Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy
@noahminder3627
7 ай бұрын
Very nice shot of you running through the forrest during the advertisement 😂😂😂
@kosmamoczek
7 ай бұрын
You know they are not exactly a stellar company right? :< They are a bit of a Boeing of the mental health services...
@TheClumsyFairy
7 ай бұрын
Did you mean "Is THIS the end" rather than "is the the end" for the title?
@Thatclimbingirl
7 ай бұрын
They aren’t the best, many therapists have spoken out against them for predatory behavior.
@Yadid1
7 ай бұрын
Yeah I guess Mentour doesn't know... but yeah, BetterHelp are predators. kzitem.info/news/bejne/qq2byGuhiaiVjH4si=n2EE4oy5fzxpslpX
@primordialmeow7249
7 ай бұрын
Old, retired flight attendant here. Worked on both the 727 and 737. My absolute favorite though: Bidding the galley position on the old DC-10. Down in the belly of the aircraft we could roll up our sleeves, crank up the ovens and the radio, ditch the high heels and put our sneakers on and send the trays up and down the food elevator. Oh man those were the days!
@lbowsk
7 ай бұрын
Just retired from Mother U. The Tens were still around when I was hired. I definitely remember hearing your opinion voiced MANY times by FA's back then. I sure did want to fly it but never got the chance. 9-11 really dicked up the industry.
@tonyharvey2307
7 ай бұрын
"the food elevator" wtf
@alberickmendes6472
7 ай бұрын
Good times 👍
@Drgonzosfaves
6 ай бұрын
The Lockheed L-1011 had a similar gallery downstairs also. My dad was TWA so I got to go in the cockpit at night (Oh, look at the lights...) as well. Different times.
@Drgonzosfaves
6 ай бұрын
@@tonyharvey2307The kitchens were below the passenger deck and you used an elevator to bring food upstairs.
@ethans6539
7 ай бұрын
Its crazy how the 737 is 60 years old, 60 years before that was the Wright brother’s first flight
@atisalvaro
7 ай бұрын
They sold progress to money
@Drona_e30_m50
7 ай бұрын
Technology progress is rapid during times of war. 2 World wars happened in that 60 year span.
@randobad
7 ай бұрын
The basic design is 60 years old but I'm pretty sure any newer versions are not.
@amarissimus29
7 ай бұрын
What does that have to do with anything? 60 years before the flyer, Camillo Golgi was born. Crazy.
@ImpendingJoker
7 ай бұрын
@@amarissimus29 You're clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?
@lukemauerman3734
7 ай бұрын
As a flight attendant who is old enough to have started working on the 737 since the -200 days, my requirements of an aircraft are somewhat different than fuel economy and bypass ratios. For me the tiredness of this old old airframe is that with all versions up to and including the -800 Next Gen, the front lavatory toilet seat doesn't have room to stay upright because it doesn't' fit against the fuselage. The practical upshot of this is that we have an airframe that has been in service since 1967 where you have to hold the toilet seat up with one hand in order to pee. I cannot generate enthusiasm for this.
@lagautmd
7 ай бұрын
Having peed in a 737 front lav, I can confirm. Damned annoying.
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
sit down
@probablynovideoshere
7 ай бұрын
It’s almost like this lavatory was designed by Germans
@georgeprout42
7 ай бұрын
It also leaked into the EE bay. I think it was the APU Control Unit that everyone learned (very quickly) would stain your hands and shirt blue. It also, obviously, stank...
@einar8019
7 ай бұрын
and as a ground handler i dont like that the ground power connecter is so high up, its higher up than on the a320, you have to hunch down to connect the air conditioner, compared to the a320 the cargo hold is alot more more cramped and you have to crawl inside when using a powerstow(though thats also the case on a220/e190)
@musmuk5350
7 ай бұрын
The rough landings of the 737 make the 320 family shine in my opinion. However, flying onboard the 220 is wonderful!
@marckyle5895
7 ай бұрын
'Rough landings'? I thought it was because Southwest had hired a former carrier pilot and he was trying for the three wire (passenger spinal impaction ratio:100-0)
@VNExperience
7 ай бұрын
Thanks, Petter! ❤ Long-time planespotter and aviation enthusiast here. My first flight was on a Finnair Caravelle and it was thrilling. The next on was on a PanAm 707 to NYC and it was also amazing and delightfully different from the first one. I got bitten by the aviation bug at 3 years old and my dearest childhood pastime was riding my bicycle to this "viewing spot" at the end of a runway (fenced off of course) and we'd spend hours watching planes land and take off. Asked my mom for a camera for my birthday. Got it! Probably used up a thousand rolls of film. Loved the 727, later 737, 757 , DC-9/ -10, Airbus 320 series, and of course all the prop planes and military jets! Now, many years later, I'm finally working in aviation sales & supply chain, basically selling and stocking airplane parts to airlines and MROs in Asia. This allows me to travel all over Asia to meet customers, get to know them, build and foster relationships with them, and observe their maintenance and repairs operations on Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, ATR, DHC and other amazing aircraft. As it turns out, many of them are AvGeeks too! 🎉 I honestly couldn't be happier now, finally working in something I'm actually profoundly passionate about, having tried my hand at several jobs, from HR to management in IT, lots of jobs over the years. I never felt excited waking up to a new day but instead hitting snooze on the alarm clock was practically a daily occurrence for 15 years. Sorry for the long post and thank you if you're still reading this. 🙏 Just wanted to share my bit and express my immense appreciation for aviators/educators like Petter - and all you wonderful people who love aviation! 🛫✈🪂🛩🛬 ❤
@aidanclarke6106
7 ай бұрын
"Honey, I found 4 bolts in your trousers. I've put them with the other ones"
@HomoMathematicus.
7 ай бұрын
🤓
@mikethompson3534
7 ай бұрын
😂
@georgH
7 ай бұрын
🤣
@zorktxandnand3774
7 ай бұрын
Some kid's soapbox racer is put together with plywood and aircraft grade bolts.
@stockhuman6661
7 ай бұрын
🤣
@djluxy88
7 ай бұрын
Hey Petter, great video as always, but regarding your sponsor betterhelp, they were found to sell their users data to other companies, while stating that their data would not be shared with anyone according to their privacy policy. That is pretty terrible considering their users were vulnerable to begin with. I'm sure there are a lot of good sponsors who would like to be featured in your videos. Edit: misspelled name.
@RocketrywithAnay_2013
7 ай бұрын
Indeed bro I watched Mrwhoosetheboss and found it
@charlesmak534
7 ай бұрын
Hate to break it to you, there isn't a single internet company that DOESN'T sell user data.
@squishyd00d19
7 ай бұрын
Fortunately he is also sponsored by incogni often enough to offset that 🤓
@MADmosche
7 ай бұрын
@@charlesmak534that is not true, and doesn’t change the fact that betterhelp violated their own privacy policy.
@charlesmak534
7 ай бұрын
@@MADmosche It is most definitely true.
@MaxPower-11
7 ай бұрын
I would argue that the big “leap” in the 737 series’ development wasn’t between the 737 Classic and the 737 Next Generation series but between the original 737 and the 737 Classic series in the early 1980s since that’s when the design changed considerably, with the low-bypass engines being replaced with high-bypass ones. That gave the wing a whole new look and all the 737 variants since have basically been tweaks of the Classic (737-300/400/500) series.
@michaelosgood9876
7 ай бұрын
100%. 737 300 was the biggest leap in efficiency of 737 development, reinforcing their dominance over my favorite manufacturer, Douglas (MD) in the early 80s, whereas, the NG was developed to 'stay in the game' v the A320 family
@thereissomecoolstuff
7 ай бұрын
Absolutely correct.
@magnustan841
7 ай бұрын
Classic to NG was almost as big with an all-new wing and upgraded versions of the classic’s engines.
@4DRC_
7 ай бұрын
Absolutely. From the new biangular tail to the ovoid engines, the 737 Classic was the generation where a lot of the modern design philosophies of the 737 were first laid out.
@thereissomecoolstuff
7 ай бұрын
They need to bring back the 757 and make it 3’ wider and 20’ longer. Put some giants under the wing and try and keep it under supersonic.
@charisselinnell-morton4137
7 ай бұрын
My Grandfather was on the original design team at Boeing when they made the original design for the Boeing 737 100 .😊He was appalled at the MAX .
@SIMARJEETMEHTA
7 ай бұрын
And that, says it all.
@marcmcreynolds2827
7 ай бұрын
But grandfathers are appalled by everything.
@charisselinnell-morton4137
7 ай бұрын
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Mine not so much . He was a strong Scandinavian man who was not into other peoples drama. I spent my summers building Aircraft in his actual “Hanger” in the backyard in Kenora,Ontario. I am an expert on riveting and wiring single/double prop aircraft … I was paid in ice cream and McDonald’s. I then found out that my uncle got paid in cash so I asked Grandpa to increase my payment to 20 bucks,plus the ice cream and McDonald’s. He saw the MAX reveal and he said “ What in the hell is that ? Is that this 737 MAX ? It’s essentially a 757-767 mix and they actually have expanded the 737 -100 to 200 -400-600 and then they show us a plane that has zero real testing and my grandfather said they are going to kill people as that’s going to take many hours to retrain pilots with that engine placement their going to need pilots that fly still!”
@gertjanvandermeij4265
7 ай бұрын
The MAX is just PERFECT ! Boeing RULES !!!
@SIMARJEETMEHTA
7 ай бұрын
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Ya but this is grandpa's field of expertise.
@davidwebb4904
7 ай бұрын
If it ain’t broke, down fix it. Oh wait….nevermind….
@Deberussy
7 ай бұрын
NAAAH 😭😭😭
@Ymir-
7 ай бұрын
more profitable :P
@John-86
7 ай бұрын
But that’s the problem they broke it
@unggrabb
7 ай бұрын
If it morphed to a CoffinJet, ground it, ditch it
@jamesgorman5241
7 ай бұрын
I was going to say that, the staments backwards. @@John-86
@SueBobChicVid
7 ай бұрын
I have fond memories of the 727. It was the first airplane I flew on as a kid. We used the rear stairs to deplane.
