Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1
    VoidMaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,344

    Default Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    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
    It's not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable. The hundred-times-refuted theory of "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it - Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. #2
    Rocket Dog WalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ellerslie
    Posts
    5,275

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    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 that makes the article and its conclusions about 21 months old, arguably almost 2 years out of date.

    Any conclusions based on already outdated data should not be relied upon.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.

    Last edited by WalOne; 24-12-2020 at 07:53 PM.
    I have very high hopes that seriousness is a reversible condition.

    Dr Lester Levy


    I've studied deeply in the philosophies and religions, but cheerfulness kept breaking through.

    Leonard Cohen

  3. #3
    Soaring like a chicken prefect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,985

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    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.
    Its amazing how Potatoes give us chips,fries and Vodka.

    Get your s*** together every other vegetable.

  4. #4
    tweakedgeek tweak'e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    winterlessnorth (well almost)
    Posts
    4,942

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    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.
    Tweak it till it breaks

  5. #5

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    Quote Originally Posted by zqwerty View Post
    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!

  6. #6
    VoidMaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,344

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    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"
    Last edited by zqwerty; 25-12-2020 at 09:15 AM.
    It's not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable. The hundred-times-refuted theory of "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it - Friedrich Nietzsche

  7. #7
    tweakedgeek tweak'e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    winterlessnorth (well almost)
    Posts
    4,942

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    Quote Originally Posted by zqwerty View Post

    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.
    Tweak it till it breaks

  8. #8
    Soaring like a chicken prefect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,985

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    Quote Originally Posted by zqwerty View Post
    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.
    Its amazing how Potatoes give us chips,fries and Vodka.

    Get your s*** together every other vegetable.

  9. #9
    VoidMaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,344

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    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.
    It's not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable. The hundred-times-refuted theory of "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it - Friedrich Nietzsche

  10. #10
    tweakedgeek tweak'e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    winterlessnorth (well almost)
    Posts
    4,942

    Default Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX

    Quote Originally Posted by zqwerty View Post
    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.
    Tweak it till it breaks

Similar Threads

  1. The Boeing 377 Stratocruiser
    By Roscoe in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-09-2017, 06:11 PM
  2. Missing Boeing Aircraft.
    By mzee in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 29-03-2014, 10:44 AM
  3. Boeing 787
    By kenj in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 22-07-2010, 01:41 PM
  4. Boeing 787 first flight
    By fnphoto in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 17-12-2009, 04:55 PM
  5. Computer used on a Boeing 747
    By Misty in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 22-01-2005, 09:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •