• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Would you fly on a Boeing 737 Max?

scaramanga said:
Strange that there appears to be a number of these in a short space of time.

The 777 has been flying for about 25 years and those engines will have cycled at least 4 or 5 times in the lifespan of each shell. I wonder if being left in storage for a while and then brought back into service has had some kind of effect.
Click to expand...

Ah yes good point. I know even when grounded they go and run the engines to keep things ticking over, but its not the same as a full flight. Same with cars - the engine feels better after a good workout.

The other thing is the drive for efficient engines has pushed RR, PW etc to the limit. They have squeezed so much fuel efficiency from these modern jet engines that I think we are seeing how close to the line they are flying. Similar to Boeing - they had to compete with planes/ engines that save fuel, to win orders. There will need to be a paradigm shift to get even more efficiency, however. The coming years will probably just see consolidation - making these extremely efficient engines robust.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Ah yes good point. I know even when grounded they go and run the engines to keep things ticking over, but its not the same as a full flight. Same with cars - the engine feels better after a good workout.

The other thing is the drive for efficient engines has pushed RR, PW etc to the limit. They have squeezed so much fuel efficiency from these modern jet engines that I think we are seeing how close to the line they are flying. Similar to Boeing - they had to compete with planes/ engines that save fuel, to win orders. There will need to be a paradigm shift to get even more efficiency, however. The coming years will probably just see consolidation - making these extremely efficient engines robust.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's flying close to the line in terms of manufacturers. Sometimes the Swiss Cheese model of safety can seem like that when the holes happen to align, but there are so many layers of safety still. Denver was a great example of that. Something failed (probably a blade) but the fuel didn't ignite and the debris was contained to the extent it wasn't fired through the fuselage. These are intended in the design of the engines.

I'm not sure we can attribute this to operator error either - these engines have been in place for a long time and have been excellent. Given the airlines involved I'd be hesitant to suggest any lack of care/maintenance either though.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I don't think anyone's flying close to the line in terms of manufacturers. Sometimes the Swiss Cheese model of safety can seem like that when the holes happen to align, but there are so many layers of safety still. Denver was a great example of that. Something failed (probably a blade) but the fuel didn't ignite and the debris was contained to the extent it wasn't fired through the fuselage. These are intended in the design of the engines.

I'm not sure we can attribute this to manufacturer error either - these engines have been in place for a long time and have been excellent. Given the airlines involved I'd be hesitant to suggest any lack of care/maintenance either though.
Click to expand...

Not a safety line, just the limits of the technology/tolerances. They have pushed the limits of what is possible to save fuel and compromised strength, hence the greater number of engine failures. The fuel-efficient engines are relatively new.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Not a safety line, just the limits of the technology/tolerances. They have pushed the limits of what is possible to save fuel and compromised strength, hence the greater number of engine failures. The fuel-efficient engines are relatively new.
Click to expand...
The 4077 has been in place for over 20 years too, I believe.
 
SpurMeUp said:
With many iterations over the years.

This article suggests lots of innovation still to come... https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-50850242


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Very interesting, but I don't think it's applicable here.

These aren't a brand new design and failing blades isn't a new issue (nor is it as uncommon as one might think). Dumping bits of engine over populated areas is rarer and of more concern. Although the primary role of the casing is to stop the engine firing bits of blade into the fuselage - it did that bit well.
 
Baleforce said:
that's a great example of a system failing gracefully
Click to expand...

Actually it's not, they are designed to (contain the failure), but the loss of the outer ring and the huge piece just falling off the fudging plane suggests it didn't quite go to plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back