|
Infinotize posted:FAA et al should get real about type ratings. Narrow the constraints that determine whether a new rating is required. Stop these bullshit games the industry gets to play by forcing engineers to design a mutant airplane because of business requirements and then slap on unbaked software band aids. It's this imo. Boeing using a bunch of computer trickery to make a much larger airplane fly like a NG so they can sell the same type rating as a positive when they're pitching it to airlines is the fundamental cause of these crashes. Boeing hollowing out and subcontracting more and more engineering work to their 1st tier vendors probably isn't helping matters either, but that's what you get when your only remaining core competency is selling poo poo
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They have some old type ratings lying around. I introduce to you the 717-8 Max! Unless you're talking about the 707-derived military airlifter, the 717 is just an *extremely* updated DC-9. So it would fit with Boeing's current narrowbody strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:How about the propfan? No no no no no no no no
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Delta will take 1000. Yeah, in 30 years as everyone else dumps them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Unless you're talking about the 707-derived military airlifter, the 717 is just an *extremely* updated DC-9. So it would fit with Boeing's current narrowbody strategy. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Unless you're talking about the 707-derived military airlifter, the 717 is just an *extremely* updated DC-9. So it would fit with Boeing's current narrowbody strategy. Something I made for this thread ages ago...  Someone just needs to stretch the fuselage!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
well that went straight over my head Finger Prince posted:Something I made for this thread ages ago... just return that L1011 in the back to service and we're good
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:How about the propfan? Rumor has it you can still hear the noise from this echoing to this day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:well that went straight over my head Just imagine what silliness would’ve continued if McDonnell Douglas survived longer: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:What if you put a multiGNSS (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou, etc.) receiver in the nose, another in the tail, for redundancy one in each wingtip, and use the coordinates they all give you to get a relatively precise idea of the position of the plane relative to the Earth? By combining the data you get from several GNSS (and there re four main ones now) you get increased precision and accuracy, and that's even truer near airports thanks to WAAS, EGNOS, and similar augmentation systems. Aside from complexity and cost, there's also the issue that GPS/GNSS positions on a moving object always have a certain amount of uncertainty in them, and if you're trying to determine height differences between two ends of an airplane, that uncertainty will be enough that the system couldn't reliably figure out the exact pitch or bank to a level of precision that's useful for flying. The current "gold standard" for GPS approaches is RNP .1, which means the receiver has to know where it is within .1nm (~600ft) at all times on the approach. In the real world, an FMS can often do substantially better than that, but even if the receiver cuts that error to .01NM, 60ft is still too much of a margin of error to determine pitch or roll very accurately on an airplane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Aside from complexity and cost, there's also the issue that GPS/GNSS positions on a moving object always have a certain amount of uncertainty in them, and if you're trying to determine height differences between two ends of an airplane, that uncertainty will be enough that the system couldn't reliably figure out the exact pitch or bank to a level of precision that's useful for flying. Also, and I can't stress this enough for people who may not have priced out things like WAAS-capable GPS systems before -- even if you could get the error down to an acceptable level, it would be insanely expensive to have that system in the first place, also have that system be fully redundant in case any part of it failed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I'm just gonna say it: stilt struts and monster truck wheels I mean you joke about that, but that's literally what Boeing did in addition to moving the engines. They extended the nose gear strut by something like 15-20 centimetres over the 737NG, and the MAX 10 gets this system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IGl4OizM4
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Cap'n Sully sez "all pilots should have a million billion hours" and congress falls over themselves to make it so, but the manufacturers and airlines can get away with avoiding the regulatory requirements arising from a clean-sheet development through these increasingly kludgy hacks and well, that's pretty cool and good because we wouldn't want to inconvenience the job creators now would we?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidnakamura/status/1106011289594327041?s=21 Huh, he got one right!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
I'm honestly not entirely clear on why they didn't use the 757 as a platform to endlessly gently caress around with a bunch of incremental improvements. It was, and still is, an incredibly capable aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
I think that’s mainly because it’d be a shorter 757 that’d have been of interest and shorter versions don’t seem to work well as a rule. They did make the 757-300 which probably couldn’t be even longer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm honestly not entirely clear on why they didn't use the 757 as a platform to endlessly gently caress around with a bunch of incremental improvements. It was, and still is, an incredibly capable aircraft. Not a widebody.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm honestly not entirely clear on why they didn't use the 757 as a platform to endlessly gently caress around with a bunch of incremental improvements. It was, and still is, an incredibly capable aircraft. It was just a little too much airplane I imagine. When the whole situation is based on economics, the 737 is cheaper to operate and easier to fill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I mean you joke about that, but that's literally what Boeing did in addition to moving the engines. They extended the nose gear strut by something like 15-20 centimetres over the 737NG, and the MAX 10 gets this system: I love how proud of this that engineer is in this video.  NightGyr posted:It was just a little too much airplane I imagine. When the whole situation is based on economics, the 737 is cheaper to operate and easier to fill. The 737 seats more than a 757-200 now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Southwest wasn't going to buy any neo-757s
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
