Posted on 04/09/2019 12:49:46 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
This Boeing 737 Max 8 problem, again, just to reset this, traces back to 2011. I’ll tell you what this is about. It’s about the bloodletting that is competition in capitalism...I think the competition in capitalism is one of the great things in the design of our country, but it can lead to some things as well. But it’s far better than anything else.
What happened was in 2011, Airbus (which really doesn’t fairly compete because they’re a government entity. The Airbus plane is the result of a coalition of governments in Europe.)
But the Airbus A320 was able to be upgraded and outfitted with new engines, more powerful and more efficient engines without redesigning or rebuilding the airplane. The competition that Boeing has for the A320 was the Boeing 737-500, -600, -700 series. The Boeing 737 design would not accommodate simply upgrading engines.
If they had just put new engines — larger but more efficient engines on those wings, because it’s so low to the ground, it would totally upset the center of gravity. It would change the angle of attack. So they had to modify certain aspects of the Boeing 737, rather than go to the expense of redesigning it, retooling the manufacturing equipment and process. And they created software to handle how the airplane would behave differently during takeoff and at flight. And that’s what the MCAS system is.
...The nose gear was actually eight inches longer to accommodate the bigger engines. So it changes the elevation of the nose of the airplane as it’s flying through the air, creating the aerodynamics that are called “lift.” So because it tended to elevate the nose, these new engines and new angle of attack, they needed software on the rear horizontal stabilizer to keep the nose down.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
“I don’t understand your pushback. “
I just call it as I see it.
“My husband is and I am hoping to do my first solo in a single engine before Memorial Day.”
So based on that extensive experience you post false data?
Also cheaper to purchase and operate.
“The MCAS system probably does do exactly what you mentioned, or was at least designed to keep the pitch stable when not in autopilot;”
It was designed to over-ride pilot only in certain condition which should not be encountered in normal operation or by good pilots.
“The pilots in command of those two airplanes that went in were competent pilots. “
If they were competent they wouldn’t have crashed ...
This design was flawed from the beginning. It will become Boeing’s Edsel with a touch of Corvair.
Should this aircraft have been required to get a new type certificate?
“So based on that extensive experience you post false data?”
Pretty much, yeah.
It’s just like I said.
The longitudinal static stability of the King Air is such that it can maintain steady flight in normal conditions without input from the pilot or control systems.
The 737 Max would become a lawn dart without considerable constant input from a pilot or a control system. And that’s in good weather, no turbulence, and without any mechanical problems.
That’s the difference.
Payback for the sonic cruiser.
By the way - Rush is an idiot if he really thinks making the nose gear longer makes the plane fly in a nose up attitude.
“The nose gear was actually eight inches longer to accommodate the bigger engines. So it changes the elevation of the nose of the airplane as it’s flying through the air”
Except the Edsel was only a marketing disaster, which anything called “737” is definitely not. And the Edsel was a good car, which perhaps the 737 is not.
Closer comparison is Corvair, although just how “dangerous” it was is also questionable.
I wonder if it would help balance things out if they put a 3’ fuselage plug in in front of the wing. The added cabin space (which they’d probably squeeze a couple of rows of seats in) might require an additional exit point (although the added exit designed into the MAX 10 might take care of that). The 10 is already 14 longer than the 8s that have been crashing, so perhaps it is proportioned a little better. (Or maybe a little worse - the extra exits are in the back).
More like the Electra, with a touch of ATR thrown in.
“The longitudinal static stability of the King Air is such that it can maintain steady flight in normal conditions without input from the pilot or control systems.”
Or how long?
“I wonder if it would help balance things out if they put a 3’ fuselage plug in in front of the wing.”
That would result in imbalance unless weight distribution was redesigned.
“. And the Edsel was a good car, which perhaps the 737 is not.”
Wrong on both accounts.
Things are out of balance now - so the right changes might help restore balance.
Maybe they should have based the new plane on the DC-9/MD-80/717. The wing was well to the rear on them, and the engines even further back.
“Things are out of balance now - so the right changes might help restore balance.”
Perhaps some yoga and meditation could restore balance to the things.
‘For how long?’
Until you run out of fuel and then it’ll descend. If you’re fortunate it will glide to a belly landing on level ground.
If you hit a mountain while trying this don’t blame Beechcraft!
“Until you run out of fuel and then it’ll descend.”
If autopilot is engaged.
Oh Dear, I hope you can cook... Oh wait, that must have been s fairy tale, about trail heavy, right? Never mind.
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.