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    marysville ohio
    Posts
    9,260
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2643
    Likes (Received)
    6118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    You probably don't fly that often. Those planes weren't small privately owned.

    I'd imagine an airline with "incompetent mechanics and pilots" would get publicity.
    I fly all the time, read the NYT article as posted by Trboatworks. I have seen the same assessment of the issues several other places as well. I know a 737 pilot and have talked at length with him about this plane. I would fly on a max today with a properly trained pilot on a plane maintained by mechanics that have a clue.

  17. #856
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1928
    Likes (Received)
    2129

    Default

    Still waiting on the big report from FAA....

  18. #857
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    8,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1149
    Likes (Received)
    5091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonlight machine View Post
    I fly all the time, read the NYT article as posted by Trboatworks. I have seen the same assessment of the issues several other places as well. I know a 737 pilot and have talked at length with him about this plane. I would fly on a max today with a properly trained pilot on a plane maintained by mechanics that have a clue.
    I read the article. I'm glad I did. That's an excellent, very well written piece. It's reassuring on the one hand but worrying on another. Luckily I don't think I'll be flying further afield than Europe.

    Regards Tyrone.

  19. #858
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4007
    Likes (Received)
    12665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonlight machine View Post
    I fly all the time, read the NYT article as posted by Trboatworks. I have seen the same assessment of the issues several other places as well. I know a 737 pilot and have talked at length with him about this plane. I would fly on a max today with a properly trained pilot on a plane maintained by mechanics that have a clue.
    I'll be flying long distance soon (and changing planes a few times) so tell me which airlines haven't "properly trained pilots and maintained by mechanics that haven't a clue".

    If it helps I'm not going near Africa.

  20. Likes Tyrone Shoelaces liked this post
  21. #859
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    7,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    311
    Likes (Received)
    1822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I'll be flying long distance soon (and changing planes a few times) so tell me which airlines haven't "properly trained pilots and maintained by mechanics that haven't a clue".

    If it helps I'm not going near Africa.
    Gordon, please do all of the other members of this forum a favor, and spend the approx 45 minutes to read the NYT article!
    I did last night and it was worth it.
    For better or worse, it is a very well written piece by someone with more flying experience than the average air traveling public.

  22. #860
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    441
    Likes (Received)
    1744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    Back to the original topic ... who knows anything about the status of 737 Max .
    Boeing is continuing to work on the software updates and haven't submitted anything formally yet. Last week the head of the FAA flew the simulator with the new software, but didn't comment on it.

    There is a meeting today in Montreal with the FAA, and administrators and technical people from Europe, Canada, China, India, and probably some other countries that I don't know about. The purpose is to provide technical updates to the other agencies.

    Boeing continues to say they are targeting the 4th quarter to return to flight, but that seems optimistic- there are still several more weeks of work to complete on the software, according to the FAA administrator.

    The EASA said they were not going to take the FAA's word that the MAX is safe, and will conduct their own review. The agencies from these other countries- Canada, China, and India have hopped on that bandwagon and said that they will also do their own safety reviews. So that's going to slow walk the jet back into service. That will likely have long-term ramifications, since it's a big departure from the established order of accepting each other's certifications.

    WSJ reported that the Indonesians are going to lay all the blame on Boeing for the Lion Air crash, which we pretty much already knew.

    I share your view- I would not hesitate to fly on a MAX operated by any US major. If I had a choice, it would be my first pick- just because the chance would be good that it wouldn't be an overcrowded cattle car, lol.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •