Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 494 posts

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#221

Post by foobarian »

zdw wrote: post #197
davidkwast wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nokia is the best case study of what not to do. In 2005 Nokia launched the 770 Internet Tablet. It was the groundwork for the modern smartphone. But the management did not allow it to have a GSM modem. So it was not a smartphone. Only after the iPhone Nokia launched the N900 but it was too late. Nokia did not believe in touch screen too.

The 770 and Maemo environment were pretty amazing back in the day - high resolution screen for the time, but a somewhat laggy interface given the compute available at the time. Hardware was somewhat compromised - the half-height MMC storage expansion was particularly difficult to find. I still have one sitting around somewhere. It did support touch, with a stylus built in - I forget if the stylus was needed or if you…

I got to briefly try a N900 back in the day. When it powered on you would briefly see the raw X background stipple and the x-shaped cursor before the window manager loaded. I liked the nerd factor of it but I knew at that point the company was in the weeds.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#222

Post by purple_turtle »

sgjohnson wrote: post #140
Night_Thastus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need both . They want the high-margin business and first-class passengers, but with those alone the volume would be too low and overall prices too high to make operating feasible. The high-volume low-margin economy customers keep seats filled to prevent wasted potential space. On most commercial planes, flight is only profitable if nearly every seat is filled.

> They need both. No. If they could fill the entire plane with business/first class seats and sell out >70% (maybe even less) of it, you bet they would. The only reason why economy class exists is because they can’t. But the demand for more premium travel is steadily increasing, which will lead to shrinking economy cabins. So yes, they do need to fill the space. But I wouldn’t say that they need the economy passenger…

> > They need both.

> No (...) The only reason why economy class exists is because they can’t.

in other words, in nearly all cases they need both

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#223

Post by purple_turtle »

imoverclocked wrote: post #59
nostrademons wrote: post #21

It'll be interesting to see if they still can design and build a new ground-up airplane design. The last all-new design was the 787, initiated in 2003 and launched in 2009, and its design was fraught with problems. Before then was the 777 in the early 90s (pre-McDonnell takeover), and the 757/767 in the early 80s. There's a phenomena that ofter occurs with large organizations where once their markets mature, everybod…

The biggest tell will be just how over budget the development process becomes. Another issue in large companies trying to build something new is the scope creep which leads to committees and then decision by committee. If the folks leading this effort in Boeing are smart, they will keep the size of the team as small as possible. Maybe they will even hire some people back to lead this effort... assuming they can find…

> If you want passengers to want your plane, design it without sardines in mind; People don't like being sardines.

In practice people in general vote with wallets for cheaper sardine-like flights.

(though more spacious seats typically can be bought)

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#224

Post by lelanthran »

hinkley wrote: post #55
nonethewiser wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is eerily similar to the comment on the thread about LLMs that says software teams have to maintain a "theory" or model about how the software works and when they cant, they can no longer function beyond limited forms of maintenance. And in that comment the idea was that LLMs are accelerating this dynamic. I dont want to stretch the analogy too thin but in this case instead of LLMs being a catalyst, perhaps its…

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Has a degree that’s basically informatics management. My coworker took a class with case studies and the theory presented by that class was that all successful projects have at least one person who has fit the entire system into their head. They can tell you what happens if you pull on this thread. What the consequences are of trying to remove this feature. Lose them and you are fucke…

> Until or unless someone else steps up and does the same.

Or the company ponies up and rewrites the thing.

Sometimes legacy really is bad, and sometimes you really do need to throw the old product into the bin.

See Trello for an example.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#225

Post by macintux »

spookie wrote: post #128
petre wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about it? I'm not going to recharge my watch every night. Yawn.

Yeah, we have basically infinite battery on "dumb" watches, as long as you use them. You know, so you can rely on them. The Apple Watch to me just seems like a worse earbud. If I want to be that interrupted in tge middle of something might as well hear the thing and not have to look at it.

I never had any interest in wearing a watch to bed. Still don’t, although theoretically I could charge it for a few minutes in the evening to make that possible.

The Watch has helped me lose 30 pounds, has significantly helped motivate me to exercise more, and has let me keep my phone on silent mode for at least 5 years now. For me, it’s a great device.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#226

Post by ipython »

mschuster91 wrote: post #173
bunderbunder wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you've got to ask why would we want an orbital Mars/Phobos/Deimos station?

