Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

[zqwerty]

I've known this for a while, don't be tempted to fly in one of these planes when they come back into service, perhaps with a disguising name:

MIT Expert Highlights 'Divergent Condition' Caused By 737 MAX Engine Placement:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterco...h=5753c47640aa

[WalOne]

The Forbes article is dated 02 April 2019, and the raw data it is based upon is already at that point around 2 months old ... that makes the article and its conclusions about 21 months old, arguably almost 2 years out of date.

Any conclusions based on already outdated data should not be relied upon. The aircraft would not be released for service if those conclusions were still valid.

[prefect]

If it aint Boeing I aint going.
You would a squillion times safer flying in Boeing Max 737 that walking around Otara Manurewa and Porirua.

[tweak'e]

the whole MCAS system thats the cause of the issue, isn't actually required to fly the plane. the engine placement doesn't make it a dangerous aircraft.
the purpose of the MCAS system was to make the plane fly the same as previous models so they didn't need to retrain pilots, which is a huge cost to airlines.

now the MCAS system has had a major rework, the extra training required has been sorted and most importantly the underlying culture that was the root cause of the problem is being addressed.

even with the big down turn in air travel, companies are scrapping planes, and the bad press of the accidents, the 737 max are still being ordered.
airlines really want aircraft that are cheaper to fly.

[DrNum]

I've known this for a while, don't be tempted to fly in one of these planes when they come back into service, perhaps with a disguising name:

MIT Expert Highlights 'Divergent Condition' Caused By 737 MAX Engine Placement:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterco...h=5753c47640aa

Nice it looks spectacular!

[zqwerty]

Boeing isn't the same company it once was, once upon a time it was run by engineers and they made all the important decisions, but there was some sort of buy-out (google it) and now management and even worse middle-management is making lots of engineering type decisions.

Hence the existence of the 737 Max which is a botch-up of the 737 body with a much larger engine than it was ever designed to be powered by. This was done to compete with the Airbus 320 which was designed from the ground up to have large flight length capabilities, economic running and highly computerized which may or may-not be a good thing, The Boeing 737 was an attempt to avoid building a new competing plane from the ground up which is what should have been done.

It's a kludge. Read more about it if you doubt this as I have been doing for the last two years and have read and comprehended all the information.

The larger engine did not have sufficient ground clearance and had to be mounted higher up and forward on the wings of where the previous engines used to be.

This resulted in the plane wanting to nose up and climb so they came up with MCAS which also had its own set of problems (no redundancy) in how it was implemented.

I googled the take-over for you:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...arings/602188/

"A company once driven by engineers became driven by finance"

[tweak'e]

Hence the existence of the 737 Max which is a botch-up of the 737 body with a much larger engine than it was ever designed to be powered by. This was done to compete with the Airbus 320 which was designed from the ground up to have large flight length capabilities, economic running and highly computerized which may or may-not be a good thing, The Boeing 737 was an attempt to avoid building a new competing plane from the ground up which is what should have been done.

It's a kludge. Read more about it if you doubt this as I have been doing for the last two years and have read and comprehended all the information.

The larger engine did not have sufficient ground clearance and had to be mounted higher up and forward on the wings of where the previous engines used to be.

This resulted in the plane wanting to nose up and climb so they came up with MCAS which also had its own set of problems (no redundancy) in how it was implemented.

thats not actually a problem.
all airliners with underslung engines nose up and climb under high power. the plane flys perfectly fine, there is next to no difference compared to the previous model.
the only difference is at high angle of attack, which is the only time MCAS operates to make the plane fly the same of previous model. most of the time the plane flys exactly the same as previous model.

many people keep trying to say that the 737 max is a badly designed plane, which is simply not true.
there is absolutely nothing wrong with the plane, there was no fault with the aircraft.

the problems all come from trying to make the plane handle like the previous model so airlines don't have to spend big dollars certificating pilots.
boeing could have simply thrown the MCAS system out and made airlines recert all its pilots, but that would have lost them sales.

[prefect]

Boeing isn't the same company it once was, once upon a time it was run by engineers and they made all the important decisions, but there was some sort of buy-out (google it) and now management and even worse middle-management is making lots of engineering type decisions.

Hence the existence of the 737 Max which is a botch-up of the 737 body with a much larger engine than it was ever designed to be powered by. This was done to compete with the Airbus 320 which was designed from the ground up to have large flight length capabilities, economic running and highly computerized which may or may-not be a good thing, The Boeing 737 was an attempt to avoid building a new competing plane from the ground up which is what should have been done.

It's a kludge. Read more about it if you doubt this as I have been doing for the last two years and have read and comprehended all the information.

The larger engine did not have sufficient ground clearance and had to be mounted higher up and forward on the wings of where the previous engines used to be.

This resulted in the plane wanting to nose up and climb so they came up with MCAS which also had its own set of problems (no redundancy) in how it was implemented.

I googled the take-over for you:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...arings/602188/

"A company once driven by engineers became driven by finance"

If you mount an engine further forward it till tilt the nose down unless you put weights in the tail.

[zqwerty]

Neither of you read the article:

"As I understand it, at high angles of attack the Nacelles -- which are the tube shaped structures around the fans -- create aerodynamic lift. Because the engines are further forward, the lift tends to push the nose up -- causing the angle of attack to increase further. This reinforces itself and results in a pitch-up tendency which if not corrected can result in a stall. This is called an unstable or divergent condition. It should be noted that many high performance aircraft have this tendency but it is not acceptable in transport category aircraft [emphasis mine] where there is a requirement that the aircraft is stable and returns to a steady condition if no forces are applied to the controls."

I rest my case, this is not only a kludge it is an abortion of a kludge.

[tweak'e]

Neither of you read the article:

"As I understand it, at high angles of attack the Nacelles -- which are the tube shaped structures around the fans -- create aerodynamic lift. Because the engines are further forward, the lift tends to push the nose up -- causing the angle of attack to increase further. This reinforces itself and results in a pitch-up tendency which if not corrected can result in a stall. This is called an unstable or divergent condition. It should be noted that many high performance aircraft have this tendency but it is not acceptable in transport category aircraft [emphasis mine] where there is a requirement that the aircraft is stable and returns to a steady condition if no forces are applied to the controls."

I rest my case, this is not only a kludge it is an abortion of a kludge.

that simply false.
the main cause of pitch up is from the power of the engines and their location on the aircraft. thats normal on aircraft with low slung engines.
the way to get around that is to put the wing on top of the fuselage and have the engines placed in the aircrafts centerline which some heavy transport aircraft have, which is where his point of view is coming from.
the pitch up is normally corrected using the trim control. this is normal on a lot of passenger aircraft from most manufactures.

once again, the 737 max flies perfectly fine and is a stable aircraft.

btw the FAA approved fix for all this has nothing to do with the engines or their placement. the aircraft itself is perfectly fine.
the whole debacle is about making the plane fly like the older version so they don't have to spend big $$$ certificating pilots.
but media like to make up BS stories to fool people who don't know any better.