Skip to content

Boeing 737 Max, a new generation of this highly successful City Jet.

If you like us, please share with your followers.

As far back as 2005, Boeing initiated project Yellowstone 1 (Y-1) to come up with an updated design building on the Boeing 737 Next Generation family. Incorporating technology from the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the aim was to achieve fuel savings in the order of 20-25%. However, tests came back with results closer to 10%. It was found that you can’t build a smaller Boeing 787 which is designed for different uses such as lower cycles(take-offs and landings) and carrying different systems for longer flights.

Norwegian Air International Boeing 737 Max 8.

The project was shelved but not abandoned. New technologies had to be developed to enable the concept to become an actuality.

737 Max family
The Boeing 737 Max family of aircraft. Note the new winglets or wing fins. Weight is saved by a less robust structure required for two smaller fins.

Modifying the current model.

On 11 August 2011, the Boeing board approved the 737 Max development project. The new family of Boeing 737s would adopt the same variant numbering system as the 787, namely Boeing 737 Max 7, Boeing 737 Max 8, Boeing 737 Max 9 and Boeing 737 Max 10. The main driver, of course, was the need to come up with a newer more economical version of the iconic 737 city jet and remain competitive. Airbus Industrie was well on the way to producing their new A320, the A320 NEO (New Engine Option) which would deliver a more economical version of the popular Airbus that is a direct competitor to the 737. After much research and analysis, it was determined that applying updates, improvements and modifications to the current Boeing 737 model was by far the best option cost-wise and also speed to market-wise.

The first Boeing 737 Max -8 fuselage completed assembly on 13 August 2015 at the Spirit AeroSystems plant in Wichita, Kansas.

Boeing 737-8 MAX Winglet
This view shows the distinctive Boeing 737 MAX winglet. Two smaller winglets mean that there is less weight required than for a more robust single longer span. In addition, it means that a significant amount of wing surface is added whilst still being able to fit into Gate size C at airport terminals.

This was a test aircraft and was eventually delivered to launch customer Southwest Airlines.  The completed aircraft, named “Spirit of Renton” rolled out of the Boeing Renton Factory on 08 December 2015. Nearly 49 years after the first Boeing 737 took to the air on 09 April 1967. The 737 Max -8 took to the air on its first flight on 29 January 2016.

Boeing 737-9 MAX CFM LEAP-1B
Boeing 737-9 MAX CFM LEAP-1B engine. The chevroned rear of the nacelle, like the Boeing 787, ensures a smooth laminar airflow over the engine casing. This is all part of the 737 MAXs fuel-saving economy.

Instrumental to delivering a more economical and powerful 737 is the CFM Leap 1B engine. This new generation engine uses the latest technology to deliver the cost savings that will take the 737 into the 21st Century. However, as has been the problem in the past with the low ground clearance 737, adding a larger engine has its own challenges. If you look at current 737s, like the 737-800 for example, you will notice that the engine nacelle is flattened at the bottom. This is to enable enough ground clearance. The Leap 1B is larger again. To enable it to be fitted to the 737 Max, the engine has been fitted to a pylon that holds the engine further forward from the wing and therefore can be set higher off the ground.  In addition, the nose wheel strut has been extended by 8 inches to lift the engines higher.  The engines being further forward has caused a change to the aircraft dynamics in certain phases of flight. In those flight phases, it was found that the nose of the aircraft might pitch up, bringing about the possibility of a stall. To guard against this, Boeing installed a new system called the Manoeuvring Characteristics Argumentation System (MCAS). This system is designed to prevent the possibility of the aircraft entering a stall in the above-mentioned flight phases. The MCAS uses the horizontal stabilizer trim to push the nose of the aircraft down in cases where it senses a high angle of attack that may lead to a stall.

With an eye on cost savings for airlines,  Boeing tried as much as possible to keep cockpit configuration the same as previous models. This way pilots can rotate from previous 737 models to the new Max with minimal retraining required.

The new design has some obvious visual differences which include:


737 Max Features

3d_blue_plane A change to the tail cone to a more tapered aerodynamic shape. This is part of the design improvement to realise an up to a 1% improvement in fuel economy.
3d_blue_plane Boeing 787 like engine nacelles with a scalloped casing which allows for a cleaner airflow and less drag.
3d_blue_plane A split winglet with fins pointing up and down which reduces weight by a less robust structure required for two smaller fins. It also ensures that the aircraft can still utilise ICAO gate reference C gates ( wingspan – 24m (78.7′) – <36m (118.1′) ) whilst enjoying a greater wing area for higher lift and therefore lower fuel consumption.
3d_blue_plane Leap-1B engines with a larger fan diameter of 1.76 Metres (69.4 in).
3d_blue_plane An increase of 8 inches in length to the nose wheel strut to accommodate the larger diameter engines. This ensures a 43CM (17 IN) clearance between the bottom of the engine casing and the runway surface.
3d_blue_plane A redesigned and lengthened engine pylon to further accommodate the larger engines. The new Leap 1B engines are positioned further forward and slightly higher than their predecessors to accommodate their larger diameter.
3d_blue_plane A general strengthening of the airframe structure.

A timeline of the Boeing 737 MAX

30 AUG 2011 Launch of the Boeing 737 MAX Project.
23 JUL 2013 Firm configuration of the 737 MAX8 confirmed by Boeing.
SEP 2014 Boeing launches a high-density version of the 737 MAX8, the 737 MAX8 200, which stands for 200 passengers.
13 AUG 2015 The first 737 MAX fuselage was completed at Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, Kansas.
08 DEC 2015 First 737 MAX8 rolled out at the Boeing Renton Factory.
29 JAN 2016 Maiden flight of the Boeing 737 MAX
08 MAR 2017 The Boeing 737 MAX is awarded F.A.A. Certification.
27 MAR 2017 The Boeing 737 MAX is awarded E.A.S.A. Certification.
06 MAY 2017 The first Boeing 737 MAX is delivered to Malindo Air (Malaysia).
22 MAY 2017 Malindo Air places the first 737 MAX into service as flight OD803 from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore.
19 JUN 2017 Boeing launches the 737 MAX10.
15 JUL 2017 First Trans-Atlantic flight of the 737 MAX by Norwegian Air International. The aircraft was named Sir Freddie Laker.
29 AUG 2017 Launch customer Southwest Airlines takes delivery of their first 737 MAX.
22 NOV 2017 Assembly begins of the first 737 MAX7 test aircraft.
05 FEB 2018 The first 737 MAX7 aircraft rolls out of the Renton factory.
16 MAR 2018 Maiden flight of the Boeing 737 MAX7.
FEB 2018 The configuration of the 737 MAX10 is firmed up.
29 OCT 2018 A 737 MAX8 of Lion Air, flight 610, Reg. PK-LQP, crashed into the Java Sea off Jakarta after a flight of only 13 minutes.
NOV 2018 The first 737 MAX8 200 rolled out of the factory door for Ryan Air. They ordered 135.
13 JAN 2019 Ryan Air’s first 737 MAX8 200 departs Renton.
10 MAR 2019 A 737 MAX8 of Ethiopian Airlines, flight 302, Reg. ET-AVJ, crashed only 6 minutes after departing Addis Ababa.
13 MAR 2019 After several other countries had already banned them, the F.A.A. grounded all 737 MAX aircraft flown by U.S. airlines or from being flown in U.S. and territories airspace. The F.A.A. cited new information being the reason, not pressure.
18 NOV 2020 FAA Administrator Steve Dickson signs the order that will begin the Boeing 737 MAX’s journey back to service. This follows a 20 month review process conducted by staff of the FAA. The return to service is subject to instructions in a new Air Directive being carried out. Furthermore a Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community has been issued along with new Training Requirements. This is not an automatic return to service. The FAA will review the updated training curriculum of each airline operating the MAX.
29 DEC 2020 American Airlines resumes sevices with a flight from Miami to New York, La Guardia.
11 FEB 2021 United Airlines resumes 737 Max services.
A Boeing 737 Max 9 in Boeing house colours.

