Queso wrote:No, they redesigned the whole damned thing with the 737. That's SPECIFICALLY why they should not "clean sheet" it, go with a proven design and only update what's needed for the biggest performance increases. Old tech should be cheaper to build, too.
They did not redesign the 737. Instead of going for a clean sheet approach, they decided to re-engine the now 60 year old design. Which led to a ton of problems and ended them up in the mess they are in right now.
Citing Wikipedia:
In 2006, Boeing started considering the replacement of the 737 with a "clean-sheet" design that could follow the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. In June 2010, a decision on this replacement was postponed into 2011.
On December 1, 2010, Boeing's competitor, Airbus, launched the Airbus A320neo family to improve fuel burn and operating efficiency with new engines: the CFM International LEAP and Pratt & Whitney PW1000G. In February 2011, Boeing's CEO Jim McNerney maintained "We're going to do a new airplane." At the March 2011, ISTAT conference, BCA President James Albaugh was not sure about a 737 re-engine, like Boeing CFO James A. Bell stated at the JP Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Defense conference the same month. The A320neo gathered 667 commitments at the June 2011, Paris Air Show for a backlog of 1,029 units since its launch, setting an order record for a new commercial airliner.
On July 20, 2011, American Airlines announced an order for 460 narrowbody jets including 130 A320ceos and 130 A320neos, and intended to order 100 re-engined 737s with CFM LEAPs, pending Boeing confirmation. The order broke Boeing's monopoly with the airline and forced Boeing into a re-engined 737.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#BackgroundAnd that's the problem with the "good ol' times" approach. You cannot retrofit an old aircraft with modern engines, as modern engines are physically bigger. There simply isn't enough space under the wings. Boeing literally tried squaring the circle with the 737 NG already, which led to the oddly shaped nacelles:
For the MAX, even that wouldn't have cut it. They would have needed a much higher and stronger gear, but that wouldn't have fitted in the landing gear bay.
So they decided to move the engines forward and up:
- - - - Boeing 737-800 - - - - - - - - Boeing 737 MAX 8 - - - - - - - - Airbus A320neo - - -
That placement of the engines caused the aerodynamics to change significantly. In order to counter that, Boeing resorted to the dreaded MCAS software, that was supposed to counter the aerodynamic effects and allow 737-NG certified pilots to fly the MAX without any additional training.
At least in theory. As we know now, that theory did not hold up. It was a bad idea, badly executed.
Going for a clean sheet approach would have allowed Boeing to design an aircraft with enough ground clearance for modern engines, including a bay that could host a stronger landing gear. Note in the photos above how much less gound clearance the 737 has, compared to the A320.
But Boeing decided against it, fearing the costs of falling several months behind Airbus. Only to now pay a much higher price, which will likely cause them to fall years behind.
Answers from the 1960ies were good for 1960 problems, but not necessarily for 2020 ones.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
