|
Southwest are sending its MAXes to the desert, seems a little drastic, but I guess it saves a bunch of money on sitting around at airports collecting fees.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
ewe2 posted:Southwest are sending its MAXes to the desert, seems a little drastic, but I guess it saves a bunch of money on sitting around at airports collecting fees. This looks like a play to put pressure on Boeing. All the “airline sends entire fleet of new Boeing planes to infamous ‘airplane graveyard’” headlines are bad news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Uh well obviously. the bush is a dong's natural habitat
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Lots of long but unimproved runways in Alaska. Would depend on exactly how you define bush flying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:This looks like a play to put pressure on Boeing. All the “airline sends entire fleet of new Boeing planes to infamous ‘airplane graveyard’” headlines are bad news. How much is that pressure going to accomplish? I think it’s simple cost cutting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
It's not like Boeing is sitting around with its thumb up its rear end procrastinating on fixing the 737 MAX, or that the PR hasn't been devastatingly bad already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Southwest are sending its MAXes to the desert, seems a little drastic, but I guess it saves a bunch of money on sitting around at airports collecting fees. If MCAS is (probably correctly) to be re-assessed as safety critical and has to go to DAL-A they're going to be very right at wanting a cheap place for them to sit, because it's going to probably take a redesign and a lot of certification rework. And a lot of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Can't they just drill a hole and stick a second AoA sensor on the other side of the nose
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
There's already two AoA sensors, but Boeing decided to save money by having MCAS only get input from one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Can't they just drill a hole and stick a second AoA sensor on the other side of the nose It's already got one! MCAS just ain't using it. (Actually it uses them both, individually, on an alternating flight by flight basis.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
vessbot posted:It's already got one! MCAS just ain't using it. (Actually it uses them both, individually, on an alternating flight by flight basis.) but why
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Inacio posted:but why ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Sounds like a pretty easy fix then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Sounds like a pretty easy fix then. Lots of things on airplanes do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Boeing also has an AOG center there, so having all the airplanes in one spot to do work on them would be a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Sounds like a pretty easy fix then. The real problem is that they incorrectly categorized the system as less than critical. Now the system has to be redesigned to critical standards which may or may not just be software. The next question is what else did they not correctly categorize?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
1 of 1 redundancy (i.e. no redundancy) is probably not allowed on flight critical systems. Coming from a whoooole 'nother engineering field though, so ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Aww poo poo: https://fireaviation.com/2019/03/24/joe-hoser-satrapa-rip/
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Arson Daily posted:Boeing also has an AOG center there, so having all the airplanes in one spot to do work on them would be a bonus. How are they going to get them all the way there instead of cratering in on climbout, smart guy??
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Starting to read that I thought the name sounded familiar, and then "oh poo poo, it's that Hoser."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
quote:Here lies Hoser If that's on his tombstone, holy loving lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It's not like Boeing is sitting around with its thumb up its rear end procrastinating on fixing the 737 MAX, or that the PR hasn't been devastatingly bad already. Yea man stock is falling pretty quickly im sure there are a lot of all nighters going on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Sounds like a pretty easy fix then. I mean, I know you're joking but that change would almost certainly require re-baselining the entire flight control system which means, redo pretty much everything you've done to certify the aircraft. I don't even know if they can start that until the FAA has finished investigations and any legal actions are concluded. Wanna be a fly on the wall for those design review meetings tho. Actually no, those would be horrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Starting to read that I thought the name sounded familiar, and then "oh poo poo, it's that Hoser." Same. Never knew he flew Connies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Starting to read that I thought the name sounded familiar, and then "oh poo poo, it's that Hoser." He might be pretending, to raise his kill ratio...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
vessbot posted:It's already got one! MCAS just ain't using it. (Actually it uses them both, individually, on an alternating flight by flight basis.) I can't speak to this system but I've seen smart probes have real trouble agreeing with each other. I really doubt "boeing save a nickle" is the reason it only uses one or the other in alternate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuLL8g8ena0
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
Inacio posted:but why
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
So, logistically how does this grounding work for airlines that need the airframes? It sounds like it's not an insignificant amount of the fleet for some airlines. Are they recommissioning old stored aircraft? Lease? Or do airlines have that many frames kicking around that it's not a big deal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
It’s very much a big deal, that’s why this whole ordeal is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
slidebite posted:So, logistically how does this grounding work for airlines that need the airframes? It sounds like it's not an insignificant amount of the fleet for some airlines. Are they recommissioning old stored aircraft? Lease? Or do airlines have that many frames kicking around that it's not a big deal? American is canceling roughly 90 flights/day with a disproportionately large effect on Miami. It's like 1.3% of their available seat capacity, so it's not as big a deal for them as some and they'll just eat the cancellations. Some airlines may delay exit from service of older aircraft (likely by spending the money to perform heavy maintenance checks), and some will likely do wet-leases with other airlines particularly charter companies that are already set up to do this. One of the big things with the 787 groundings was that Boeing had to pay a lot of compensation to airlines for capacity losses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I think the coaxial rotor actually has less moving parts than a traditional one as well, since they have to be much more rigid so they don't bounce into each other. Y'all need more tetra posting in this thread by the looks of it. Eh, I don't know about less "moving" parts than a single articulated rotor. Certainly, SB-1* does not have lead-lag or flapping hinges. If it's like the X2, it's also bearingless, i.e., there are no pitch bearings as the blades just twist. But you still have to have pitch links and twice as many rotating swashplates.  Here's the rotor head from a Ka-26. You can see that there's a direct connection between the upper and lower rotating swashplates, so one set of control inputs is transmitted to both rotors. This conveniently works well with an articulated rotor system, since the ~90 degree phase lag between the cyclic pitch inputs and the blade response means that both swashplates should incline in the same direction for any control. For a rigid rotor, or even a high hinge-offset articulated one, this could be resolved with inclined pitch links. I believe that X-2, S-97, and SB-1 all have the ability to control the amount of lift offset on the rotors during high speed forward flight. That means that they must allow for differential lateral cyclic pitch inputs, which also means that unlike a Kamov coaxial rotor helicopter the upper swashplate must somehow be able to move independently of the lower swashplate. It will be interesting to see how it's done; I have not seen a clear view of the rotor heads of any of these machines. The most interesting thing to me about SB-1 is how high of a solidity (ratio of blade area to disk area) the pusher prop has. Either it's going to generate an awful lot of thrust, or they're finally trying to reduce tip speed to avoid the prop sounding as much like an air raid siren as it did on the X-2 and S-97. The prop can be declutched; at hover and low speed it's just wasted power, and even at higher speeds it may cause unwanted noise. Anyway, it's nice to see it starting to fly. I hope Sikorsky can pull it together. *I refuse to legitimize the ">," even the Sikorsky "A Lockheed Martin Company" guys I talk to only ever say it sarcastically. Bob A Feet posted:On the one hand, Bell is going to bait and switch the gently caress out of the Valor. It will promise lots and bring nothing. I guarantee you it will have the same less than 50% readiness that the Osprey has at any given point. I worked on a test program with a USAF CV-22 before, and I was constantly being told that they weren't comfortable flying a lot of the things we routinely do with helicopters, e.g., flying low to the ground. Now the V-22 is surprisingly huge, and maybe the USAF doesn't use it quite the same way as the Navy would. Bell claims the V-280 can do everything an H-60 can. It is smaller and will has lower disk loading, but I have a hard time imagining it maneuvering at low speed at all like a helicopter does. What do you think? The tilt-rotor has a huge advantage in that the aerodynamic efficiency at high speed is certainly better than the SB-1. But I'm not yet convinced it can replace a helicopter. EDIT: Here's a neat PDF of an older presentation about the X2 with a few interesting details. Tetraptous fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Mar 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me how this even happens: https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1110161353484980224?s=21
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
That's just some admin cockup. The pilot didn't think he was landing elsewhere, he thought he was correctly flying to the Edinburgh. Very rare I suppose, and annoying for the passengers but not dangerous or inexplicable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Which marketing dickhead thought putting a carrot in the model designation was a good idea *caret a carrot would be funnier tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Ola posted:That's just some admin cockup. The pilot didn't think he was landing elsewhere, he thought he was correctly flying to the Edinburgh. Very rare I suppose, and annoying for the passengers but not dangerous or inexplicable. And that's why you always announce the destination you think you're flying to at the beginning of the flight too 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And that's why you always announce the destination you think you're flying to at the beginning of the flight too Yeah, they always do that, but perhaps they should pause and listen to the reaction more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Dr_Strangelove posted:*caret
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
SB GREATER THAN 1
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:Can someone explain to me how this even happens: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-01-06/atlas-identifies-causes-747s-landing-wrong-airport These things happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 17:11
|
|
