Random Pondering - 737 vrs CRJ (Real Life)

[jay jay 93]

I've been bingeing on YT videos on the 737 in anticipation of getting the PMDG -700.   One thing that strikes me is the wonderful job the Canadair designers did on simplifying the cockpit of the real CRJ.   The amount of extra work needed to fly the 737 is truly surprising.   In the CRJ, two button presses and you have your APU running and powering the electrical system.    On the 737, you've got multiple additional steps to accomplish the same thing.    Just goes to show you what a few decades can make.   

 

Granted the 737NG comes with autothrottle, VNAV and some other tricks that the CRJ doesn't have but all in all, for ease of flight, I have to tip my hat to the CRJ. 

[Richard Dastardly 108]

That is possibly more to do with the 737 I still wonder why the CRJ needs two buttons for the APU. CRJ is still a pretty quick setup.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I (we) love the PMDG 737. As always PMDG delivered a kick ass product.  They are good friends and just today we send them some information on how to solve an issue they were facing. We did so because we know they will do exactly the same for us. 

 

And yes, the Boeing and Canadair had different ideas on how to design an aircraft. Boeing believes that if systems do not have to be connected they should not. They give a lot of the power to the crew and expect them to understand the systems fully. As we all know that did not always work out well. Airbus believes that a pilot should not be bothered by anything that is logical and expect the aircraft to handle it (and that does not always works). Canadair is somewhere in between. They tend to try to keep their aircraft as simple as possible. Never adding a system that looks fine on a spec sheet, keep it simple and cheap. But that also means the crew has to fly the aircraft and can't depend on a FMS to handle it all.

 

And that, exactly that, makes it so much fun. You would be amazed how often Boeing and Airbus pilots do manual landings even if the systems could do it (better) do not tell them)). They are pilots. They love to fly. 

[Raptor05121 84]

In Boeing's defense- the 737 shares many design cues from the 727 and 707/720 which dates back to the late 1950s. Even with current knowledge of ergonomics and pilot workload, Boeing themselves have said they cannot do much to the MAX due to the type certificate would need a new cert if they changed the flight deck. The CRJ very much symbolizes the knowledge gained when it was made in the 80s. Its a VERY comfortable aircraft to fly.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

On 6/5/2022 at 5:49 PM, Raptor05121 said:

Boeing themselves have said they cannot do much to the MAX due to the type certificate would need a new cert if they changed the flight deck

 

Not wanting to go too deeply into this, but there are many people who feel Boeing is sticking too much in the past with the 737 line and adding bits behind the scene to fix deviancies. And not always informing pilots enough about that. This creates a divide between the smaller and larger Boeing aircraft. Moving from a 737 to a 777 is not easy. 

[jay jay 93]

17 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Not wanting to go too deeply into this, but there are many people who feel Boeing is sticking too much in the past with the 737 line and adding bits behind the scene to fix deviancies. And not always informing pilots enough about that. This creates a divide between the smaller and larger Boeing aircraft. Moving from a 737 to a 777 is not easy. 

Totally OT but I still think it was a massive mistake for BA to go with the MAX, vrs a clean sheet design.   You can only get so much mileage out of a base design that's approx 60 years old. 

[Crabby 28]

1 hour ago, jay jay said:

Totally OT but I still think it was a massive mistake for BA to go with the MAX, vrs a clean sheet design.   You can only get so much mileage out of a base design that's approx 60 years old. 

Don't we see the same thing with the A320NEO family?  The A320 was introduced in 1984 so that makes it almost 40 years old.  The design traces its roots back at least a decade before.  If you look at a 737-100 cockpit, only the shape remains somewhat the same in the MAX.  The advantage the A320 had/has moving to the NEO is that the plane sits higher and allowed for easier fitting of the NEO engine.  There is a reason both Boeing and Airbus went in this direction, and it was quite simply to make it easier for its clients and more importantly the pilots, to transition into the new aircraft.  Another reason for both were regulatory in nature, it was easier too.  So either Boeing and Airbus are both making massive mistakes, or they are both equally brilliant for their respective moves.  Sales of both say the latter. 

[jay jay 93]

On 6/7/2022 at 9:16 AM, Crabby said:

.  So either Boeing and Airbus are both making massive mistakes, or they are both equally brilliant for their respective moves.  Sales of both say the latter. 

Are you looking at sales data when you say that?  Even before the MAX crashes the A320/321 was picking up ground.   Post-crashes, the MAX-8 is barely holding it's own to the 320Neo but for the larger versions, the 321Neo line is kicking the crap out of the MAX-9/10.    Boeing has nothing to compete with the range performance of the 321 and even if airlines don't always need the full range of the AB product, they tend to still want to go with the longest range option, just in case they move into longer routes.   I'm a big BA fan (and did quite well with their stock) but one needs to be a realist about the MAX.   It's losing market share in a big way to Airbus.   BA lost a great opportunity to go with a clean sheet narrow body design instead of the MAX and then the lost another great opportunity to offer a new 757 replacement that many airlines were pushing them to do.  Instead, those airlines went with the A321.  

[Crabby 28]

5 hours ago, jay jay said:

Are you looking at sales data when you say that?  Even before the MAX crashes the A320/321 was picking up ground.   Post-crashes, the MAX-8 is barely holding it's own to the 320Neo but for the larger versions, the 321Neo line is kicking the crap out of the MAX-9/10.    Boeing has nothing to compete with the range performance of the 321 and even if airlines don't always need the full range of the AB product, they tend to still want to go with the longest range option, just in case they move into longer routes.   I'm a big BA fan (and did quite well with their stock) but one needs to be a realist about the MAX.   It's losing market share in a big way to Airbus.   BA lost a great opportunity to go with a clean sheet narrow body design instead of the MAX and then the lost another great opportunity to offer a new 757 replacement that many airlines were pushing them to do.  Instead, those airlines went with the A321.  

I did not say that Airbus was or was not "kicking the crap" out of anything.  The airliner market at this level is a race for second place.  I said that sales of both are good and you cannot fault or commend Boeing for expanding on a platform without doing the same with Airbus.  Again, sales of both airliners are making shareholders money.  That is the name of the game. 

 

Airbus A320neo vs Boeing 737MAX - Orders and Commitments (pdxlight.com)