Posted on 05/09/2012 9:20:43 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
Not sure what CFIT means but in addition to the two points I've already made it's certainly possible that lousy crew and/or lousy aircraft are factors.
Killing off the potential customers in the process won't really help either.
Wikipedia states that more than 7000 B737's have been produced since introduction.Figures like that don't say "substandard product" to me.
Too bad it didn’t crash with the politicians viewing the cabin on board. Had they been on board, the world would be a safer place and Russia would have a second chance at more freedom.
Sukhoi? Isn’t that pronounced “sucky”?
CFIT = Controlled Flight Into Terrain.
Assuming they had control...
Controlled Flight Into Terrain.
And this from the regime that was pounding the drums of war by announcing possible intentions to pre-emptively strike our missile defense systems.
“...the SuperJet 100 had 240 orders...
I just cancelled my order of 1. I told them to stuff it.
:)
The 737 was designed in 1964-65 and first flew in 1967 - 45 years ago. It wasn’t a bad design, given the design parameters of the time which included the need for performing with a maximum available thrust of about 40,000 lb from its two engines. Lightness was critical and the skin of the 737 was designed using a rather thin aluminum alloy. These were the “classic” 737s and you will find that they have had a long history of fuselage cracks and fatigue failures.
Most dramatic was the Aloha Airlines fuselage “peel back” of 1988.
Some beleive that the fatigue problem was addressed with the introduction of the NG model. There are still incidents of fatigue and skin failure, for example Southwestern Flight 812 on April 1, 2011 which experienced a fuselage skin failure “peel back” and cabin decompression (it was a “classic” model).
As I understand it these problems are surfacing in aircraft that have not reached their design life cycles, and it appears that some aircraft may need to be removed from service early.
There is no question that the 737 is a serviceable aircraft when properly inspected and maintained. There is no question also that Boeing has made a serious effort to deal with the shortcomings of the original design. I have no hesitation flying on a 737, personally.
I am only making the point that every plane has its failings and its strengths, and that the 737 is no different.
The bottom line is that the Sukhoi SJ-100 has little if any thing that derives from the 737. It has a similar shape and planform, as do virtually every aircraft competing in this market space. Form follows function, as they say.
But copying swept wings etc, is a trivial nonsense. Real copying is in the details of construction, and there is simply no evidence that the Russians “ripped off” the 737.
That’s simply crap. And that’s my point.
See my post 30 above. Also, I never said that the 737 was or is a “substandard product”, so please don’t put words in my mouth.
Much of this thread has been ignorant people trashing Russian aviation - basically trashing the SJ-100, which is also far from a “substandard product”.
The best aircraft in the world will not survive being flown at speed into the side of a mountain.
The 737 is the most commercially successful jet airliner ever produced. Given that it is still in production and that the new version of it already has orders and it’s not even a prototype I’d say that even if an engineer didn’t like it that doesn’t matter because the engineer’s employer does.
Nothing I can disagree with there. I certainly do not consider myself a 737 detractor; as you say, it has been an unqualified commercial success.
I now realize that it was you who made the absurd claim that the SJ 100 is a “rip off” of the 737. You ought to apologize for that.
Yes, it sucks. It's happened to me before but fortunately I don't sell aircraft.
It's Murphy's Law. A demo unit will always display some completely unknown quirk if a live customer is present.
They could rename it “Titanic Airlines”.
I have been sitting up front for a long time, and my employer has 4 of them (737-300) in the fleet. (I do the mad dog). So when I read your original comment(s), specially on a forum such as FR, was curious of your full meaning.
Of course in any crash, far too much speculation, too soon. Most unnecessary and ALWAYS incorrect.
My own personal experience, even when the "media" finally comes out with an authoritative statement . . . one can be sure that it too is not entirely correct . . . specially in certain foreign lands.
PS . . . to clarify, "Classic" is the reference to the 737-300/400/500 series. But not matter, Your point was well taken and informative.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
And does it suck, Oy!
With all due respect for your admiration for the Gipper, you are in dire need of a visit to the optician.
My God, the fuselages are not even the same shape!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.