[msbarnett]

Sure, “changing the name” fixes the problem if you also...change the rest of the airframe.

It’s really not maintaining the type certification that’s the problem, it’s the aerodynamics of the airframe. If they’d called it a 797 from the beginning it would still have needed the MCAS to get FAA approval because the insane aerodynamics mean the stick forces don’t obey the regulations for constant increase in forces approaching a stall. The MCAS isn’t there just so it can pretend to be a 737.

So yeah changing the name is only a solution if by changing the name you mean fundamentally changing every aspect of it.

[sandworm101]

>>> Sure, “changing the name” fixes the problem if you also...change the rest of the airframe. It’s really not maintaining the type certification that’s the problem, it’s the aerodynamics of the airframe.

I don't think you understand the regulatory regime. Changing the name, creating it as a new airframe, means total top-to-bottom re-certification. That means they can ditch all the legacy equipment and start the control system from scratch. Most of the problems with the max atm are related to systems layered atop that legacy equipment (autopilot, control surfaces etc) that cannot be swapped out without changing the type/name.

[msbarnett]

Right but the type certification has nothing to do with why it’s designed the way it is. You seem to think they started with “maintain type certification uber alles” as their goal, when it was actually just a happy consequence of their goal, which was “sell airlines an airframe the same size as current 737s, so they can keep using the same height gates and service vehicles as their vast 737 fleets, but make it much more fuel efficient”

The fucking name isn’t the problem. Trying to work fuel efficiency into too small a package and ending up with something with the stall characteristics of a brick is the problem. Creating it as a “new airframe” fixes the problem only by abandoning the problem they set out to solve, which again, wasn’t “keep the name”.

If this had been the 797 from the getgo, but had tried to put those engines on any airframe that stayed that low to the ground for gate compatibility, they have still needed the MCAS because of the aerodynamics of the necessary engine placement.

Remember that the 737 is such a big seller because it has huge usage on regional routes and in smaller countries. It lands at airports where they still wheel up a set of stairs, or one of those double-decker deplaning buses. The height is a big deal for established infrastructure of customers. If it weren’t, they could have redesigned the landing gear to get the necessary engine clearance instead of fucking up the aerodynamics by moving the engines.

The height, and not the name, is the original sin from which every shitty consequence flows.

[burfog]

They sure could make an MCAS-free 797 low to the ground with those engines. There are lots of ways.

The popular way is with a T-tail and podded engines off the sides of the rear of the body. Boeing has produced such an aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717

Another way is with a high-mounted wing. This is popular for military cargo jets, such as the C-5 and C-17.

Putting engines above the wing is an option. Boeing did it for the YC-14, Antonov did it for the An-72, VFW-Fokker did it for the 614, and Honda did it for the Hondajet.

The landing gear could have be made to stick out extra long for the takeoff and landing, but then partially retract for passenger boarding. During passenger boarding, the aircraft could even sit on the engines.