Because Elon. Snark aside: the goal is Mars because it might be possible to colonize the planet and to have a place that acts as a reserve for humanity should shit really hit the fan (i.e. WW3). The moon isn't suitable as much for that purpose due to a complete lack of any atmosphere and because it's too close to Earth.

Mars isn’t exactly habitable either. Not to mention the myriad of issues we face even getting there, let alone thriving.

Read the book A City On Mars recently which had a lot of interesting concerns not widely discussed in the pro space colonization community : https://www.acityonmars.com/. Highly recommended.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#227

Post by ffitch »

notatoad wrote: post #171
guardiangod wrote: post #148

Well since the 787 program will very likely never break even, let alone turn in profit, for Boeing, the 737's replacement will be a do or die project for Boeing. They cannot afford another money-losing product.

boeing will never die as long as the government wants to have a domestic passenger airline manufacturer. and they pretty clearly do want that. it'll take more than financial losses to kill boeing.

seeing how much power shifted from legislative branch to executive, and how often executive branch changes its mind, I wouldn’t count on the unwavering government support

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#228

Post by ipython »

wongarsu wrote: post #145
mrguyorama wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why is the Lunar Gateway such an essential part of the Artemis project's mission architecture when we didn't need anything like that for Apollo? The explicit reason is: Why would we pay another $200 billion to just do Apollo again? People were bored of Apollo before it even finished its original set of missions.

We'd pay $xxx billion to have a permanent moon base, something Apollo never had. If that can't efforts excite people enough to keep funding flowing I doubt a space station in lunar orbit will move the needle To add another data point: the Chinese lunar program also plans to land humans on the moon and later establish a manned research outpost on the surface. But there don't seem to be any plans for an orbital station…

What does a moon base get us, though?

It was cool to get bragging rights by being the first to land and come back - in the ultimate show of “soft power” against the Soviet Union. But a permanent moon base? We can’t even fund the ISS.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#229

Post by actionfromafar »

mschuster91 wrote: post #173
bunderbunder wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you've got to ask why would we want an orbital Mars/Phobos/Deimos station?

Because Elon. Snark aside: the goal is Mars because it might be possible to colonize the planet and to have a place that acts as a reserve for humanity should shit really hit the fan (i.e. WW3). The moon isn't suitable as much for that purpose due to a complete lack of any atmosphere and because it's too close to Earth.

If any faction is on Mars during WW3, there’s a nuke landing there 6 months after the show is over here.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#230

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #131
silverquiet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read "Airframe" by Michael Crichton probably twenty years ago, and it was around ten years old at that time. I remember that that book talked about how the planes were unstable by design and required software to maintain proper flight characteristics, and that this was so because it was more efficient. The book is fiction, but I doubt it was far off the mark at the time. I suspect that there is no going back from t…

The 737-MAX is not "unstable by design". It has the exact same positive stability as other planes in 99% of it's flight envelope. The remaining exception is that, at a certain AoA, speed, thrust, etc, there is a case where adding thrust pushes the nose up more than it does for the normal 737 The nose push is not abnormal, it is not unsafe, it is not unexpected. All planes with engines below the inertial "center" of t…

This is not correct and a gross simplification of the true issue.

All aircraft with underslung engines have similar pitch up tendencies to varying degrees and different handling characteristics between models are fine.

As seen with 757/67, 777/787 and A330/40/50 sharing type ratings despite being massively different aircraft.

> As the nacelle is ahead of the C of G, this lift causes a slight pitch-up effect (ie a reducing stick force) which could lead the pilot to inadvertently pull the yoke further aft than intended bringing the aircraft closer towards the stall. This abnormal nose-up pitching is not allowable under 14CFR §25.203(a) "Stall characteristics". Several aerodynamic solutions were introduced such as revising the leading edge stall strip and modifying the leading edge vortilons but they were insufficient to pass regulation. MCAS was therefore introduced to give an automatic nose down stabilizer input during elevated AoA when flaps are up.

http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm

The feeling of the aircraft is not the problem. The stall characteristics not complying with the regulation is.

Post reply on HN