@The_ZeroLine
7 ай бұрын
The 727 was/is a great plane. The Boeing 737 in all variants is as well. I don’t think most realize how good its service record still is.
@otmarvasatko5888
7 ай бұрын
I flew a Delta B727 and boarded from the ground. The belly was polished like a mirror, I could see myself beautifully in it. Hard to experience today.
@theregnarute
7 ай бұрын
yeah your parents, my grandparents, made great things. too bad you ruined them. too bad you ruined western civilization, completely. enjoy hell.
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
how did you get on the plane?
@SueBobChicVid
7 ай бұрын
@@HaroldBrice We used the portable stairs at the side door (like usual, but no jet bridges).
@InvertedFlight
7 ай бұрын
Wow, and not a word about the fund managers that are now running Boeing and are using their legacy aircraft to squeeze out profit without actually doing what has been needed for a very long time. A brand new clean sheet design.
@MS-Patriot2
7 ай бұрын
Agreed. Aerospace is a very slow payback model, development costs (investment) are huge and there’s often no return for at least five years from investment. Sure, the program will then run for twenty plus years and the spares and maintenance contracts are lucrative but today’s greed merchants want a quick profit. This is contrary to how the industry needs to operate.
@mckeekev
7 ай бұрын
100%. The last clean sheet was the 787, which began in the late '90s, almost 30 years ago. The accountants are just milking the system at this point.
@Edax_Royeaux
7 ай бұрын
A brand new clean sheet design would be untested at scale and be vulnerable to any unforeseen dangers, and all that to preform what the 737 already does anyway. The 737 at least has 70 years worth of testing and in the field data, everyone knows how long it'll take most parts to fail.
@InvertedFlight
7 ай бұрын
@@Edax_Royeaux what? So you're saying that a clean sheet design is more dangerous then trying to retrofit a 70 year-old aircraft with engines that don't fit? Are you saying that a composite aircraft isn't lighter and stronger than an aluminum one? Are you saying that engineers don't know how long it takes for components to fail? Do you think a clean sheet design means that every single thing that goes in there is a complete complete experiment? Are you saying it takes seventy years for us to know if it is safe? Basically, what the hell are you talking about? In case you didn't know the latest version of the 737 has crashed and killed more people per flight hour than just about any other aircraft made. So your argument is, let's keep doing that because it's safer? It's generally accepted and well known that the 737 passed its prime decades ago. That is one of the major criticisms of Boeing by both investors pilots and other industry types is that they need to stop trying to milk these legacy aircraft. In the next 5 to 10 years they're going to be totally noncompetitive.
@Edax_Royeaux
7 ай бұрын
@@InvertedFlight You appear to have jumped the gun on what was just 2 sentences I wrote. Don't know why you've decided to extrapolate about composite aircraft from all that, no wonder you're so confused.
@boyvanurk9854
7 ай бұрын
Hello Petter, Such an interesting history this 737 aircraft has. So many things can be said about it from many different angles. I retired on the 737NG fleet of 'my' airline and flew a selection of different types in operational life. I'd like to share my feeling towards/experience with it. To me, the 737 felt like 'a steam tractor in the skies'. Powerful machine with little suspension in gear or wings, giving a stiff ride. Found the NG more 'jumpy' in turbulence than the older versions. A very sturdy and reliable airplane. Watching cabin attendants go down on their knees to arm or disarm the slides gave an association with an era gone by and looked sort of strange, as if operating a museum aircraft. Its powerful engines saved the day a few times in severe shear and turbulence and I loved the power and reliability of these technological marvels. On this type I only experienced engine failures in the simulator which can not be said of some other brands/types I flew. I experienced the 737 as a demanding aircraft to fly in turbulent weather: especially the NG had a tendency to divert from its trimmed condition and needed small control inputs continuously in which it differed from other types like the 767. The type never let me down which may also be credit to the maintenance standards of the airline: apart from a few deactivated reversers, auto brake u/s and an IRS fault, only the coffee-makers broke down. Ceiing 41.000 on NG instead of 37.000 on the older ones often was helpful to stay just above some weather. Liked the 'old fashioned' overhead panel with all the toggle switches, it really felt like something from the past after visiting a 787 or A350 simulator. There will be a day when 737 production is over. Wish that Boeing may find inspiration, courage and funding to design a successor. Conclusion: my days on the 737 did not leave a romantic feeling or fond memories of a gorgeous looking airplane or one flying like 'a pilots dream'. As a workhorse however it was the most dependable type for me in many aspects. Great machine to get the job done. Thank you 737 🙂.
@lbowsk
7 ай бұрын
Glad you liked it. I thought that it was the worst jet at my airline and I flew most of the others, both Boeing and Bus. But to be fair, I am 6'3" and 220. It's got a MISERABLE cockpit. Getting your brain bag in and out of that thing was miserable. But that's no longer a concern with today's iPads. It has a tiny cramped cockpit. It's loud. Antiquated systems but with fancy avionics. It flies OK, but they all do so not really a ringing endorsement. No thanks. I bid off it as soon as I could.
@crinolynneendymion8755
7 ай бұрын
Once they worked out why the rudder was stuffing them into the ground, it was a good airplane for the purpose.
@MarkLotus2005
7 ай бұрын
Peter, My pilot friend suggested that Boeing’s mistake was trying to fit engines that were ‘too large’ on a platform with such short landing gear. His recommendation was to use the 757 platform with taller landing gear. The 757 has the same cockpit and the engines would have fit perfect. Boeing’s choice to force fit the engines resulted in a compromise in safety as the engineering solution was non-optimum. With flying, you need a six-sigma solution and the safety compromises were their failure. They could have shortened the 757 to the size of the 757 and called it the 737 MAX, a perfect name for a taller, more impressive plane without the safety problems; and training would be similar.
@lbowsk
7 ай бұрын
The 37 and 57 cockpits are not the same. They require a completely different training program and have different Type Ratings. In other words, a 737 pilot cannot fly a 757 and vice versa. I once read that Boeing destroyed the jigs for the 57, so forget about that if true. The 757 is TOO NARROW for today's fat humans. Boeing needs to start from scratch and make something wider than the A320 (which is already wider than the 737) fuselage. Or, they can just keep putting out crap and let AirBus rule the airliner world.
@john1703
7 ай бұрын
@@lbowsk Which, after their lies to the FAA, is what they deserve.
@markmiddione6423
7 ай бұрын
@@lbowsk The 737 & 757 are totally different aircrafts, they just happen to have the same fuselage cross section.
@lbowsk
7 ай бұрын
I am well aware of that. The fuselage has got to go. I was replying to why the 757 is no longer an option for Boeing. @@markmiddione6423
@e.l.Lindsay0212
5 ай бұрын
I just don’t get why Boeing would build aircraft with such short landing gear and we saw that through the 707, 727, and the 737 Production lines and it just goes for show if they build the 797 anytime soon just pray they decide to put taller landing gear.
@stephengrimmer35
7 ай бұрын
Even the 1960s 737 is as you say a 1950s 707 fuselage section. It's basically been stretched and re-engined beyond its limit. We flew 72s on cargo runs into short dirt strips until the noughties. Tough wingspar, high clearance and powerful engines safe from FOD, plus rear airstair. Fabulous A/C.
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
the 727 is coming back............you heard it here, anon
@jocelynharris-fx8ho
7 ай бұрын
@@HaroldBricesure wish the 757 was returning !!!
@bigz4302
7 ай бұрын
It's still in active passenger service with hawaiian airlines
@mediocreman2
7 ай бұрын
How is it beyond its limits? It's still a reliable aircraft sells and performs well. Did you watch the video?
@sennaha
7 ай бұрын
@mediocreman2 Great airplane. Terrible cockpit and ergonomics. Not good to accommodate the larger radius GTF engines.
@yacaattwood2421
7 ай бұрын
Coming from an Information Technology viewpoint: why can you still see Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 10 in use? Why, as a database administrator, I supported an Oracle 8.1.74 system years beyond the end of support? I know there are many companies that are running obsolete, non-supported software and hardware - there are banks and government agencies that have 1960’s mainframe COBOL applications still running There’s a certain amount of inertia, of “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?” mentality
@konpolski4765
7 ай бұрын
they "fixed it" too much... a lot of ppl died because of this fixing...
@achmedbincouscous2846
7 ай бұрын
While that is certainly a big factor, an even bigger one is the enormous cost of not only spinning up a new fleet type (training pilots, mechanics, spare parts inventories, etc) but especially fleet flexibility issues. When my airline began MAX operations, we still had a large fleet of Classics, which were in good shape, and paid for. Very cost effective, and we planned to keep them in operation for several years to come. The FAA insisted we segment the crews into NG/Classic and NG/MAX. IOW, not every pilot in the company could fly every airplane in the fleet. It represented such an enormous hit to operational flexibility it was literally cheaper to retire the Classic fleet years early. Imagine your IT crews not being allowed to use Windows 10 if they were checked out on Windows Chrome. The whole point of a single feet type for many LCCs is the operational flexibility it affords in terms of crews.
@marcmcreynolds2827
7 ай бұрын
@@konpolski4765 I would argue that the fixes would have been fine if implemented differently. For the cost of an additional AoA sensor and a bit of actual training, no one would be talking about the MAX. Even as things have transpired, the fatal accident rate has been less than one per 900,000 flights.
@yacaattwood2421
7 ай бұрын
@@achmedbincouscous2846 I agree with the excellent points you’ve made I wonder, though, if a commitment to a single fleet type could hamper a company - when the 737 comes up - the discussion often turns to Southwest Airlines, which has based their entire operation upon the 737, and has been a successful airline. I would think that Southwest going with Airbus would be an incredibly expensive and disruptive move - hopefully they are working with Boeing on a transition to a newer aircraft that would be not so disruptive
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
sure, and I remember my 1946 ford 1 and a half ton flatbed truck that I owned for many years.