Specs for the Boeing 737 Max

Boeing 737 Max
737 Max 7(B37M)
737 Max 8(B38M)
737 Max 9(B39M)
737 Max 10(B3XM)
Maiden Flight 16 March 2018 29 January 2016
13 April 2017 18 June 2021
Launch Delivery Expect 2022 May 2017 21 March 2018
Launch Airline Southwest Airlines(deferred). Westjet expected 2022. Malindo Air (Sub. Lion Air) Lion Air tba
First Delivery Expect Jan 2019 16 May 2017
March 2018
In Current Service
Click here for Boeing 737 MAX Orders and Deliveries
Passenger Capacity 172 (Maximum seating)
150 (1-class, average)
138 (2-class, average)
210 (1-class, high volume)
174 (1-class, average)
178 (2-class, average)
220 (1-class, high volume)
177 (1-class, average)
178 (2-class, average)
204 (2 Class average) 230 1-class average)
Power Plant CFM International
Model Leap-1B
Fan Tip Diameter 1.76 m (69.4in)
Thrust 26,786–29,317 lbf (119–130 kN)
Fuselage Length 35.56 M (116 ft 8 in) 39.47 M (129 ft 6 in) 42.16 M (138 ft 4 in) 43.80 M (143 ft 8 in)
Overall Height 12.3 M (40ft 4in)
Wing Span 35.92 M (117 ft 10 in)
Wing Area 127 m2 (1,370ft2)
Overall Height 12.3 M (40ft 4in)
Number ofNose-wheels 2 2 2 2
Number ofMain-wheels 4 4 4 4
Seats Abreast 6 6 6 6
Max. Zero Fuel Weight 62,913kg(138,700lb) 65,952kg(145,400lb) 70,987kg(156,500lb)  TBA
Max. Takeoff Weight 80,286kg (177,000lb) 82,191kg (181,200lb) 88,314Kg (194,700lb) 89,765Kg (197,900lb)
Maximum Landing Weight 66,043kg(145,600lb) 69,309kg(152,800lb) 74,344kg(163,900lb) TBA
Capacity (Litres) 25,816L(6,820 US Gal), excluding Auxiliary Centre Tank
Cruise Speed IAS/Mach Mach 0.79 (453 kn / 839 km/h)
Ceiling (Ft) 41,000 ft (12,000 m)
Range with Max Payload(nm) 7,130 Km (3,850 Nm) 6,570 Km (3,550 Nm) 6,570 Km (3,550 Nm) 6,110 Km (3,300 Nm)
Takeoff (MTOW, ISA) 2,100 m (7,000 ft) 2,500 m (8,300 ft) 2,600 m (8,500 ft) TBA
Landing (MLW, dry) 1,500 m (5,000 ft) 1,500 m (5,000 ft) 1,700 m (5,500 ft) TBA
Cargo Capacity 32.3 m3 1,139 ft3 43.6 m3 1,540 ft3 51.3 m3 1,811 ft3 55.5 m3 1,961 ft3
737 Max 7(B37M)
737 Max 8(B38M)
737 Max 9(B39M)
737 Max 10(B3XM)

Have we seen the last of the Boeing 737 Max problems?

The loss of two 737 Max aircraft with the tragic loss of hundreds of lives sent a clear signal to Boeing and regulators that all was not as well as it should be. The travelling public puts their utter faith in aircraft manufacturers as they strap themselves into their seats. When things go wrong, it destroys that faith, so not only do the problems need to be rectified, but they have to be done so in a very public and transparent way to restore that faith.

So what has Boeing been doing?

The problem as we recall is to do with the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) which is a system that kicks in to stop the aircraft from getting into a stall situation in some very specific sets of unusual flight conditions. The need for MCAS was mainly brought about by the larger Leap 1B engines having to be placed on a longer pylon further forward of the wing to enable the required ground clearance below the engine when taxying. This created a slight change to the aircraft’s aerodynamics which Boeing recognised and created a system to protect against a possible stall with a higher than usual angle of attack. It was designed to work in a situation where:

  • The pilot is hand flying the aircraft.
  • The nose of the aircraft approaches a higher than normal angle of attack.
  • The wing flaps are not deployed.

What Boeing has done is build more fail-safes into the system so that it doesn’t activate until several cross-checks have taken place. The updated features are:

  • Two Angel Of Attack sensors will have their data compared.
  • Each sensor will send its data to the fight control computer.
  • The computer will only activate MCAS if the data from both sensors agree.
  • The MCAS will only be activated once so that pilots can then handle the situation instead of repeatedly having to fly against the MCAS.
  • MCAS will never override the pilot’s ability to fly the aircraft using the control column.