I did it, I found the dumbest news story comment ever!quote:How often do people overcome the perils of aviation disaster through the use of those ridiculous oxygen masks? Never. Period. Every airline customer should lobby airlines to have installed emergency parachutes installed. That is a little less ridiculous than cheesy oxygen masks that do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Aside from complexity and cost, there's also the issue that GPS/GNSS positions on a moving object always have a certain amount of uncertainty in them, and if you're trying to determine height differences between two ends of an airplane, that uncertainty will be enough that the system couldn't reliably figure out the exact pitch or bank to a level of precision that's useful for flying. There’s also the issue that vertical position, which is the relevant axis here, has two to three times as much uncertainty as horizontal position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I did it, I found the dumbest news story comment ever! I want to see what happens when you have 200 people all attempting to skydive from 400m
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
Aargh posted:I want to see what happens when you have 200 people all attempting to skydive from 400m At 175-260kts. Also, I think it's been a while since it was last posted, but this article's always interesting: https://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/05/airliners-landing-aircraft-carrier-oh-yes/ I can see them *landing*, but I don't know how they'd get off the deck without RATO support (especially since the 727 had support for that), and if they couldn't be turned around quickly enough they'd be an Air Boss' worst nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:It was just a little too much airplane I imagine. When the whole situation is based on economics, the 737 is cheaper to operate and easier to fill. This. I can’t imagine this incident is going to impact a drat thing for Boeing, the 737 MAX fuel efficiency is what’s driving customers to buy, and it’s arguably Boeing’s edge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I did it, I found the dumbest news story comment ever! Someone needs to take the President's internet away because he's posting in random comment sections now I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Rumor has it you can still hear the noise from this echoing to this day. With the supposed 30% efficiency improvement over regular turbofans I would happily listen to propfans noisily buzzing around. And hell, if this thing really does what they say it does and can be tuned for different frequencies the noise issue (at least inside of the passenger cabin) could largely become a non-issue. gently caress the NIMBYs anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I mean you joke about that, but that's literally what Boeing did in addition to moving the engines. They extended the nose gear strut by something like 15-20 centimetres over the 737NG, and the MAX 10 gets this system: FFS just build a different plane, no wonder they're falling out of the sky. Not suggesting that particular piece of gear is unsafe, it's the idea that you've got to design within limits of a business goal, which is the thing that got McDonnell Douglas into trouble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 08:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:What if you put a multiGNSS (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou, etc.) receiver in the nose, another in the tail, for redundancy one in each wingtip, and use the coordinates they all give you to get a relatively precise idea of the position of the plane relative to the Earth? By combining the data you get from several GNSS (and there re four main ones now) you get increased precision and accuracy, and that's even truer near airports thanks to WAAS, EGNOS, and similar augmentation systems. movax posted:Yeah, I think the "fix" is easy and straightforward, it just shouldn't have taken killing ~300 people to correct a problem that (guessing) stemmed out of a suboptimal engineering culture / poor communication environment at Boeing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
Aargh posted:I want to see what happens when you have 200 people all attempting to skydive from 400m Assuming they only use the exits over and aft of the wing, I suppose eventually the horizontal stab will take enough damage to shear off so the last few people survive. Probably would take a lot more than 200 people though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Something I’m curious about - what would an airbus do in this situation? Just kick you over to alternative law and turn the stall protection and everything off right? Took some looking up because I forget where to find all the info, but no and yes. Airbus has more redundancy (3 AOA vanes), so a single failure won't drop you down to alternate law. A second failure will, and the fault message will only be inhibited during the last bit of the takeoff roll. A single AOA failure will alert during taxi so the crew and maintence have a chance to address it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Assuming they only use the exits over and aft of the wing, I suppose eventually the horizontal stab will take enough damage to shear off so the last few people survive. Probably would take a lot more than 200 people though. That just means we need static lines and large extending guides that push the passengers down under the stabilizer! Come on, this is exactly the sort of easy problem that randos on the Internet can solve!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Where is Dahir Insaat when we need him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:That just means we need static lines and large extending guides that push the passengers down under the stabilizer! Come on, this is exactly the sort of easy problem that randos on the Internet can solve! I wonder how many people it would take to get tangled up in the stab to counteract the trim motor and no-back-brake and trim the stab back to nose up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I wonder how many people it would take to get tangled up in the stab to counteract the trim motor and no-back-brake and trim the stab back to nose up? I wonder how many people running to the back of the plane would make the max have a more uh controllable CG?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Blitter posted:I wonder how many people running to the back of the plane would make the max have a more uh controllable CG?! "uh, folks, this is the captain... We're having a bit of trouble up here, could we ask all the fat people go to the back of the plane for a few minutes?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:"uh, folks, this is the captain... We're having a bit of trouble up here, could we ask all the fat people go to the back of the plane for a few minutes?" The half full CRJ-200 experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Blitter posted:I wonder how many people running to the back of the plane would make the max have a more uh controllable CG?! Stationing the trim party was one of my favorite dumb submarine tricks. Handholding a Boeing rep through five years of our calibration records is not one of my favorite anythings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 16:07
|
|
