|
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 31298129)
The aircraft was never originally designed to be fitted with high-bypass turbofan engines. It is too low to the ground to accommodate these appropriately. The A320 (while also a pretty ancient design) does not suffer from this issue as it is two decades more modern (but by no means a modern airplane) and was built higher off the ground with expandability in mind. Boeing was able to fudge things and make it work for the 737 Classic and the NG. This process has failed with the engines required for the MAX and has resulted in catastrophic failure.
The 757 was not designed to be a transatlantic airplane. The A330 was not designed to be a transpacific airplane. The A321 was not designed to fly 10 hours. |
Originally Posted by Newman55
(Post 31298206)
So, Airbus engineers foresaw that high-bypass engines, like the ones designed for both the neo and the max, would exist in the late 1970s?
Again, there is nothing wrong with the physical design of the MAX, lower clearance or not. The MAX can accommodate larger engines and these larger engines have not been implicated as the cause for the accidents. Hard to make that argument being that the entire reason for this thread and the loss of two aircraft centers around the fact that the flawed system designed to make the aircraft fly like the previous model was implement because of the way then engines were placed and they way the aircraft handled without computer augmentation. |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 31298355)
Hard to make that argument being that the entire reason for this thread and the loss of two aircraft centers around the fact that the flawed system designed to make the aircraft fly like the previous model was implement because of the way then engines were placed and they way the aircraft handled without computer augmentation.
Fix the software issue (which they are doing now under very close scrutiny), add in some training to reinforce issues, then everything will be fine. |
Originally Posted by Newman55
(Post 31298993)
Exactly. This is a software issue that can be fixed. Not a problem with the physical design of the airplane.
Fix the software issue (which they are doing now under very close scrutiny), add in some training to reinforce issues, then everything will be fine. |
Originally Posted by Newman55
(Post 31298993)
Exactly. This is a software issue that can be fixed. Not a problem with the physical design of the airplane.
Fix the software issue (which they are doing now under very close scrutiny), add in some training to reinforce issues, then everything will be fine. I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again. |
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....ncels-737-max/
Thus, United will cancel roughly according to this schedule:
|
Originally Posted by moondog
(Post 31299372)
What makes you so confident that "everything will be fine"? This is uncharted territory.
The analysis and testing done by the regulators is consistent with what is done during the initial development process and when changes are deployed in service.
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 31299395)
And why was the software even necessary in the first place? Because of the flight characteristics caused by physical design of the airplane. The 737 is a light short-haul aircraft that is being stretched far beyond its capability.
I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again. This situation should not have occurred, but that does not mean it is unrecoverable. |
Originally Posted by fly18725
(Post 31299421)
All airplanes have software
|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 31298178)
Not sure I understand exactly what you're asking.
I have no idea how often 737 pilots have had to use manual trim. The manual trim system is the same as what was used on the B707, B720, KC-135, B727, and all B737 aircraft. It's not commonly needed but that's a very long history so I'm sure there have been many instances where manual trim was used. The problem that both accident crews had was that they didn't disable the electric trim until the stabilizer was at, or very near, the full nose-down position. That's a worst-case scenario and does not represent the forces that would be required for 'normal' manual trim operation. In one case, they were also over 150 knots faster than they should have been which compounded the problem by greatly increasing the aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer and the nose-down pitching moment that the stabilizer produced. The trim wheels have a lot of mechanical advantage. Many turns of the trim wheel for very small movements of the stabilizer. Kinda like a 10-speed bicycle pedalling in first gear. In other posts I have described the methods for manually turning the wheel from low to high required turning force. Did that answer your question? |
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
(Post 31299471)
That's a short-sighted view and a gross generalization. Believe it or not, there were airplanes before there were computers. Some airplanes don't even have electrical systems.
A desire to avoid an airplane because of software, specifically pitch augmentation software, will limit a passenger to auto or rail service. Hence, I find this line of discussion to be absurd. |
Originally Posted by fly18725
(Post 31299797)
It may be a gross generalization if you interpret all as every airplane ever. It is absolutely accurate to say that every commercial airplane in service today has software. I’m aware of pitch augmentation software on most models. A desire to avoid an airplane because of software, specifically pitch augmentation software, will limit a passenger to auto or rail service. Hence, I find this line of discussion to be absurd. I have no problem with a plane needing software to fly, many do. Nor do I have an issue with Boeing's position that pilot is in control. I do have an issue as of now with Boeing's design of the MCAS system to be a background system the pilot does not know about. The MCAS could not look at both sensors, because there was nothing they could ever do under than to trigger a runaway stab trim anyway. The system had to re-engage after a pilot trim move because it was invisible to the pilot. Had pilots been in the loop, the system could have been better designed. I feel that the MAX will be a safe airplane, once Boeing makes the MCAS system a bit more transparent to the pilot. |
Originally Posted by moondog
(Post 31299372)
What makes you so confident that "everything will be fine"? This is uncharted territory.
I know it will be fine because the MAX is the most technically scrutinized aircraft ever and if the regulatory agencies unground the plane and then the same issues are present, then the very existence of those agencies and the political leadership of those agencies will be in doubt. Let alone Boeing... No one will want that on their resume. That's why after all this is said and done, the MAX will be the safest airplane in history.
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 31299395)
And why was the software even necessary in the first place? Because of the flight characteristics caused by physical design of the airplane. The 737 is a light short-haul aircraft that is being stretched far beyond its capability.
I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again. All aircraft have their own handling characteristics and all models have had those characteristics change between iterations. A 777-200ER does not handle like a 777-300ER and neither does a A320ceo handle like a A321neo. |
Originally Posted by Newman55
(Post 31299924)
The software is only necessary to make the MAX handle like previous incarnations of the 737. The MAX could fly without it and be fine.
|
|
Originally Posted by Newman55
(Post 31299924)
The software is only necessary to make the MAX handle like previous incarnations of the 737. The MAX could fly without it and be fine.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.