@umadbra
7 ай бұрын
Back then: we need a solution to 727 shortcomings. Engineers whipped up a new plane in 3 years. Today: we need a new plane. Nah, we'll just put a bigger engine to it. But it'll take at least 5 years to figure it out though.
@skenzyme81
7 ай бұрын
And the those old engineers did it all on paper and checked their math with slide rules.
@kell7195
7 ай бұрын
@@Begeye-bh5ux Yep, and with DIE policies average IQ people are being replaced with lower IQ people.
@mikemck4796
7 ай бұрын
I’m guessing the regulations are a tad different…
@franziskani
7 ай бұрын
@@skenzyme81 to be fair the process of getting it all certified likely was much easier and faster. And there is so much electronics now in the machines (safety, fuel efficiency. Electronic fixes of design problems) that they all have to be certified as well.
@Zadster
7 ай бұрын
This is what happens when you have management-led projects (today) versus engineer-led projects (1960s).
@grdja83
7 ай бұрын
I kept thinking something has been missing from your channel for a while but I couldn't figure it out. The couch, and the adorable doggos sleeping on it!
@tonyharvey2307
7 ай бұрын
Just for balance, I hate dogs, so when I see the couch, dog thing, I cringe, take a deep depth, and decide if i even want to continue watching.
@jamesmyers9285
7 ай бұрын
Douchebag!@@tonyharvey2307
@Darin.Pearson
6 ай бұрын
@tonyharvey2307 For even more balance... I love (most) dogs but, they are NOT allowed on the furniture, especially NOT the bed. That's just gross.
@disellin4871
3 ай бұрын
@@tonyharvey2307people who don't like dogs have something wrong with them.
@cageordie
7 ай бұрын
Since it is based on the 707, which is itself just a derivative of the 367-80 which first flew in 1954, the 737 system design is 70 years old. The 707, 727, and 737 all have the same basic dual control system. Oh, you got there. What the 737 lacks is modern systems, like the triple redundant systems on every Boeing since the 747. Boeing had to get the law changed to allow them to certify the MAX 7 and 10 without EICAS.
@svr5423
7 ай бұрын
I see a bit of the same issues with the Boeing Starliner and the SpaceX Crew Dragon. Boeing makes everything "traditional", complicated and then all the faults creep in, cost overruns, groundings etc.
@jantjarks7946
7 ай бұрын
Question is, if EASA will play along with it.
@eelcosterringa1374
7 ай бұрын
The US way of grandfathering in old stuff should stop. Make State of the Art the rule
@worldstage6103
7 ай бұрын
This whole event is completely contrived. We always see Order Out of Chaos. Create some fake chaos and then they already have the solution, 'Order', ready to go. This is a PR exercise to justify government funding for a new clean sheet aircraft. Boeing just can't compete with the Airbus A320 family, so need to build a clean sheet plane. They need the chaos to justify asking for funds, as will likely get it. The public will back it as they now see the 737 in bad light.
@neilkurzman4907
7 ай бұрын
So you think the 737 max still uses equipment from 70 years ago? Different engines, different flight, controls, different cockpit, you’d probably have to work to find pieces that match the original aircraft.
@scruffy4647
7 ай бұрын
We've come along ways. First airliner I flew on was a DC-3. No Jetways at the time. You walked out unto the tarmac and they had a footstool to help you enter the aircraft. But plenty of room and the seats were very comfortable.
@petergriffin8796
7 ай бұрын
What was your reaction to seeing something as gargantuan as the 747 fly for the first time?
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
scruffy, which rest home do you live in? congratulations
@FahlstromJohn
7 ай бұрын
DC3 and 747 are favorite
@scruffy4647
7 ай бұрын
@@petergriffin8796When the Concorde (British version) started flying, they did a promotional tour around the country. We went to the airport to see it land. It was something to see. They let one of our 747 pilots fly the left seat. The news media interview him and one of them asked "what's the difference between flying a 747 and the Concorde? He replied. About as much difference of driving a Greyhound bus and a Ferrari? Back in 1990, we took a trip to Australia. We flew Qantas on a 747. We left LA at 10 pm Sunday night. 18 hour flight. It wasn't crowded at all. Since it was at night, the stewardess brought us some pillows and we occupied the middle row and raised the arm rests on the seats and laid down and went to sleep. When we woke up, we were about an hour from Sidney and it was 6 am Tuesday morning. Never done that before. LOL
@scruffy4647
7 ай бұрын
@@HaroldBrice Not there yet. The plan is to wear out instead of rust out.
@jameskohnke6239
7 ай бұрын
The variations in lifespan among various aircraft are fascinating. My father's squadron in the US Navy flew the F7U Cutlass...a disaster of a plane. Meanwhile, the US Airforce is putting new engines on the venerable B-52 and expects many more years out of the airframe. Some families have three generations of B-52 pilots.
@gbcb8853
7 ай бұрын
This is my grandad’s B-52. My dad replaced the engines and I replaced the airframe.
@awuma
7 ай бұрын
@@gbcb8853 The engines are being replaced again.
@miscbits6399
7 ай бұрын
the thing with the B52 is that if they were all grounded tomorrow, they wouldn't be replaced. They fly because they're already flying and if they weren't flying there's no compelling mission requirement that mandates an equivalent be created to replace it
@ikkinwithattitude
7 ай бұрын
@@miscbits6399 The B-52's compelling mission requirement is its uniquely high boom-for-buck ratio. ;) Of course, if one sought to craft a clean-sheet design to optimize for that particular mission requirement in 2024, it would look nothing like a B-52 and probably wouldn't even be a single manned aircraft.
@roch145
7 ай бұрын
You glossed over the MCAS debacle which was the final fix for the need to mount newer, bigger (physical diameter), more efficient engines under the wing for the Max. With the standard design, these engines would not have sufficient ground clearance. This forced a redesign of the engine pylon, which resulted in the engine being located higher relative to the wing as well as being positioned further out in front of the wing. This provided enough ground clearance for the new engines. However , this resulted in new aerodynamics for the wing and new centers of gravity which necessitated the creation of the automated MCAS system to help keep the plane properly trimmed and balanced without pilot intervention. Which is not necessarily bad, except for the fact that the software was flawed, pilots weren't extensively trained on its new functions and the plane was only equipped with two Angle of Attack sensors (instead of three, one presumes, to save money). The software shortcomings were exacerbated when there were problems with the AOA sensors. Since there wasn't a third AOA sensor, if the two AOA's had different readings, there wasn't a third AOA to function as a tie breaker to give the software the correct AOA reading. This resulted in the MCAS creating wild interactions with the flight controls, trying to correct perceived, but incorrect issues with the AOA of the plane. The software then overrode pilot inputs, and ultimately crashed two Max's. I'd say that going through these design and software machinations were a strong indicator that it was time for a brand new, clean sheet, airplane.
@SacrificeBreedsSuccess
7 ай бұрын
Well said, any new redesign or features would increase the production and operating cost of this aircraft. Boeing compromised safety for profits
@marcmcreynolds2827
7 ай бұрын
@@SacrificeBreedsSuccess To me that's overly simplistic thinking. Did DAC compromise safety for profits when they made a DC-9-80 from a DC-9-50? (still cost a billion 1980 dollars BTW, just for things related to that stretch). Always starting over with a new design is another way to compromise safety, vs well-proven designs, systems and parts. And it costs everyone money: The airframer who is constrained on how much they can charge; The airline which pays somewhat more up front plus needs a lot more parts inventory and staff training... and finally the passenger. A variant/stretch can be just fine if it's done just fine. Boeing's failure was they did it too much on the cheap (AoA sensors/software, training). Even MCAS was ok in its original incarnation: One push and done. But then it got pressed into service to do more. All said and done, fatal MAX accidents have been less than one per 900,000 flights. A throwback to safety numbers from earlier decades, but hardly a "death trap".
@seanLeprechaun
7 ай бұрын
@15:22 He literally says, "Now, the full story of how Boeing was pushed to develop the 737 MAX instead of designing something entirely new is a quite fantastic one and it involves some really clever backroom politics between Boeing, several involved airlines and Airbus. Now, I will tell you more about that in a coming episode, .."
@roch145
7 ай бұрын
@@seanLeprechaun if you’re trying to tell a story about why the 737 may not have a future and you leave out the MCAS debacle and the deaths of hundreds of people because of that “upgrade,” then you haven’t told one of the most compelling issues that drives the future of the 737. Putting content like that in another video isn’t right, unless you’re just trying to generate more views. Accidents and deaths due to poor management decisions, engineering and potentially profit driven priorities can’t be left to another video.
@gsp0113
7 ай бұрын
@@roch145 I agree completely. I was already familiar with the MCAS issue and the peculiar placement of the 737 MAX's engines. This video's total avoidance of the subject, for whatever reason, felt akin to gaslighting. Sort of like watching a documentary on the U.S. Civil War that never mentions slavery.
@SimonAmazingClarke
7 ай бұрын
One thing I think you missed out on, and is very important, especially for Boeing aircraft, is Grandfather rights. If Boeing want to up grade a model, they only have to certify the new parts to current standard. The rest of the aircraft is assumed to still be certified. Makes it a lot cheaper to up design a model.
@sparky6086
7 ай бұрын
I remember many of those 727 "Whisperjets" at the Atlanta Airport if my youth. The DC9 was prolific there too.
@matsv201
7 ай бұрын
Dc9 have a really short range.
@sparky6086
7 ай бұрын
@matsv201 True. It was one of the first common commuter jets.
@RCAvhstape
7 ай бұрын
727s are awesome jets, but they are anything but "whisper" quiet.
@ralphe5842
7 ай бұрын
The only difference is the 737 was designed in a different time it was designed for old airport equipment where all the airbus aircraft were designed for the modern airports so the most efficient engines will fit without un-natural engine installation
@StevePemberton2
7 ай бұрын
@@RCAvhstape The 727 launched with turbofan engines which were noticeable quieter than the turbojet engines of the original 707 and DC-8. Of course from a modern perspective they were not exactly a whisper. The MD-80 series used basically the same engine, and until they were finally retired a couple of years ago you could always tell when an MD-88 was flying over, they could easily be as loud as a 777.
@fromBangladesh-A6M
7 ай бұрын
Always awesome to see peter praising the awesome 757 😊
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
ok then. i just don't care for the provision for a man being able to command the killing of his wife..........@Aldijan3r
@kell7195
7 ай бұрын
@@HaroldBrice Yes but wife's come and go, more often go these days but Allah is forever.
@soundman1402
7 ай бұрын
I haven't really understood the love for the 757. I've flown on 757s a few times (passenger/enthusiast here, not a pilot), and didn't really care for it. To be fair, though, I think that's because the plane was quite old, with the vinyl on the seats cracking, the interior still smelling vaguely of cigarette smoke, and the plastic lenses over the lights yellowing with age. (This was in 2001, long after smoking was banned in planes in the US!). United Airlines. I did fly in a 757 operated by Icelandair, and its interior was in much better shape.
@yutakago1736
7 ай бұрын
The problem with Boeing is the same as other US companies that are listed on the stock exchange. They hired CEO whose only priority is to protect the interest of shareholders. Meaning they will cut headcount to save labor cost to boost share price. They retrench many QC inspectors that are suppose to ensure the quality of the plane build at Boeing. That is the reason why the quality of Boeing Max drop. My first company is Seagate that also have a CEO, who behave like Boeing CEO. He will retrench staff to cut cost to boost share price. This affected quality of the product and cause the company to be in a bad shape. After Seagate was bought over by an investment group. the new owner delisted Seagate from the stock exchange and want the new CEO to focus on the core business. The new CEO improve quality of the product instead of worry about the share price of the company. The company that focus on the core business will improve the quality of the final product.
@incubus_the_man
7 ай бұрын
From a basic factory workers perspective, that type of management makes life hell for the base level employees. I work in a JIT automotive supplier and we have a lot of issues at the plant where I work..., short takt times, rushing to make numbers, having to do the work of two people, 12 hour shifts, 60+ hour work weeks, high turnover rates. If Boeing has similar issues, I can see why they would have defective aircraft.
@redtriangle7365
7 ай бұрын
In my opinion, Boeing has 2 options going forward. 1.) To either recycle the 757 body and develop the 757 max to compete with the a220 (if streched), a320/ a321xlr. 2.) To develop a clean sheet design aircraft (possibly the 797) to replace the 737.
@john1703
7 ай бұрын
Not only that, but since you cannot carve up a 787 body to make a freighter, and with the demise of the 747, will the 777 become the next freighter?
@jetlagrob
6 ай бұрын
The Western B737-200s had built in "air stairs" that extended out of the forward section of the fuselage so that passengers could easily deplane without a "jetway bridge".
@richardbell7678
7 ай бұрын
The Boeing 737 line really ended with the NG. Moving the engines changed how the aircraft handled and sloppy design of opaque flight automation systems to hide the new handling characteristics caused two hull losses with no survivors. The stall avoidance feature was designed on the premise that the system never received bad data from the captain's Angle of Attack sensor. If someone had asked what happened when the AoA sensor was stuck at a high value, the stall avoidance feature would have included a limit on the maximum applied nose down trim to less than pilot command authority with the first installation. Even with the fix, the 737MAX still has the problem that it becomes a significantly different aircraft to fly if the horizontal stabilizer trim drive fails. Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing would have been much better off if it ate the $1 million per plane penalty and airline pilots transitioning to the MAX had simulator training sessions to avoid stalling and familiarize themselves with the different pitch response to changes in power. The lack of an 'automatic' mode for the 737MAX engine deicing system, combined with the MAX engine cowling unable to withstand the heat of the deicing system, outside of icing conditions, has forced further delays in certifying the MAX7 and MAX10. The open fan concept suffered from the mass of the gearbox needed to get the two open fans to counter rotate. Replacing the fixed vanes of the turbine section with a drum that spun in the opposite direction of the turbine spool could work, if some way to keep the two sections spinning at opposite but equal speeds relative to the airframe was found. Eddy current braking of the faster component might work as flow through the turbine would try to maintain a constant speed difference between the two sections, so slowing down the faster section would speed up the slower section, but even a no contact braking system will generate heat that must be dissipated.
@jeffberner8206
7 ай бұрын
The debate over simulator sessions had absolutely NOTHING to do with MCAS. The discussion of simulator sessions was due to added features of the Roll Command Alerting System (RCAS) which would provide pilot notification and direction for upset conditions and the Runway Situation Awareness Tool (RSAT) which was an aid to pilots to avoid runway overrun situations. Both RCAS and RSAT were new safety features that Boeing had developed to improve safety as a result of reviewing the database of accidents and incidents.
@richardbell7678
7 ай бұрын
@@jeffberner8206 Both crashes were the result of the 737MAX being able to enter a stall in conditions that were outside the stall conditions of the 737NG (above a certain angle of attack, aerodynamic drag on the MAX's engines would go from pitching the nose down to pitching the nose up, potentially into a stall). Absent an MCAS, pilots transitioning to the MAX would need simulator training to recognize and avoid the new stall condition, so Boeing self-certified that the MCAS automatically applying nose down horizontal stabilizer trim if the angle of attack was above a certain value removed the need to train pilots to recognize and avoid the stall.
@robertcolquhoun1468
7 ай бұрын
The A220 is such a beautiful plane my son and I have seen VH-X4A and X4B hopefully we see them all up to Z
@timprussell
7 ай бұрын
Nice to fly on, been on a couple of YYZ to ORD flights on A220
@trip5003
7 ай бұрын
That's a Canadian designed aircraft .
@sokolum
7 ай бұрын
happy to see the it in the hands of Airbus….
@timprussell
7 ай бұрын
@@sokolum If I recall it got there due to a trade dispute spearheaded by a complaint from Boeing. The result was Bombardier ended up with the deal with Airbus. I had heard and I think it was on Mentor Pilot that at one time Boeing could have gotten the plane. Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out with the 220 taking sales from 320 and 737. Boeing is in a corner with the 777X delays, Max issues killing some sales, Max 7/10 delays plus the writing on the wall that they need a 737 replacement by mid-2030’s so they got to start right now.
@bjorn2625
7 ай бұрын
Having flown on the A220 a lot (Swiss), I can attest that it’s a gorgeous plane to be a passenger on. You do wonder if Airbus will try to go through an avionics change to ensure it’s a full family member.
@paulgaughran4999
7 ай бұрын
Peter , this was an Excellent episode, really informative Thank you. At age 52 and working in Aviation 34 years I know a lot about the 737 family. Yet still I learned more from your Video - Thanks Again Paul
@darkstartv9294
7 ай бұрын
100% agreed. I've been intrigued by aviation since I was a kid and currently hitting 20 years at an airline. You hit on every single point that I've told others about the 737s and 757s. I've seen the A220 and agreed that it is the one aircraft that will be nipping at the 37s heals. Embraer 195 E2 appears to be struggling to get sales as I've only seen them being used for startup airlines or low cost regionals. So feel Airbus has that under control.
@RSole9999
7 ай бұрын
"snipping at the 37s heals"? You mean nipping at the heels. Sheesh...
@darkstartv9294
7 ай бұрын
@@RSole9999 yep. Nipping 😄
@tonyharvey2307
7 ай бұрын
British airways have been using Embraers for at last fifteen years. start up?
@maxmike181
7 ай бұрын
I haven’t been thinking “how is the 737 still around” as much as “how can you screw up making a plane you’ve been building since dirt was a baby”?
@nurrizadjatmiko21
7 ай бұрын
As a 20 year old Indonesian Avgeek, The Boeing 737 Classic is the aircraft that started my first ever experience flown onboard an airplane when i was a kid at about 16 years ago. Few years later, i started to learn about the Boeing 737 and it turns out the 737 has many tragic accidents especially The Rudder Hardover Saga. With that saga is over, i am confident the 737 is the best and most popular aircraft in the world. But in October 2018, the table's turn. March 2019 however is the final blow for Boeing. January 2024, everyone is again trying to avoid the Boeing 737 MAX and i am curious wanted to experience my first ride onboard the MAX. Time will tell.
@jankrusat2150
7 ай бұрын
From what I remember, the Sud Aviation Caravelle was the first of the twin tailmounted engine airliners for short and medium routes. She had her first flight in 1955, followed by the BAC 1-11 in 1963. The DC-9 came in 1965. All of them had a similar rear airstair as the B727 and were relatively low to allow loading to be done manually.
@NicolaW72
7 ай бұрын
Indeed, exactly.
@awuma
7 ай бұрын
There was a bunch of rear-engined Soviet airliners of that era, too. Apart from engines disintegratiing and taking out the other engines plus flight controls, they were tough birds.
@jankrusat2150
7 ай бұрын
@@awuma Yes, the Tu-134, first flight 1963 a nd the Tu-154, first flight 1968, but both needed external stairs, at least bthey did not have airstairs in the back. Then there was the little Yak-40 (today it would be classed as a small regional jet), first flight 1966, and the larger Yak-42, first flight 1972, which both had rear stairs. All came long after the Caravelle, the BAC 1-11 and the DC-9.
@Clery75019
7 ай бұрын
The Caravelle (first flight in 1955) was indeed a very innovative aircraft establishing many standards for jet airliners that are still used today. It is also, in many ways, the ancestor of what will become Airbus.
@kennethoconnell8476
7 ай бұрын
Don’t forget the Boeing 717, Boeings version of the DC9.
@surferdude4487
7 ай бұрын
That's a pretty good run for an aircraft that was built on compromises. I flew on a 787 a few months ago. It is in a whole different class from the 737.
@mdhazeldine
7 ай бұрын
I've flown on a few 787s recently. On my last flight on one, (Air Canada) the whole cabin interior shook/wobbled around as we took off and landed (all the overhead bins were visually shaking above our heads) and some of the tinted windows had already gone discoloured (brown). The 777 I had on the return journey felt like a much better built plane. A bit disappointing TBH.
