737 Replacement

[john smith]

An interesting column in today's WSJ predicts that Boeing will take
advantage of the European squabbles over AirBus to design and build a
737 replacement. The theory being that AirBus is so mired in its
political protectionism and the loss of billions of dollars on the A380
and A350 that it will be decades before they will even be able to think
about building a third new aircraft.

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:
> An interesting column in today's WSJ predicts that Boeing will take
> advantage of the European squabbles over AirBus to design and build a
> 737 replacement. The theory being that AirBus is so mired in its
> political protectionism and the loss of billions of dollars on the A380
> and A350 that it will be decades before they will even be able to think
> about building a third new aircraft.

This has actually been in the works for some time. I interviewed for a
job at Boeing in May 2005, and they guys I was interviewing with told
me that there were plans to come out with a plastic 737 based on the
787 technology.

I was offered two different positions working on the 787, but since the
salary was comparable to an offer I had in Idaho, and the cost of
living is so much higher in Seattle, I just couldn't justify moving my
family there. I had previously worked at Boeing on the 777 and knew it
would have been fun to work on the 787, but when you have a family
there are other considerations to think about.

Dean

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:56:06 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>An interesting column in today's WSJ predicts that Boeing will take
>advantage of the European squabbles over AirBus to design and build a
>737 replacement. The theory being that AirBus is so mired in its
>political protectionism and the loss of billions of dollars on the A380
>and A350 that it will be decades before they will even be able to think
>about building a third new aircraft.

Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

[Mxsmanic]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford.net> writes:

> Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
> 747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
> is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
> new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
> by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
> flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

I like Boeing because they are conservative as compared to Airbus.
Airbus will throw any kind of gadget on an aircraft just to have
something to differentiate them from Boeing. However, when it comes
to aviation and safety, I tend to prefer tried and true solutions in
most cases. Years of experience with computers also makes me
extraordinarily wary of anything that is run by them; I know what kind
of garbage they put inside.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford.net> writes:
>
>> Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
>> 747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
>> is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
>> new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
>> by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
>> flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.
>
> I like Boeing because they are conservative as compared to Airbus.
> Airbus will throw any kind of gadget on an aircraft just to have
> something to differentiate them from Boeing.

How wrong can you be?!?

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

> However, when it comes
> to aviation and safety, I tend to prefer tried and true solutions in
> most cases. Years of experience with computers also makes me
> extraordinarily wary of anything that is run by them; I know what kind
> of garbage they put inside.
>
Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOBRfyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhmSAKDfcU7tYHj8InNOIdNQaF nttCO+ngCg2lDK
fqWl04fNeXh95RktShLG9wc=
=mfCF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[john smith]

In article >,
A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
> very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
> before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
> family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
> consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
> before saying something you can't back up.

The definition of "winglet" you are using to describe the things at the
end of the Airbus wing is a little on the thin side. Compared to the
"winglets", tipsails, whatever a given manufacturer chooses to call
them, that Boeing uses, the Airbus endplates certainly do not provide
the same aerodynamic advantage.

[Mike Schumann]

The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
new aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:
>
>> Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
>> very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
>> before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
>> family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
>> consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
>> before saying something you can't back up.
>
> The definition of "winglet" you are using to describe the things at the
> end of the Airbus wing is a little on the thin side. Compared to the
> "winglets", tipsails, whatever a given manufacturer chooses to call
> them, that Boeing uses, the Airbus endplates certainly do not provide
> the same aerodynamic advantage.

[[email protected]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
> made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
> new aircraft.
>
The "third party" was a group of retired Boeing aerodynamics engineers.

Dean

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
> very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
> before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
> family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
> consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
> before saying something you can't back up.

As I said, Boeing is conservative. I consider safety much more
important than fuel economy.

> Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
> they run a lot more things than you realize.

I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
how and why they fail.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Skywise]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
> who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
> how and why they fail.

Computers are infallible.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
>> very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
>> before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
>> family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
>> consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
>> before saying something you can't back up.
>
> As I said, Boeing is conservative. I consider safety much more
> important than fuel economy.

Safety can not be weighed against fuel economy. Apples to
oranges. Weigh the fuel economy of the B737 without the winglets and
vortices to the A319/A320 with the winglets, then see how Boeing was
behind, and finally caught up.

>> Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
>> they run a lot more things than you realize.
>
> I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
> who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
> how and why they fail.
>

People who put them in already understand the pros and cons for
what they are doing, and know when and when not to put them where they
are. Until you decide to use them to your advantage instead of letting
your fear and paranoia of them rule you, you will always look, feel,
and appear to be ignorant. But if that is how you want to run your
life, so be it. No bother to me. Oh, btw.. be sure to use the crank
next time you start your car, and to take out the computer modules that
help you start your engine.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOHejyBkZmuMZ8L8RAl/9AKDMjZ3EVkRP9u7p4FaG9Hi7MlxO3gCgzcgW
t9X6w9HmZ2DJ0fVPrI4KtlQ=
=vE0l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
"Mike Schumann" > wrote:

> The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
> made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
> new aircraft.

A lot of stuff on Boeing aircraft aren't Boeing products.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> A lot of stuff on Boeing aircraft aren't Boeing products.
>

A lot of stuff on a lot aircraft of any brand name aren't the same brand
name as the aircraft. <G>

[Mxsmanic]

Skywise writes:

> Computers are infallible.

But software is not--because software is written by human beings, who
are fallible.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Safety can not be weighed against fuel economy.

They can be assigned priorities. I assign a higher priority to
safety, and I'm not alone.

> People who put them in already understand the pros and cons for
> what they are doing, and know when and when not to put them where they
> are.

No, they do not, as Airbus has regularly illustrated, beginning way
back in Habsheim. Airbus cares more about fancy press than safety.
They care more about glitter than substance.

> Oh, btw.. be sure to use the crank
> next time you start your car, and to take out the computer modules that
> help you start your engine.

No need for the first, but the second isn't such a bad idea.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> But software is not--because software is written by human beings, who
> are fallible.

oh, and whence do you reckon hardware comes? handed over to
us by angels or something? I have worked on low level embedded
stuff, and believe me, there are bugs in hardware -- even
though it is not always possible to get these @#%!! hardware
engineers to admit it. But I digress :-)

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> oh, and whence do you reckon hardware comes?

Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
incentive to get it right.

> I have worked on low level embedded
> stuff, and believe me, there are bugs in hardware ...

I don't doubt that, but it hardly excuses bugs in software.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> But software is not--because software is written by human beings, who
>> are fallible.
>
> oh, and whence do you reckon hardware comes? handed over to
> us by angels or something? I have worked on low level embedded
> stuff, and believe me, there are bugs in hardware -- even
> though it is not always possible to get these @#%!! hardware
> engineers to admit it. But I digress :-)

You are playing into his hands. That is how trolls work, remember?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

> Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
> difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
> does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
> is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
> incentive to get it right.
>

Oh really? How many circuit boards have you designed? I have designed
quite a few, and have done the embedded firmware for them as well.
Hardware designs can have bugs just as can software, they are just of a
different nature. Hardware bugs can be much harder to find and fix
than software becasue they are often the results of multiple variables
(circuit/environment/input conditions/power quality etc.). By
comparison, software is at least constrained to a specific set of
instructions and syntax. Plenty of hardware designs have bugs that
slip past initial testing and don't get found until the right corner
condition is hit...

Dean

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Oh really? How many circuit boards have you designed? I have designed
> quite a few, and have done the embedded firmware for them as well.

Embedded firmware is software.

Vacuum-powered artificial horizons don't require much in the way of
circuits or firmware.

> Hardware designs can have bugs just as can software, they are just of a
> different nature. Hardware bugs can be much harder to find and fix
> than software becasue they are often the results of multiple variables
> (circuit/environment/input conditions/power quality etc.). By
> comparison, software is at least constrained to a specific set of
> instructions and syntax. Plenty of hardware designs have bugs that
> slip past initial testing and don't get found until the right corner
> condition is hit...

So add the hardware risks to the software risks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>

>
>Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
>difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
>does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
>is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
>incentive to get it right.
>


The human brain has many known shortcomings.
Above, for example, is an illustration of one in complete failure mode.

GF

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Safety can not be weighed against fuel economy.
>
>They can be assigned priorities. I assign a higher priority to
>safety, and I'm not alone.
>

>No, they do not, as Airbus has regularly illustrated, beginning way
>back in Habsheim. Airbus cares more about fancy press than safety.
>They care more about glitter than substance.
>



All of this moronic blather is unworthy of response, not to mention
disrespectful of everything truthful and of anyone who knows anything about
airplanes.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
>>Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
>>difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
>>does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
>>is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
>>incentive to get it right.
>>
>
>
> Oh really? How many circuit boards have you designed? I have designed
> quite a few, and have done the embedded firmware for them as well.
> Hardware designs can have bugs just as can software, they are just of a
> different nature. Hardware bugs can be much harder to find and fix
> than software becasue they are often the results of multiple variables
> (circuit/environment/input conditions/power quality etc.). By
> comparison, software is at least constrained to a specific set of
> instructions and syntax. Plenty of hardware designs have bugs that
> slip past initial testing and don't get found until the right corner
> condition is hit...

