[vikramkr]

On what basis? They're trying to fix a fundamental aerodynamic design failure with a software patch. The entire physical design if the airplane is flawed, and they arent rebuilding the entire fleet, just pushing another software patch.

[MaxBarraclough]

A downside of there being so many threads on this fiasco is that many of the same points get made each time.

I'll post the usual counterpoint: this isn't a new. The F-16 for instance is also famously unstable, and cannot be flown without computer assistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...

[brokenmachine]

General Dynamics never claimed the F-16 was just a slightly modified Cessna in order to avoid having to retrain pilots and have it safety tested, however.

[guilhermetk]

No OP so I can't comment on his source, but I heard the exact same statement from a maintenance engineer who works on Boeing aircrafts for over 30 years (https://www.linkedin.com/in/joselitosousa). He also owns a youtube channel on which he discuss mainly aviation (pt/br) (https://www.youtube.com/avioesemusicas)

[gbersac]

its youtube is in spanish. Sad.

[brokenmachine]

As I understand it, the 737 itself is not flawed, but when you add huge new engines that need to be much further forward just so they don't hit the ground, that's what makes it unstable.

The whole problem was that they were trying to pass off an airplane that now has very different handling characteristics as a 737, in order to avoid retraining and proper safety testing.