@kell7195
7 ай бұрын
Yep while old isnt necessarily bad there are definite advantages in flying inside something built within the same Century you are in.
@James-xs9mn
7 ай бұрын
787 is a beautiful plane agreed. 😊
@aycc-nbh7289
7 ай бұрын
So what happens if Airbus keeps working on the A320 and Boeing is not motivated to discontinue the B737?
@kell7195
7 ай бұрын
@@aycc-nbh7289 They go broke.
@christophernassopoulos2497
7 ай бұрын
Great and informative video, as usual! I too find the 757 to be a nice looking airplane...except on the ground. Those spindly, gangly teenager-like legs are almost comical. And now I'm thinking to buy some shares of Boeing while they are cheap to see what they can do over the next decade or two. Despite the turmoil, I always have faith in them. Maybe it's the wing pins the airlines used to give us kids back in the day, and stabbing myself with those things and bleeding on the seats made me a sentimental fool for venerable old Boeing. They haven't let me down (uneasily) yet! Keep the quality content coming!
@ramr7051
7 ай бұрын
Note: the fuselage cross sections of 727 and 737 are not the same. The lower cargo compartment is larger in the 727.
@michaelmccotter4293
7 ай бұрын
Growing up and living in Alaska all my life, I have great respect for the mighty 737. Overall it has proven to be a rugged and efficient aircraft that has operated in some of the most rugged flying conditions geography and economics has thrown at any aircraft design. I remember a crabbed up landing at Deadhorse on a frozen airstrip where Alaska Airlines had to cancel the day before because of 80 mph winds and whiteout conditions. The next day when we landed it was still blowing pretty hard and the pilot masterfully landed in a stiff crosswind. So stiff that looking out my window in front of the wing I could see the runway lights layed out at maybe a 15 degree angle to the length of the aircraft. Crabbed into the wind until right at touch down, the pilot straightened the plane to touch on parallel with the centerline. Many, many fond memories over the years flying in, around, and in and out of Alaska on 737's. Boeing or "Boing" as my (former P51 pilot), father used to say, will bounce back. Oh Dad used to call Alaska Airlines, "Elastic Airlines" for the same reason. Anchorage, Alaska
@---l---
7 ай бұрын
Awesome Dad jokes.
@dianewach4168
7 ай бұрын
"elastic airlines" never met him, but i love your dad
@jimsteinway695
7 ай бұрын
They just need to get rid of the Douglas accountants and hire their engineering managers back
@petep.2092
7 ай бұрын
@@jimsteinway695 Doesn't it get tiring to beat that old dead horse called McDD? Aside from being ridiculously over-exaggerated, it glosses over the fact that those intrepid engineering managers were the ones who pooh-poohed the awkward startup across the Atlantic and their cheap, no frills first product suitably named "bus," and even after it began selling like hot cakes; they scoffed at the fly-by-wire technology on the next platform too, until they woke up one day and found they had allowed the scruffy startup to grow up and catch up and become an equal competitor that was now eating Boeing's lunch. The lamenting about McDD corrupting Boeing doesn't say much about the resilience of the old Boeing if they capitulated so easily and a quarter century later are still pining for the glory days. Yes, McDD had developed some pretty bad habits, from working with the U.S. armed services during the Cold War, but much of that ended with the Cold War. The one thing truly corrosive that McDD had was a union that would cut off its nose to spite its face. Just say NO to ANY thing management proposed, seemed to be its unwavering philosophy, until the Cold War ended and they suddenly saw the demise of the company as a distinct possibility, then they began to cooperate, but it was too late. Still, that old nature of the union seems to be the biggest thing that infected Boeing and lingers. The engineers of old perhaps weren't pushed very hard to focus on costs together with safety, but its 25+ years later and by now they should have learned that engineering is defined as: The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and ECONOMICAL structures, machines, processes, and systems. Whining about management being focused on costs is stupid, no one said it had to be in lieu of safety. I know Boeing employees take great pride in pithy sayings such as: Quality, Cost, Schedule… pick any two. Why?!! A competent person will strive to balance all three. The same with safety. It doesn't have to come in lieu of efficiency or cost. The biggest cultural change needs to come at the rank and file level. Other Seattleites didn't give them the nickname "Lazy B" for no reason.
@The_ZeroLine
7 ай бұрын
Yeah, the 757’s awesome. In La Paz, Bolivia (the 🌎’s highest airport + the exact environment it was made for - high and hot!), I got to sit in the cockpit during take off. Wow! It’s the M5 of passenger airplanes.
@marcmcreynolds2827
7 ай бұрын
I did a braking analysis for a hypothetical hydraulics-out landing of another airliner type at LaPaz. Dicey.
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
the 757 is coming back............
@csdstudio78
7 ай бұрын
I once flew on a very lightly filled 757, the acceleration was awesome.
@awuma
7 ай бұрын
@@CaptainStandiford Huh? Same fuselage width (139" interior) as 737 and 707.
@The_ZeroLine
7 ай бұрын
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Awesome. What is your profession?
@SimonWallwork
7 ай бұрын
True. It is past its sell by date- but money is the main thing at Boeing these days. They could, and should, have built a new jet to compete with the 320 Neo- and absolutely everyone knows it. The Max was a cludge.
@IridiumRedTheOrigina
5 ай бұрын
The fact that the 737 was designed as a stop-gap.... explains SO much. It reminds me of the saying "theres nothing more permanent than a temporary government solution"
@beuvue
7 ай бұрын
Quality issue... like Italian sports cars of the '80: nice design, good performance that get you quickly to the next garage.
@sayorancode
2 ай бұрын
yes or in this case the great hangar (aircraft garage) in the sky
@TSomasundaram
7 ай бұрын
I fly 2 days a week from Seattle to San Diego. Since January I switched from Alaska to Delta First Class. At first I was skeptical about the A220. Now I love the Aircraft. At least up front the plane is quiet, efficient and bright. Unlike the A321 that Alaska inherited from Virgin America, the Delta A220 galley seems large enough to serve 4 different hot meals. The interior that Delta uses seems very nice. So I suppose I am hopeful that eventually Boeing will ditch the 737 (I do like the Max 9) and develop an answer to the A220.
@awuma
7 ай бұрын
Does the A220 have the full size overhead luggage lockers that the MAX has?
@neilpickup237
7 ай бұрын
@@awumaThe luggage lockers on the A220 are absolutely fantastic. They are so big that they swallow my maximum size roll-on bag on its side wheels first.
@Dirk-van-den-Berg
7 ай бұрын
Petter, one of the main reasons holidayairlines like Transavia are gradually fasing out their 737-8 fleet and replace them with Airbus A320neo's and 321neo's, is because of the noise the current engines produce. I myself live directly under the approachroute of runway 06 of Schiphol. Planes come over at approx 1200 meter, and especially the noise of 737ceo's is deafening. When I compare them to more modern types, the Airbus 320family are far more bearable. Still noisy, but way less noisy than the 737's. Since airplanenoise is THE major cause of complaints from people living around Schiphol, I feel that your video has neglected this aspect of the plane and why airlines are on course to run the 737's out.
@marcmcreynolds2827
7 ай бұрын
My experience: CFM-56 equipped 737s had been flying their downwind leg over my house for some time when one day a louder/shriller sound had me running outside to see I thought might be a 707 making an emergency landing. That was my introduction to the CFM-56 on an A320. Maybe their C-weighted sound level looks fine, but the overall effect was in a different category than the 737, at least to these ears. Perhaps the engine mount isolation or something?
@bobwilson758
7 ай бұрын
Move - get new camp ⛺️
@davidpowell3347
7 ай бұрын
Does a lot of the noise from descending airliners on final approach or at least in a late leg come from the control surfaces and flaps/slats/ landing gear turbulence ? (rather than engine noise)
@Dirk-van-den-Berg
7 ай бұрын
@@davidpowell3347 Nope. When they come over my house I hear the engines spooling back, which results in a deafening noise. Typical sound, without looking on FR24 I can tell it is a 737-8. It is a low thunderous noise. Flaps, slats make a higherpitched sound.
@Dirk-van-den-Berg
7 ай бұрын
Not funny. @@bobwilson758
@charlesmoulton9796
7 ай бұрын
Well one question would be what we mean by “compete.” It is not as if old designs stop actually flying. A DC-3 for example will still fly today, nearly a century after its development.
@carcharhinus_555
7 ай бұрын
It will however be hard to convince any airline driven by efficiency (be it fuel, pilot time or crew time) to actually buy and use them 🙂
@michaelscott356
7 ай бұрын
Reminds me of another one of my favourite "aging" jokes: old golfers never die... they just lose their balls!
@myth-n-m4yhem
7 ай бұрын
always enjoyable and informative. Truly like how you show issues in context of time and other factors like competitors
@tomgsand172
7 ай бұрын
I remember those back stairs on some planes when i was younger, not sure what planes they were exactly, but i clearly remember an exit out the back of the plane, i could look out a little window into the stairs compartment while i was waiting for the bathroom lol
@velisvideos6208
7 ай бұрын
In early 80's I was fairly late for my flight in Helsinki and was whisked off to the plane straight from check-in. ( This was before "security" was invented.) Everybody else was already on board when I entered from the back. Felt like a VIP for sure. This was probably the high point of my life..
@Dirk-van-den-Berg
7 ай бұрын
Back in the 2000's, I was on a short flight between Philadelphia and Reagan National. When we left the terminal building, we were bussed to a small turbopropplane, and embarked through - indeed - backstairs. Back then I wasn't interested in types of planes, so I couldn't tell what kind of plane it was at all.
@Dirk-van-den-Berg
7 ай бұрын
@@velisvideos6208 Somewhere in the 2000's, I had a transfer in Chicago. Coming from Seattle and flying to Amsterdam. The pilot on arriving in Chicago told us the local time. When I transferred - had been waiting at least two hours - I got into the plane, only to realize I was the very last passenger to get in. Right after me the door closed. Then I realized the pilot on the previous plane HAD TOLD US THE WRONG LOCAL TIME. He was ONE HOUR off.
@awuma
7 ай бұрын
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg I think "D.B.Cooper" put paid to the rear stairs... he pulled off that stunt twice.
@janTasita
7 ай бұрын
@@awuma Twice?
@padiau78
7 ай бұрын
Of all the bad decisions Boeing has ever made, not buying the C-Series program when they had the chance is certainly the dumbest. What an irony it would be if that program is going to put the final nail into the 737's coffin - or into Boeing's.
@ytzpilot
7 ай бұрын
Perfect video telling the true story behind the Renton 12’ 4” diameter fuselage that links the 707, 727, and 737. The 757 was also 12’ 4” diameter and also built at Renton, but had significant design changes that differentiated from its predecessors
@StratMatt777
7 ай бұрын
Did you know that the 757's aft fuselage extends lower than the front because the 757 started out as an updated 727 and continued using that 727 aft fuselage (even after they decided to give 757 767 commonalities). It extends lower to make a space for the fuel lines to the 727 aft engines that the 757 does not have.
@russfinley4128
7 ай бұрын
Retired Boeing structural stress analysis and design engineer here. I worked on the 707 (AWACS), 7J7 (PD effort), 737, 757, 767 (tanker and cargo), 777 (lead engineer on the original design for in-spar shear tied ribs and heavy fittings). "Now, I'm sure many of you know that the 727's fuselage, which the 737 effectively borrowed, was actually itself borrowed from the even older 707, which had entered service already back in 1958. So, while the 737 has been in production for 57 years, many parts of its design actually date back another eight or nine years, making it as old as Swedish Fish or as the Rolodex." Sorry, but no 737 flying today shares part numbers with the 707, and it wouldn't affect safety if they did. "...the 737 is not only old" You meant to say that the design is old, but it isn't. The use of the numbers 737 to designate the basic model is old, but each new 737 derivative design is a major improvement. "...that aircraft (7J7) was actually supposed to replace both the 737 and the 727." No, just the 727. The 737 was selling well. The open fan engines of the 7J7 were rejected primarily because there was no way to protect against a thrown blade. Imagine one of those passing through a fuselage. Obviously, Boeing's decision to keep improving the basic 737 and ending the 757 production paid off, considering that it is the best selling airliner in the world. All airliners eventually reach the end of their production runs, and agreed, Boeing will need a new design to remain competitive. Resurrecting an improved version of the 757 never got traction, but maybe it will some day (also same fuselage diameter as 707). It has long landing gear that could accommodate larger diameter engines.
@bobmccaig6584
7 ай бұрын
It would have been nice to have mentioned the archaic flight deck computers that can't be updated because the airplane would have to go through a whole new recertification process. It's akin to trying to surf the net and be competitive today with an old Intel 286 computer. Computers today are about 40,000 times faster than they were back then, but then the 737 flight deck can take advantage of any of that-a huge shame!!
@mnoxman
7 ай бұрын
As a flying member of the public (aka passenger) I will be actively avoiding any 737 I can from now on. It will be interesting to note if consulting companies give guidance to their employees to avoid the 737.
@j_taylor
7 ай бұрын
The thing is, statistically 737s are very safe. There is a lot to be said for peace of mind, though, and certainly many people are reading the news and will avoid them for a while. It can be hard to really know what plane you'll get. Maybe some airlines will start offering a guaranteed no-737 option.
@franziskani
7 ай бұрын
@@j_taylor Yes but the stats come from a time when the company was not yet run by bean counters with the mindset of asset strippers that do not mind corporate murder and harming he company - as long as THEY are doing good for a few years, will get their bonus or golden handshake AND because of being emeshed with politics (donations, military contracts and resulting contacts) they can be sure that they will not be criminally prosecuted. And one can undermine quality control and negelect new developments for a while. It will not show immediately. Boeing was run by people with an asset stripping mentality for many years and now it shows. The new production sites in the South are a problem as well. Drugs taken on site etc. So some missing bolts or screws or washers would not be an issue. There is undercover footage, the voices are changed and the faces pixled out. One of the workers (it was filmed on site !) said that he knows that collegues take drugs during breaks. And that he avoids the machine when he books a flight. I guess that would not have happened in Seattle where they had the "old guard" around and any new production member would be trained by experienced people that would not put up with nonsense. But Boeing had to show unions and the striking workers.
@franziskani
7 ай бұрын
@@j_taylor The 737 MAX stats are terrible, though. The stats on being grounded in the last 5 - 6 years are terrible (not only loss of life but the economic impact for airlines that have them in their fleet). The whole 737 family had a lot of flaws weeded out by a high number of machines being in operation over decades. So Murphy's Law had some time to work ... But that proud record can be easily undermined by cutting corners with quality control or with necessary certification NOW. And one of the results of the asset stripping mentality (with Boeing and potentially also with their suppliers) was that they outsourced (Spirit was a part of Boeing before it was sold). That outsourcing mentality also caused the financial fiasco regarding the new 787 Dreamliner development. They were billions of USD behind and the delays also cost them dearly (and helped Airbus). There is a saying: if you go cheap to will have to buy twice - Boeing did a version of that with the Dreamliner. They gave up a reliable production site to start over in the South, etc. There was some brain drain / skill drain and loss of culture just by moving out. Or the idiocy of moving out the headquarters away from production. Now that could be overcome if at least managment had the proper attitude. There were board members of Boeing that held patents. The company used to be run by engineers who had the mindset of engineers, had pride in their product, and would think long term. The dudes that are at the helm now could as well sell and market furniture or meat or fast food - it is about them and they know they will not stay long with the company. So if their mindset creates problems for Boeing long term - who cares, they will be good. Managers like that are a logical consequence of "shareholder value". (short term buying of stocks to avoid the term "investing"). Of course it was easy for Boeing managment to have the FAA defunded and to lobby politicians to that effect. And of course top managers know that they will not be criminally prosecuted. At worst they get the golden handshake and the company ! pays a hefty fine (they "settle")
@billwoodman4658
7 ай бұрын
Interesting video. Boeing made a mistake in taking Bombardier to court. They should have instead worked with them to acquire/produce the C series, ending up with a new more modern design than the max. But hindsight has 20/20 vision.
@henson2k
7 ай бұрын
Boeing did a lot of mistakes like moving HQ, playing games with Embraer instead of fixing core business, etc
@franziskani
7 ай бұрын
The Bomardier issue was snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And of course it was done under the same CEO that was also responsible for the MCAS fiasco.
@marckyle5895
7 ай бұрын
They should have a yank back golden parachute rider when it can be proven CEOs helped sink a company instead of leaving it better (whispers) _merely to get the parachute._
@guinnog2
7 ай бұрын
Petter, I love your videos, and your insightful observations about aviation matters. Your use of English is remarkable for a non-native speaker. There's one quirk I've noticed in a few of your videos, and it's "who" versus "which". Basically, it's "who" for humans (and pets) and "which" (or "that") for all other objects. There is some wiggle room, but saying "the engine who they chose" definitely sounds odd. I'm guessing that Swedish doesn't have this feature. I'm also hoping you will take this feedback in the spirit it's intended in. Keep up the good work!
@amorphousblob2721
7 ай бұрын
I've pointed this out before, and he still says "who".
@scotthutchens1556
7 ай бұрын
@guinnog2 I thought he was German but living in Spain.
@guinnog2
7 ай бұрын
@scotthutchens1556 No, I believe he is Swedish. Similar languages though. This distinction doesn't exist in German either, which is why I made the guess that's why he does this.
@scotthutchens1556
7 ай бұрын
@@guinnog2 Thanks! After reading his bio on his website I did see that. You swear he was German though. Haha.
@tonyharvey2307
7 ай бұрын
Hey, I am a staunch defender of the English language, so every time Petter says "descending down" I scream at my screen "as opposed to decending up?"
@titan1235813
7 ай бұрын
Airbus guy here. Apart from the Max version, if the 737 is still around, it's because it is a GREAT airplane.
@johnlebeau5471
7 ай бұрын
The 757 is possibly the best overall airliner ever made. If Boeing hadn't destroyed the tooling to make them, they would be cranking them out as fast as they could right now. The reason they canceled the 757 was that they hadn't sold one for the prior 2 or 3 years. Once it was gone, ETOPS was developed whereby airlines could now operate 2 engine aircraft overwater. All of a sudden the 757 was the perfect size for flights to Hawaii, Europe, the Caribbean, and South America. It has great short field performance making it perfect for Jackson Hole, Laguardia, National, and Santa Ana. The problem with the 737 is that Boeing have tried to make it replace the 757, which it could do if the landing gear was about 3 feet taller. As it is, the long fuselage variants are hampered by the need for higher takeoff and landing speeds to avoid the inevitable tail strike on rotation.
@cpstone100
7 ай бұрын
Yes taller gear, that is also moved outboard to avoid interference at the centerline when the gear is closed. It needs a new wing for the gear changes so a dihedral change may get better engine to runway clearance. A then, major systems upgrades throughout. This would enable larger engines. The increased taxi height enables additional fuselage stretch without tail clearance issues on rotation.
@johnlebeau5471
7 ай бұрын
And that's why they don't do it.@@cpstone100
@fuzzybarnes5124
7 ай бұрын
The C-130 Hercules has a Buildcounter of "only" 1/5th of the 737 but this Bird was first build in 1954 and is build in a row up to now. The Cessna 172 "Skyhawk" was first produced one year later and there were more Skyhawks build than any Boeings and Airbus and Lockheed combined. So the 737 is old, no question, but Aviation, Winegrowers and Whiskeylovers know: Old didnt have to be bad. Quite the opposite is true.
@ewaf88
7 ай бұрын
The 757 is my favourite jet too. First flew on one in 1988 with a CRT instrument panel. I loved it, as it went up like a rocket. The first Jet I flew on, was the 737, way back in 1972.
@scottlewisparsons9551
7 ай бұрын
I think that the 737 is a bit like my grandfather’s axe, it’s had two new heads and five new handles!