I agree. I started life as a computer scientist (CS degree) and then
went back to school a few years later for my EE degree. Both areas have
their challenges. The advantage in circuit design is that the tools are
much more advanced as is the underlying theory. The software
community has a long way to go in this arena. The disadvantage in
circuit design is that circuits don't always behave the same way.
Changes in temperature can introduce problems for example as can static
electricity. A circuit can work fine one day and not the next.
Software works the same every day. All software problems are design
errors, whereas hardware has both design and fabrication errors as well
as material degradation over time. None of these affect software.

I'm not going to say either area is easier or harder than the other as
both have their challenges.


Matt

[John Theune]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>>> Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
>>> difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
>>> does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
>>> is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
>>> incentive to get it right.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh really? How many circuit boards have you designed? I have designed
>> quite a few, and have done the embedded firmware for them as well.
>> Hardware designs can have bugs just as can software, they are just of a
>> different nature. Hardware bugs can be much harder to find and fix
>> than software becasue they are often the results of multiple variables
>> (circuit/environment/input conditions/power quality etc.). By
>> comparison, software is at least constrained to a specific set of
>> instructions and syntax. Plenty of hardware designs have bugs that
>> slip past initial testing and don't get found until the right corner
>> condition is hit...
>
> I agree. I started life as a computer scientist (CS degree) and then
> went back to school a few years later for my EE degree. Both areas have
> their challenges. The advantage in circuit design is that the tools are
> much more advanced as is the underlying theory. The software community
> has a long way to go in this arena. The disadvantage in circuit design
> is that circuits don't always behave the same way. Changes in
> temperature can introduce problems for example as can static
> electricity. A circuit can work fine one day and not the next. Software
> works the same every day. All software problems are design errors,
> whereas hardware has both design and fabrication errors as well as
> material degradation over time. None of these affect software.
>
> I'm not going to say either area is easier or harder than the other as
> both have their challenges.
>
>
> Matt
Actually;
software can have coding ( fabrication ) errors as well as design
errors. Just like in the hardware design, they don't become apparent
until just the right set of inputs is received, then boom.

[Matt Whiting]

John Theune wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
>>>> difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
>>>> does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
>>>> is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
>>>> incentive to get it right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh really? How many circuit boards have you designed? I have designed
>>> quite a few, and have done the embedded firmware for them as well.
>>> Hardware designs can have bugs just as can software, they are just of a
>>> different nature. Hardware bugs can be much harder to find and fix
>>> than software becasue they are often the results of multiple variables
>>> (circuit/environment/input conditions/power quality etc.). By
>>> comparison, software is at least constrained to a specific set of
>>> instructions and syntax. Plenty of hardware designs have bugs that
>>> slip past initial testing and don't get found until the right corner
>>> condition is hit...
>>
>>
>> I agree. I started life as a computer scientist (CS degree) and then
>> went back to school a few years later for my EE degree. Both areas
>> have their challenges. The advantage in circuit design is that the
>> tools are much more advanced as is the underlying theory. The
>> software community has a long way to go in this arena. The
>> disadvantage in circuit design is that circuits don't always behave
>> the same way. Changes in temperature can introduce problems for
>> example as can static electricity. A circuit can work fine one day
>> and not the next. Software works the same every day. All software
>> problems are design errors, whereas hardware has both design and
>> fabrication errors as well as material degradation over time. None of
>> these affect software.
>>
>> I'm not going to say either area is easier or harder than the other as
>> both have their challenges.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> Actually;
> software can have coding ( fabrication ) errors as well as design
> errors. Just like in the hardware design, they don't become apparent
> until just the right set of inputs is received, then boom.

I don't consider coding to be fabrication, but I probably should have
used the term manufacturing. The point is that subsequent units of
"production" of software aren't assembled in the way that most
electronic or mechanical devices are assembled and thus don't share that
failure mode. I consider coding to be more equivalent to engineering
prototypes in the electronic and mechanical worlds. Stamping out CD is
the equivalent to manufacturing and stamping out CDs is less error prone
than assembling a complex circuit board or mechanical device.


Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

> All software problems are design errors

Um, no. Coding errors are fabrication errors. Errors introduced by faulty
development tools are also fabrication errors.

Production errors could be caused by a bad copy of the software executable.

And then there are requirements errors not covered by design errors. That is,
the wrong requirements given to the software weenies.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Skywise]

Skywise > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>> I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
>> who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
>> how and why they fail.
>
> Computers are infallible.
>
> Brian

Well, it's good to see my statement got the kind of discussion I
was hoping for.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?