Posted on 07/20/2019 5:35:42 AM PDT by xxqqzz
That was an Airbus advantage with the Neo....it does not have a separate type rating from the 319/320/321....so pilots are interchangeable.
Flew an A320neo from Frankfurt to Amsterdam back in May. That is the most uncomfortable plane I’ve ever flown in, and that includes 172’s, T/A-37’s, and F-4’s.
On the other hand, the A380 from Houston to Frankfurt was great, even better than the 747, and the 787 we flew back on from Heathrow.
Well, it is not Windows that appears to crash. It is the software that I am running. At least, I don’t think Windows is the cause. We may be running 10. I am just a geologist. I just point and click anyway.
Uh, you might want to Google images of the 757 to see where the engines are positioned. Google A321, 737NG and 737MAX while you're at it for comparison. They're all in the same spot, and that spot is not under the wing.
Is this something you know, or is this something you feel? I don't know anything about type ratings, but I do know that the narrow body 757 and wide body 767 had a common type rating.
So to me, it seems odd to suggest that slightly larger engines on the same wings and air frame would require a new type rating, while two completely different aircraft only sharing a flight deck would not require different type ratings.
No, as a retiresd Pratt and Whitney Sr Engineer, from the experimental airfoil group, who worked on large fan engines, up ro 112” dia, and the engines in PW5000, ie. the F119 engine in the F22, I have some personal knowledge of how engines affect cg, and how important weight distribution and nacelle shape are to air
f;ow over the wing. Also a simple inclinometer stops , ie mercury switches set at certain angles, could have easily alerted the controller that the plan had over reached allowed wing angles. It’s been done before. But it’s so analog.
Cabin comfort is dictated by the airline and has nothing to do with the aircraft type.
Aerodynamic problems solved by computer software should definitely raise questions. If a competent can respond to negative input correctly, why not a human? There’s a lot of stability augmentation in new gen fighters and bombers, but that’s quite different from correcting pitch up that can lead to airspeed loss and stall. IMHO.
...if a computer... spell check!! Soft ware fail...
“I expect time to market was a bigger factor. No idea how much more, but 2 extra years would have been terrible for its competitive position vs Airbus”
yes, that was why boeing wanted to avoid the lengthy recertification process for a new aircraft ...
“So to me, it seems odd to suggest that slightly larger engines on the same wings and air frame would require a new type rating”
it was more than that: they moved the engines in front of the wings because they were too big to fit under the wings of the 737, and doing that significantly changed the center of gravity of the plane, AND the new engine position kept pushing the nose of the airplane up, hence the addition of the MCAS system to artificially keep pushing the nose of the airplane down ...
Yes, but I’m sure the bonuses were paid up-front for those “savings”.
“They’re all in the same spot, and that spot is not under the wing.”
I guess the difference is that they put them forward because that was the BEST PLACE to put them on those airframes, rather than being forced to put them there due to fan diameter.
Okay. So here's the problem. The bold part of your statement is garbage. Yes, the engines are in front of the wing, but no, they did not just move them there. It's the same spot as with the 737 Classic and NG series. It's the same spot as the Airbus A320 family. It's the same spot as the 757 and every modern twin engine jet liner. Do an internet search. Hell, look at post 15 on this very thread. They were not moved!
So if you are so incredibly wrong on that one piece of information, the rest of your post is also suspect. I don't think you actually know what you are talking about. So do you know for a fact that the MCAS was sneakily installed to avoid a different type rating, or is this just some sort of keyboard commando opinion?
Regardless of why they are there, they are in the exact same spot as every other modern jet liner. I don’t understand why I keep reading comments about how insane Boeing is for putting the engines in front of the wing instead of under the wing where they belong, when there are no planes currently manufactured by Boeing or Airbus with engines directly under the wing. They’re all in front of the wing. This is not unusual. It makes me doubt that I can trust any other information in those posts.
So you’re saying that some airline somewhere is flying a super-luxurious, comfortable version of the neo?
Both the A380 and the neo were Lufthansa, so if it’s not comfortable on Lufthansa, how bad is it going to be on AirZimbabwe?
” So do you know for a fact that the MCAS was sneakily installed to avoid a different type rating,”
yes, i know it for a fact ... Boeing themselves have publicly admitted as such ...
Airlines control cabin layout. Yes, Lufthansa is well-known for providing more space on aircraft that typically do long-haul flights vs those on short-haul flights.
They have to compete with the low cost carriers within the EU somehow.
It has nothing to do with the model of aircraft.
It has nothing to do with the model of aircraft.
I’m sorry but it has ‘everything’ to do with the ‘model of the aircraft’.
It’s designed to be a cheap way to haul a lot of passengers on short trips of a couple of hours.
No airline is ever going to configure one to be super comfortable. Any airline version of a ‘neo’ is not going to be very comfortable.
That’s all I was saying.
Thank you for proving my point.....the airline decides the configuration.
An Airbus Neo could be configured any way the owner desires.
It is not a product of the aircraft model, but a decision by the owner.
I don't know enough about type ratings, and I don't have the patience to sift through all the internet garbage concerning the 737 MAX to dispute what you have written.
However, it just seems odd that the 737 MAX would not be able to share a type rating with the 737 Classic and 737 NG, while there is a common type rating for the narrow body 757 and wide body 767. Not only that, but I see that there is also a common type rating for the twin engine A330 and the four engine A340. And on top of that... there is also a common type rating for the big ass aluminum and hydraulic controls 777 and the completely different carbon fiber all-electric controls 787.
So you can have common type ratings for two completely different planes if the cockpit arrangement is similar but have different bodies, wings, sizes, controls, and completely different flight characteristics. However, if you have the same cockpit, body and wing, but put a larger engine on it and move it a couple of inches forward, you can not. Unless you're an A320 NEO, in which case a larger engine is fine. This just doesn't make sense to me. But okay.
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.