@SeanSoraghan
7 ай бұрын
Oh trigger
@robertkeyes258
7 ай бұрын
As you've mentioned, the engine is the most important part of an aircraft's design. Shoe-horning ever larger engines into the 737 is increasing difficult, and I don't think there's any way they could get a larger engine on it. The evidence shows that higher and higher bypass ratios are the course of engine development, which guarantees the engine diameter is to be larger. I think it will be this inability to use the most efficient engines that will close out the 737, perhaps before 2030.
@trevorthomas2373
7 ай бұрын
Common sense tells you that a bigger engine means more ground clearance. Boing thought they could get away with it by not extending the length of the undercarriage. That was their downfall. People died. They fudged it and should pay the consequences. This iteration has been a complete disaster. I will never fly in any 737 max.
@aerobat3
7 ай бұрын
Absolutely. And disappointing that Peter doesn't discuss this, But then, he's a Boeing guy.@@trevorthomas2373
@garymathis1042
7 ай бұрын
I flew in the 737 when I was in the Army back in 1970. I also flew extensively in the 727 around that time.
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
Yeah, you and Dan Cooper, haha
@dannydaw59
7 ай бұрын
Was that 737 flight between Honolulu and Vietnam? I'm not even sure if the 737s could fly that far.
@mykehillingdon
7 ай бұрын
You didn’t mention the alleged engine/wing stability problem that resulted in MCAS, or the current engine anti icing problem: Both of which would stop me, as a retired aircraft maintenance engineer, from ever flying on a 737MAX
@MHalblaub
7 ай бұрын
One point many Boeing fans won't like to touch according to the 737 is grandfathering. The latest MAX is still built according to rules valid for the 737-100. A 737's fuselage needs to endure less g-loads than a current aircraft. Same for the passenger seats. Only double redundancy for mayor systems in the cockpit. Unpowered doors a slim flight attendant may not push open in case the fuselage is slightly rotated and the door has to be pushed upwards. The 737 is a lighter aircraft because many things are missing.
@chrisrautmann8936
7 ай бұрын
"It has design compromises." Yeah. That's the entire purpose of engineering. You make the plane stronger, you add weight, and the plane gets heavier, so it doesn't fly as far or carry as many passengers. You make the plane more innovative, you generally make it more complex, harder and more costly to build, harder to maintain, and has less time actually flying. There is basically nothing you can do in engineering (and aviation in particular) that does not include a number of drawbacks. Threading the needle on those choices determines if you have a successful aircraft, or if you have to scrap the design.
@flsal27
7 ай бұрын
Question to MentourNow pilot about aircraft operations: when in Europe, with Air France for example, they use containers to load luggage in the A/C belly of planes of the A320 family. When I look at Delta, it always use baggage handlers to put baggage in and out of the plane. Why such differences in aircraft operations?
@kenoliver8913
7 ай бұрын
Minimum wage is a lot higher in France than the US. Baggage handlers are cheap in the US, not so much in France. In all industries cheap labour discourages automation.
@cr10001
7 ай бұрын
Apparently the A320 will take standard size baggage containers while the 737 (7" narrower cabin) won't. I suspect this means that in the US (where the 737 predominates) airports just aren't set up to use baggage containers even if Delta would like to use them. And as kenoliver says, baggage handlers in the US are cheap so nobody wants to invest in containers.
@waynehendricks8187
7 ай бұрын
Good video. Yes, I agree that the 737 has been around for a long time and has done well. Personally, I think Airbus has been the leader for some time with the Baby buses (320 family). Boeing needs new engineers that can develop advanced technology. As a Mechanic, I prefer working on Airbuses. As a passenger, I prefer flying on Airbuses. The old saying "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" is fading away. Thanks for all the great information you put out on your videos.
@franziskani
7 ай бұрын
They need new management PRINCIPLES - whenever sth went wrong in the last years you can be sure that there were plenty of engineers that had objections. But if they speak up they will be fired, and if they make suggestions they are ignored. The head engineer was demanding ! a meeting with Boeing management after the first 737 MAX had crashed. And they could not deny him, and if they had fired him he likely would have informed the FAA or become a whistleblower. So he got the meeting - and got told NO. No change of plans, well only 8 months later the next machine crashed. It is much easier to get or train up engineers and to establish a good work flow - than to get the rotten mindset out of thos at the top. And out of the shareholders ! NOW that the rotten mindset (of decades) results in economic damage. They were running on an "asset stripping" attitude and some actors benefitted financially (managers getting a bonus / golden handshake and the main shareholders. Of course they had high profits - those profits should have been reinvested not paid out). NOW they have the financial problems. It was long in the making and it will take a long time to fix - and it has ONLY to do with leadership. Failure of quality control (The Air Alaska door problem) is a managment problem. They found more missing bolts btw. Plus NOW they have a competitor that is very capable. Airbus cannot even benefit fully from Boeings failure, they cannot manufacture the planes fast enough. The A 220 helps - different supply lines and production sites. And some of it is manufactured in Canada. One can suck money out of a biz like Boeing that dominated the market when the beancounters (that do not mind corporate murder) took over. Development of a new airplane can last 10 years (till it is certified). During that time they can have had 3 CEOs. The "modern" type of leader that takes no pride in the product and has no intention of staying for longer with a company, nor do they have any security that they will be allowed to stay. Chances are a CEO that would have thought longterm * would have been fired, because they did not deliver the short term financial gains. Boeing used to be run by engineers ! This was when they were the pride of the nation and dominated the market. * like the managers (that were engineers) that made Boeing a first rate company in the decades before. Short term profits and shareholder values will suffer (a bit) if you do things properly and take your time the first time. Of course it will pay off long term (or cost them dearly if they refuse to act longterm) in the long run. But the management attitudes and shareholder values do not care for good products or the long term good of the company.
@TimoLaine-pv5ph
7 ай бұрын
These days after all Boeing quality and other issues the saying is rather "If it's Boeing, I'm not going". I admit I try to avoid airlines who operate Boeing nowadays, just to not end up deciding at the gate whether to dare to fly a Max or lose the ticket price and screw my schedule. While Max is something I really don't want to fly, I have lost my trust in other newish Boeing products as well.
@MikJames-d1g
7 ай бұрын
They really blew the doors off the competition.
@JRTurgeon13
7 ай бұрын
Comments on the A220. As a Montrealer, I followed (as a non-expert), the saga of the Bombardier C-Series. As the program was announced, the vast majority experts thought that it was a folly to try it. They had a thousand reasons was it was a bad idea: no market for it, the company too smal to compete with Boeing and Airbus, Bombardier financial health was iffy, competence, no facilities to produce the plane... Bombardier produced it. As its certification was going on, Boeing objected to the plane which would have meant years of delay in the American market, even if the motive was frivolous. That broke Bombardier's back. Eventually, Airbus basically got the plane for free. The Provincial government 'invested' 1,3 million CAD when Airbus took over which turned into a total loss. So it's kind of a surprise to hear you say that it is a good airplane that has a market and can compete with the A320/330 and the 737.
@norlockv
7 ай бұрын
This sent me down a Swedish Fish rabbit hole. Great video!
@MrCubflyer
7 ай бұрын
If the blended wing body ever comes out it will put an end to the body wing configuration because they are from what I understand 30 plus percent more efficient.
@tonyharvey2307
7 ай бұрын
De havilland Mosquito?
@msmirandagirl
7 ай бұрын
The big problem with the blended wing/body design is that it would not be compatible with airport gate equipment, specifically the boarding bridge. Boeing had an interesting design concept for a twin aisle replacement for the 737. I don't know what became of that.
@ulicqueldromal
7 ай бұрын
This reminds me of "Die a hero or live long enough to become the villain". Maybe the 737 lived too long.
@ristube3319
7 ай бұрын
0:11 same reason for the B-52
@tomstravels520
7 ай бұрын
787 does still have engine driven hydraulic pumps. One for left system and one for right system. Centre are electrically driven as are the backup L and R It's a bleed air system the Trent 1000 doesn't have
@henson2k
7 ай бұрын
Yup, wrong info in video
@franklinsternberg4528
7 ай бұрын
In addition, I am in the process of booking a trip that does not involve any Boeing aircraft - I lost confidence.
@rustonhutchens783
7 ай бұрын
Wow - You included an image of my favourite aircraft ever... QANTAS 737-300 VH-TAX.. First flew on her when she was delivered new to Australian Airlines BNE-CNS, and then again when she was an old girl (20+) MEL-ADL..
@kell7195
7 ай бұрын
I hear Qantas is getting A321XLRs and A220s, so I wonder how long those 737s will be around in Australian skies? Bonza just got a few 737 Max's though 😳
@alanwatts5445
7 ай бұрын
I think I remember that there are 2 737-100s still in service in Canada. The original 737 was designed for airports with very little in the way of equipment or infrastructure to service and repair the aircraft. And there was even a kit available for the engines on gravel runways. This makes the 737-100 uniquely suitable for airports in the far north of Canada who otherwise would have no airline service. Newer aircraft (including later 737 models) require a lot more equipment to run and require paved runways.
@PenskePC17
7 ай бұрын
When I wasn't really into aviation I always assumed the 727 was smaller than the 737. I was pretty shocked when I saw a size comparison.
@Shadow__133
7 ай бұрын
Yeah, especially if you compare the lower cargo area.
@sparky6086
7 ай бұрын
I wondered why, Boeing pushed the 737 too far, when it would have been prudent to upgrade the 757, the successor to the 727? Seems like; Boeing's shortsightedness & greed, got the best of them, which carried over to their general quality control.
@marcg1686
7 ай бұрын
The 757 production line shut down 7 years before the Max was announced.
@sparky6086
7 ай бұрын
@marcg1686 Good point. That explains it. Too bad, because the 757 may have had a lot more room for advancement, where as the 737 may have been stretched to it's limit.
@kilianortmann9979
7 ай бұрын
757-200 is just too large to fill the requirements of airlines that did operate the -700/800 and are now buying the Max8. Shrinking the 757 would mean a further loss of efficiency, I know it's a great pilots and passenger plane, but the majority of 737/320 customers have no use for it.