How does this differ from the original configuration?

The original MCAS based its activation on the data of a single Angle Of Attack sensor reporting on the attitude of the aircraft. In the case of Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines, the single Angle Of Attack sensor fed back incorrect data to the MCAS. The data was repeatedly sent back which caused the MCAS to keep re-engaging on the receipt of each incorrect signal. This of course completely confused the pilots as they could see no reason for the Angle Of Attack readings nor the aircraft taking control off them each time it happened.

You can see that both of those issues have now been addressed by Boeing. It is tragic, but often the way that lives have to be lost to move forward with technology.

As you can imagine, the Boeing 737 Max has now been scrutinised and rescrutinised to within an inch of its life. During that process, several other modifications have been mandated before an aircraft can go back in the air. Namely:

  • Software updates to avoid a theoretically possible runaway stabiliser condition.
  • Modify wiring in the horzontal stabiliser control system to be further apart to avoid the possibility of rubbing together.
  • Checking all stored aircraft for FOD (Foreign Object Debris). Some instances of FOD were dicovered in stored aircraft.
  • Updates to software to avoid the remote possibility of auto pilot disengagement.

The Boeing 737 Max is now in full production with orders looking healthy. If you have flown on a Max be sure to let us know how you felt about it.


If there is more you want to learn about this airliner, please visit: Boeing 737 Home, Boeing 737 Specs, Boeing 737 Order Book, Boeing 737 History, Boeing 737 Assembly and Boeing 737 Interior.
We welcome your comment below, is there more we could be showing or are there topics you would like to see? Thank you.

Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX 8 Reg PK-LQM
Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX 8 Reg PK-LQM with its Leap 1 engines in reverse thrust.

If you like us, please share with your followers.

19 thoughts on “Boeing 737 Max, a new generation of this highly successful City Jet.”

  1. Pingback: Boeing 797 a Middle of Market Solution - Modern Airliners

  2. Lion Air flight JT610 which tragically plunged into the sea soon after takeoff from Jakarta will have both Lion Air and Boeing nervous. Whilst the Boeing 737 is a tried and true aircraft model, this new version, the 737 MAX is still relatively new. With any new technology, there are risks in the early days as we saw with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner batteries.
    It is too early to make any assumptions but rest assured, this will have the full attention of the aviation world and thankfully now the flight and voice recorders have been recovered we may start to get answers sooner than later.

  3. Pingback: Aircraft Noise - Modern Airliners

  4. I am surprised by the reaction of Boeing. This is a clear case of malfunctioning of the latest model of the system to detect and correct stalling. All evidence points to the fact that the new system is dangerous. It detects a stall and “corrects” it by getting the airliner going nose down. All 737 models so far had older models of the equipment functioning well, and all that Boeing has to do is to replace the new system with the old one and the problem is solved.

    1. Hi John,
      Yes, from where we stand it looks like a clear case of both Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes being identical. One would assume, and this is just an opinion, that if there is any doubt about an airliner’s safety that it would be grounded until the cause was 100% established, understood and corrected. In the world of economics, however, this is just not feasible. Those airliners cost millions, and to have them stand idle can drive an airline to the wall. Not to mention what harm it can do to a new line of airliners, such as the 737 MAX, making its debut in the market.
      Boeing maintain that their decision to ground the type was not driven by public and industry pressure so much as a new discovery. It seems there was commonality between both crashes in position they found the jack-screw in, that controls the trim of the horizontal stabiliser. No doubt we will hear more about that.
      The reason this new system, the MCAS as described above, is in place at all is to accommodate the new powerful economical Leap 1 engine. So it is a case of new technology requiring other new technology to make it possible.
      I have no doubt that the 737 MAX will go on to be a very successful and popular aircraft. Just look back at the McDonnell Douglas DC10. It had a very bad safety record to start, with repeat accidents caused by the cargo door. It went on to outsell its rival the Lockheed L1011.

