Pprune, the piolts rumor board has nearly 4,000 posts on the 737 MAX. Often fairly technical discussion. A few pprune posters raised questions about the 777x::
Quote:Originally Posted by
Helix Von Smelix [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/img]Just looking at the Boeing 777-9 rollout photos. My question is, Have Boeing done a similar thing with the engine position on the 777-9 as they did with the 737-MAX? Forward and high.
They have actually lengthened the main gear legs to 16ft, the longest ever used on an airliner, but yes the diameter of the engine means that it does sit higher and farther forward.
Of course with the FBW 777 that should be less of a problem.
Trivium: the manufacturer of the 777X MLG, Héroux Devtek in Quebec, also supplied the legs for the Apollo Lunar Module.
Quote:Originally Posted by
dinbangkok [img]file:///C:\Users\Schul\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/img]Regardless of whether you're a pilot or not, surely the question that needs to be answered is simple: How is it remotely OK for Boeing (or any other manufacturer), to sell a passenger aircraft that needs software to correct an aerodynamic imbalance in the design of the aircraft (prone to pitching up)?
There are several exhibits of this out in the market: 777, 787, and soon to come 777X. These models all have full FBW systems that enable the bare airframe to have aerodynamic characteristics that with out any control system functionality at all would not be certifiable. The motivation is that these models have been able to design in improved performance because they have been able to take advantage of control system functions to yield certifiable handling qualities. The key, of course, is that the availability and reliability including any failure mode effects must be acceptable. Certification requirements cover all aspects of this.
I see Boeing have quietly rolled out a new B777 as well.
Did they fast track/fiddle that certification as well?