@jaym8257
7 ай бұрын
I guess it's the market whether short or medium haul. I recently flew from Chicago to Reykjavik in a 737 MAX. It was an uneventful flight. But it did bounce around in the back of my mind that I was flying a MAX over the ocean instead of a "bigger" plane.
@marcg1686
7 ай бұрын
@@kilianortmann9979 I'm an Airbus fanboi, yet the 737 has always held a special place in my heart. It's the plane that commoditised air travel like no other. I had hoped that Boeing would create a wing wedge for the 737 that would allow the main landing gear to be located further from the fuselage. This would have allowed the LEAP engines to be mounted below the wing. The 757 was in production for 22 years, totalling 1050 aircraft. I agree that a 757 Max would have included many compromises that would have limited its appeal.
@ohrosberg
7 ай бұрын
Tjänare, Peter... I understand your affection for the 737, since it is near and dear to your heart. Yet, I can't help thinking that the MAX was one iteration too many given all the problems they've had with it. I'm not talking about the quality management issues and all of that, but the placement of the engine, MCAS, and other "fixes" to make it doable. I still believe that the NG, which I truly enjoy flying in, should have been the last version before a brand new, and designed from scratch airplane in that category should have replaced it.
@franziskani
7 ай бұрын
If Boeing had had ANY consideration for fuel costs they would have developed sth like the 737 MAX (a relatively cheap and fast fix) a few years earlier w/o the pressure of Airbus selling in their market. And with proper development time and no criminally cutting of corners the 737 MAX MCAS would work well enough. (and they would not have let a company in India w/o experience in aviation projects do the coding. But then - maybe this was not about saving money. But any (U.S. / European / Canadian) company that usually does those type of projects for the aviation industry would have noted that this is NOT a harmless fix and they would have noted that they only code for the input of ONE sensor. There would have been leaks to the public and / or the FAA and I guess if the companies are run properly they would not even accept such a project. Liability issues for instance. Sure a software fix for an engineering problem is a potential source of problems, but if quality control and the MINDSET of management had been appropriate they would not have had any crashes or headlines so far. The door shows a major quality problem. It has nothing to do with the age of the design. Or one iteration too many. It was the deliberate decision of Boeing to only use ONE signal for the correction. Even though they do have 2 signals (Airbus uses three if a sensor gives critical input). This is why they had so many problems (that were not fatal) before the first crash. And betweent the two crashes. Those sensor can get dirty or malfunction for other reasons. Think ice, rain, dust in the desert, ..... or winds bringing unusual amounts of Sahara particles .... And they do have a "cutting corners" quality problem. The beancounters and lawyers have an asset stripping mindset. Spirit the company that sells them so many components - incl. I think fuselage - used to be a part of Boeing. And then it was "outsources". WHY ??? The managers that keep the operation running that is now covered by Spirit (or other outside companies) did not have any incentive to cut corners (w/o the knowledge of Boeing managment, that is).
@franziskani
7 ай бұрын
In general I agree with your view that too many iterations and compromises are a _potential_ source of problems & risks. On the other hand a lot of potential problems have been weeded out by decades of large fleets flying.
@mfc4591
7 ай бұрын
Way back when I flew on a 737 and it was a smaller version, exactly which one i cannot recall....probably a 200 (which will upset the aero plane buffs !), but it was always in my mind a 'smaller' plane, imagine how my mind was blown when I boarded an international flight and it was a 737.....400 series. Never the less what a popular aero plane and considering everything has done extremely well.
@sunilrchopra
7 ай бұрын
I have watched many of your videos and must say you're the best! You make me watch the entire video by presentation alone.
@andy99ish
6 ай бұрын
Nothing was more elegant than the 707. Nothing was cooler than the 727. And nothing more majestic than the 747.
@sparky6086
7 ай бұрын
Loved the 727.
@svr5423
7 ай бұрын
Same. One of the iconic planes of my childhood.
@gupler
7 ай бұрын
You cant have decades of horrible education where most kids dont now basic math when they hit university, move manufacturing to other cheap places and then expect to create stuff that works.
@daviddorado5632
7 ай бұрын
These history videos are best and enjoyable Enhorabuena
@MentourNow
7 ай бұрын
Glad you like them! 💕💕
@daviddorado5632
7 ай бұрын
@@MentourNow love them!
@clarkjanes3094
7 ай бұрын
Petter running through a lush forest in uniform with his laptop was hilarious! Glad you are feeling better.
@mangos2888
7 ай бұрын
😂😂😂
@HaroldBrice
7 ай бұрын
Anxiety and/or depression are real things.
@ironcito1101
7 ай бұрын
We need some sort of revolution in transportation, like we had in communication. We're still traveling essentially the same way as we did 50 years ago. The same speed, the same hours waiting at the airport, still stuck in traffic.
@j_taylor
7 ай бұрын
I would argue that communication has always been part of transportation. And that communication advances are affecting transportation. There are physical goods: perishable foods often go by air, to be sure they arrive in good condition. Some items (like parts to repair a manufacturing plant) must arrive ASAP. But then there are letters (airmail), legal papers (FedEx), and other urgent business matter, which are increasingly electronic. 50 years ago, people would fly to business meetings, where deals could be made and signed. Again those are more electronic now. Even commuting has changed. I have coworkers who would in the past have flown in on Monday and back home Friday, who now "commute" every day over Zoom. Having said that, I'd be excited about a real revolution in transportation too! What do you think it might look like?
@fleipeg
7 ай бұрын
I have to tell you that I thoroughly enjoy your content. You explain things so well and connect the dots as you walk us through your videos that your viewers always walk away learning something new. Excellent job and thank you to you and your production staff
@peterwhite7041
7 ай бұрын
Honestly, if "You should only do one engine refresh, two if you really push it" becomes written into FAA Guidelines (I think the blood from the MAX crashes was already used to do that, actually)... that won't be a bad thing. The 737 Max feels like a Morris Mini with a modern day Honda Civic Type R drive-train: "It's way more efficient and powerful, but it gets a bit squirrelly if you floor it and didn't pay extra for traction control... good luck!"
@Blank00
7 ай бұрын
Southwest and AA wanted a re-engined 737 and they didn’t take a clean sheet for an answer. But had Boeing gone clean sheet, it would be interesting to see the reaction of other airlines like Continental, Delta, and KLM
@mikerichards6065
7 ай бұрын
If Boeing had been able to control the costs on the 787 project, they would have had the money to follow through on their Yellowstone Y1 design and the MAX would never have happened. The Y1 would have cost $20 billion that they just didn’t have - the MAX would cost about $2 billion. Of course the repeated groundings, compensation and fines caused by the shortcomings of the MAX have long since outstripped the costs of the Y1.
@mikerichards6065
7 ай бұрын
If Boeing had been able to control the costs on the 787 project, they would have had the money to follow through on their Yellowstone Y1 design and the MAX would never have happened. The Y1 would have cost $20 billion that they just didn’t have - the MAX would cost about $2 billion. Of course the repeated groundings, compensation and fines caused by the shortcomings of the MAX have long since outstripped the costs of the Y1.
@raandyy
7 ай бұрын
It sucks seeing this unfold. So many of my friends parents growing up were Boeing employees and they were so proud of their aircraft. They worked at the 747 plant in Everett though. I do remember on a school sponsored summer trip we flew on a 757 and a chaperone sitting next to me was gushing about what a great aircraft it was.
@anthonydelrosario1718
7 ай бұрын
This isn't just the end of the 737 , but Boeing in general . They put stock returns above quality .
@mycosys
7 ай бұрын
I keep asking the same thing about the SM57 microphone from the same era XD
@arildjenssen1672
7 ай бұрын
Don't forget, the boeing 737 was developed in close cooperation with the norwegian airline Braathens SAFE, which became the lead customer of Boeing at that time.
@Brad1711
7 ай бұрын
Come on, man! 787 does not minimize hydraulics. The only things on the 787 that deviate from what is typically hydraulic are the wheel brakes and the stab trim motors. Everything else (flight controls, flaps and slats, landing gear actuation, steering, and thrust reversers) remain hydraulic. Maybe you meant to say the 787 got rid of bleed air. The 787 absolutely has 3 complete hydraulic systems, including engine-driven pumps). It even made the jump to 5000 psi from the traditional 3000 psi. But there’s no bleed air system in the airplane. That’s been replaced by electric Cabin Air Compressors. Wing anti-ice is accomplished by electric heating elements.
@jeffberner8206
7 ай бұрын
Spoilers 4/11 and 5/10 are electrically actuated.
@Brad1711
7 ай бұрын
@@jeffberner8206 4 out of 14 spoilers are electric, ok. The other 10 are hydraulic, as well as the 4 aileron actuators, 4 flaperon actuators, 4 elevator actuators, and 3 rudder actuators.
@jeffberner8206
7 ай бұрын
@@Brad1711 I was a structural engineer for the 787 Moveable Trailing Edge in Preliminary Design when this configuration was determined.
@PasleyAviationPhotography
7 ай бұрын
A modern 737 Max is only comparable to a 100 or 200 in name only, they are worlds apart. It's akin to saying the F-86D is a version of the F-86A, I'm sure many of you already know why.
@TommyRaines
7 ай бұрын
At some point, updating an ancient airframe to duck re-design and aircrew re-training costs becomes a triumph of accounting over wisdom. MCAS was a stark illustration of how absurd the process had become - modern engines wouldn't fit under the wings and the software tried to make the resulting camel behave like a racehorse so that pilots didn't need to be re-trained. Surely that point cannot be far away ?
@marckyle5895
7 ай бұрын
I'm not picturing Yosemite Sam with a pilot's cap hitting a 737 while saying "When I say 'whoa', plane, I mean 'whoa'." am I?
@kristiaan1
7 ай бұрын
I must say, that not watching your videos for a while, you’ve made a huge progress. Not just your content and visual, but also the delivery, vocabulary, phraseology… you sound like a native speaker. Yes, you have a faint accent but even that is way less noticeable than before. 👌
Пікірлер: 2,6 М.