      Cheers Peter

  5. P. Anderson Ed.D.

    My concern begins with, the need for a corrective device, to avert a potential stall. Have the flight characteristics of: the early Boeing 737 ( P&W JT-8d 14,000 Lb thrust class engines ) Vs the Boeing 737 Max 8 ( CFM Leap 1B 26,000 to 29,000 Lb thrust class engines ) varied to the point where the aircraft can become uncontrollable: If so what is the critical difference. I am of the understanding, the Max 8 engines were repositioned. The engines were moved foreward and upward on the wing/engine pylon: which allows for the needed ground clearance. I would think that these changes have altered the weight and balance factor of the Max 8. This factor can altar the flight characteristics of the aircraft, creating all sorts of abnormalities including violent stalls. If this is the case, a fix would be extremely expensive.
    Many years ago, my flight instructor said: no matter what, maintain control of the aircraft. If an airplane has violent characteristics under normal flight conditions, it should be grounded. Recovering from a stall is not a difficult maneuver. I can honestly say, I have never experienced a stall without intentionally entering one, for an intential aerobatic maneuver.

    1. Hi P. Anderson.
      yes it certainly seems that the placement of the Leap 1B further forward and higher has altered the balance characteristic of the aircraft. Boeing, obviously, were well across this as being a potential risk to normal flight operations and added MCAS. One has to wonder how much the flight characteristics were changed by the change of engine placement. It was evidently enough to warrant a new system to guard against the perhaps inevitable onset of a stall situation. It is unfortunate that in the case of both Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines, the onset of the situation was in the early climb phase, so there was little opportunity to rectify the situation due to the proximity of the ground. Reports say that the Lion Air 737 MAX experienced instability problems on its previous day flight from Bali to Jakarta, but an experienced pilot who was riding jump seat was able to overcome the situation. I know it is expensive, but it still amazes me that after fixing whatever it is they fixed after the inbound Bali flight, the aircraft was not flown for testing prior to pressing it back into service.

      I too have only ever done intentional stalls, at a safe height. There is nothing so useless as altitude above you and runway behind you.
      Cheers Peter

  6. Paul Anderson Ed.D. M.E.

    Honestly, I am tired of hearing all of the excuses from Boeing, as to why their 737 Max has failed to meet expectations. They continue to point to the failure of the MCAS to function properly. Why do we continue to add all these devices to the aircraft, to compensate for some failure on the part of the pilot, to fly his airplane. I will go along with the Stick Shaker, but they have now learned to disable it.

    I will not soon forget, the pilot and his co-pilot, that dredged up the Florida Everglades, after just leaving Miami International. Instead of flying the airplane, both pilots were distracted by a red landing gear light. That was an expensive $00.10 cent light.

    And then there was the Air Florida crash, that should never have happened. I was looking down toward Washington National airport, from Crystal City when the jet slammed into the 14th street bridge. The 2” of snow on the ground, had brought the city to a screeching halt. As the local radio station described the crash, In my mind I had already drawn a conclusion, as to what had happened. None of the other jets using the runways, had problems operating out of National, just this one particular jet. They were unable to accelerate to a proper take of speed: WHY…They were following recommended manufacturer settings, and still could not accelerate…WHY….incorrect N1 & N2 engine compressor spool readings….WHY…someone had failed to turn on the probe heat switch, on the inlet engine instrument probe. If the power levers had been advanced to the stops, none of this would have happened, a lack of common sense. These P&W engines were designed in an emergency, to safely operate above recommended limits. Having been involved in their design, I have a personal knowledge of these engines.

  7. The problem here seems to be due to the heavier engines positioned forward and higher affecting the aerodynamics. If it is a pure case of center of gravity being moved forward, the nose of the plane must be going down on takeoff instead of up and going into a stall.

    Can somebody explain this? Can the problem be solved by redirecting the thrust from the engines?

    John Wills

    1. Hi Bob,

      if you remember, the Boeing 737 was originally designed with a pure jet which was basically a long narrow, by today’s standards, pipe which hung under the wing. With engine improvements and the move to bypass fan engines, the circumference of the engine became larger. Even with the Boeing 737 Next-Gen series, they struggled with getting a larger circumference engine to fit under the wing due to ground clearance issues. You will perhaps have noticed how the bottom of the engine on a Next-Gen 737 is flattened, rather than circular.
      The Boeing 737 Max has this problem even more as the engine is larger again. This time Boeing has had to change the position to be further forward of the wing, and also higher on the wing. This is what causes the aircraft to pull nose up in certain phases of flight which in turn can lead to a stall. With this in mind, they added the new anti-stall function so as to allow the aircraft to avoid the stall that was now more likely.
      Let’s hope that Boeing gets this sorted out and restore faith in what has been one of the world most successful aircraft designs.

  8. Pingback: Airbus Versus Boeing - Modern Airliners

  9. Is the Max 8 and 10 safe to fly? Can it ever be safe? Why does it stall so easily? Has the placement of the new engine made it unsafe? Is it too long and heavy now? I sure as hell don’t plan on ever riding one of these death traps until it has been carefully studied. If I was Boeing I would scrape-heap these and get moving on a new safe design instead of trying to shoehorn new technology on a many decades-old design. To get this plane off the ground again they would have to go through wind tunnel test and it would have to be certified by a higher authority then Boeing that it was aerodynamically safe to fly, which sounds like currently, it is not. Might as well do all this work with a new modern design and let this 60’s design go into the history books. Personally, I believe Boeing is in for a world of hurt either way but they might as well move to the future rather than try to soak every last dollar out of an ancient design that is doom to fail anyway IMHO.

    1. Hi Jorge,
      yes, this is tough nut indeed. I think many, like yourself, would be reluctant to step aboard a 737 MAX until it has been tested and tested and tested again. It seems a whole raft of procedures on the part of Boeing and perhaps even the FAA have now come into the limelight for close scrutiny. One way or another Boeing has to come through this. They’re looking to secure a $10 Billion loan to get there.

      The 737 MAX has certainly raised many questions about the latest design changes to the 737, but to start again from scratch would never be an option. It can take 5 – 10 years for a new design to progress from the drawing board to the air. The 737 has been one of the most successful aircraft designs ever and with the right modifications, it can certainly continue that popularity. Boeing needs to get it right and be seen be getting it right.
      Cheers Peter

  10. Pingback: Boeing 777x First Flight - Modern Airliners

  11. Pingback: What happens to planes grounded by COVID19? - Modern Airliners

  12. Paul Anderson Ed.D.

    I Must say, I thoroughly enjoyed reading each and every thought-provoking comment, regarding Boeing’s 737 Max. The reasons given by Boeing, for re-fitting the 737 with increased thrust fan engines, not designed for this particular aircraft, in my opinion, was totally irrational. Two of the reasons given: were directed at the crews that service the aircraft, and the ability of passengers to enter or exit the aircraft. I would think these issues, are the responsibility of airport management.
    As a research and development engineer for P&W in the 60’s, I remember one of Boeing’s engineers telling me, we will be designing the Boeing 747 for P&W JT-9D engines. The Boeing 737 has gone through a number of modifications, without any major issues. To my knowledge, none of these modifications, altered the structural dimensions of the 737’s airframe. If so, the dimensions and thrust class of the engines, should not have changed.
    ( This is not your Dad’s hot rod..) Re-fitting the 737 with turbofan engines of a greater thrust class could easily damage the structural integrity of the 737’s airframe. Boeing’s 737 airframe was designed for a specific task, and not the task of a Boeing 727. Would you believe, this is what Boeing was attempting to do, as most of the 727 had been taken out of service. The 727 was a more expensive aircraft to operate. Personally, the 727 was one of my favourites for many years.
    The critical issue with the Boeing 737 Max, Is Ground Clearance. From the technical manual I have read, the ground clearance is barely minimum, on the 737 Max. In its current configuration, the 737 Max should be permanently grounded. I personally believe, the stall characteristics on this particular airliner, are extremely dangerous. If an electrical device is necessary, to correct the flight characteristics of this commercial airliner, I too would ground the airliner as the FAA has.
    Next time you travel on one of Boeing’s big jets, notice the ground clearance. I can stand up straight, under any one of Boeing’s 747 engines. ( 5’10” ) The Boeing 747 ground clearance, helps to eliminate FOD damage. ( Foreign Object Damage ) to the engines.

    1. Hi Paul,
      thank you for stopping by and liking our site. Great to hear some words from someone with your experience.
      I agree if you need electronics to ensure that an aircraft stays flying in in a safe configuration you have tampered too much with the design to achieve things that perhaps aren’t meant to be achieved. I also loved the 727, it was a great looking and versatile airliner.
      Cheers Peter

  13. Pingback: What Engine Powers Boeing 737 Max 8? – AdamsAirMed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *