737 Max

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 10:18:59 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wr ote:

l

he

a

ed.

e.

op

s kind of madness can only be corrected by blaming the top levels of manage ment for allowing such awfulness to be hidden from them (by corporate desig n) This should really wipe out the top 3 layers of management across the w hole company because it indicates technical corruption which is so blatant that it could have only happened by a terrible management team that encoura ged this nonsense by their culture. In other words this points to a corrup ted culture .

in

r that the building that fall down were the "over-engineered" ones. This p lane was an over-engineered plane. Too clever by half comes to mind. Arro gant people who think they can overcome the fundamentals of flight through clever control loops.

It's a shame you have handicapped your daughter so. The buildings that fal l down are the ones that are engineered *badly*.

Sooner or later engineering will try new techniques and methods. When you try new things there is always the chance that something will go wrong. Ma ny times something will go wrong and "over-engineering" will get the blame even if it had little to do with the engineering.

People like to over-simplify too.

Rick C.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit
Loading thread data ...

ce.org

ridden

ed

...

lem (I

urned

Lion

d heard

on,

olve

This reminds me of the Air Florida flight 90 crash. The problem was the pl ane had too much ice on the wings making it difficult to gain speed and cli mb. The pilot had 8300 hours flying, 2300 commercial hours, 1750 hours in the Boeing 737 and 1100 of those hours as captain. Yet when difficulty aro se instead of putting the nose down to gain speed which would let them avoi d the bridge, he pulled back on the stick.

Do you think he was really pushing on the stick and it was a stick failure? Pilots are people and people make mistakes for many, many different reaso ns. There is no basis for saying the pilots were "almost certainly" trying to shut down the MCAS... other than drama.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Yeah, that *wouldn't* push the nose down...

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

I read where a Boeing exec said that the shutdown hand nothing to do with it. They were field testing the fix during the shutdown and the government had nothing to do with it.

Reply to
krw

On a low-wing airplane, and mounted near the wing root, it probably might not.

formatting link

Reply to
Bonk

Bjorn is confused. He is not a pilot. Engine thrust in the MAX causes a pitch up moment, which is how the A/C would get into high angles of attack in the first place. Pilots would not do that. There is no need to fly that way.

I am a pilot. I have been flying for 50 years, and I would go with the explanations provided by Boeing and in the links I provided.

Reply to
Steve Wilson

I don't get why people don't get this. Look at that image. Now picture th e same plane with the engines located above the wing. That's a HUGE differ ence in the torque on the plane. Of course that would push the nose down c ompared to the existing configuration.

Wing tips are interesting. I've never seen the forked tips like that befor e.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

YES!!!! Just open the hood of a modern car. There is so much s**te that it is impossible to find the engine. All that s**te increases the time-to-fix by an order of magnitude or more. And you PAY...

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Reply to
Robert Baer

We can picture it by looking at DecadentLinuxUser's C-17 A high-wing airplane, but picture it with a low wing instead. And don't move the engines, they stay where they're at.

"Compared to the existing configuration" can mean that adverse torque produced by the existing configuration is removed.

As it is, the thrust line is a long way below the airplane's center of mass, and below the center of drag. The only force lower than the thrust line is the drag of the tires on the runway.

Reply to
Bonk

Whyever not? Congress did all that was required to keep the government running, and a single individual vetoed that.

Parties in a dispute didn't cooperate to do the shutdown.

Reply to
whit3rd

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 10:23:50 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:

all

e

the

l

ng

t a

h

wn

at

es

cted.

n
n

as

ng

ime.

I
d

he

loop

.

his kind of madness can only be corrected by blaming the top levels of mana gement for allowing such awfulness to be hidden from them (by corporate des ign) This should really wipe out the top 3 layers of management across the whole company because it indicates technical corruption which is so blatan t that it could have only happened by a terrible management team that encou raged this nonsense by their culture. In other words this points to a corr upted culture .

re

ew in

her that the building that fall down were the "over-engineered" ones. This plane was an over-engineered plane. Too clever by half comes to mind. Ar rogant people who think they can overcome the fundamentals of flight throug h clever control loops.

all down are the ones that are engineered *badly*.

I don't think that it is a handicap to remind her that as an engineer you m ight fall for "too clever by half" schemes. Stick to the fundamentals. Wh en it comes to new ideas.... don't let management entice you into signing y our name on all the drawings as they compliment you about how smart you are .

At her level I don't think she will be initiating "new ideas". She is more likely going to be making sure that known fundamentals get applied in a pa rticular project.

formatting link

4.html

formatting link

34.html

u try new things there is always the chance that something will go wrong. Many times something will go wrong and "over-engineering" will get the blam e even if it had little to do with the engineering.

Reply to
blocher

Sure. But the performance and reliability of a car are immensely better than they used to be. I don't carry a tool kit around with me any more. Haven't had a flat tire in decades. Remember filing points and replacing fouled plugs and changing oil and filters every few thousand miles? Leaky shocks? Overheating radiators? Burned-out light bulbs? Bad belts? Cut knuckles and filthy fingernails?

You've got to include frequency-of-fix in the hassle equation.

I kind of like the idea that I can't service my car. Or my wife's car! And that they don't break down on the road.

The Lincoln Highway, US coast-to-coast, was completed in 1913. Driving from New York City to San Francisco was an adventure.

formatting link

Until the steel-belted radial, "punctures" were regular.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

e

x-

l AOA.

k
t

I read it as being a combination; Engine thrust cause a pitch up moment but at some high AOA the big forward engine nacelles start to provide lift causing even more pitch up moment

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

That's not how things work. The pitchup moment starts as soon as you add thrust. There is no magic angle of attack where the engines start to provide lift. The maximum AOA is perhaps 15 degrees. Elementary trig shows the amount of lift is negligible.

See Lion Air B-737 Max MCAS UPDATE 28 Nov 2018

pitch up is described at 9:20

formatting link

Reply to
Steve Wilson

This is something that could be overcome by repeated practice. IIRC, the old 'Tommy Gun' favoured by Chicago gangsters had severe muzzle climb up and to the left. But if you knew about that tendency and had practiced enough to compensate for it, it was controllable enough to remain on target.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

:

-m

tal l

a
d

t

s

it seems to me he is just describing how trim works in general

if there wasn't a high AOA that tended to cause "run away" on a Max why would they need an automated system to prevent it?

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

The steel belted tires were a great improvement. It is about 50 miles from Kodiak to Chiniack. While I was there , the worst record was 4 flats on one trip using regular tires. While the best record with steel belted tires was one flat in a year.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

the

The bottom of an engine nacelle does NOT "provide lift" Lift is from the TOP of the wing. That is why they call it LIFT!

The wind SPLASHING against the underside of the nacelle does NOT "provide lift"!!!

Yoiu guys are overthinking this.

Here... a SIMPLE premise.

Helicopter blades LIFT the bird UP. The DOWNWASH from the helicopter blades DOES NOT!!!

Hard points and engines get mounted UNDER a wing, not for some torque moment you guys are dreaming up. BUT because the top side of the wing stays BARE!

AOA changes the vacuum like pressure draw that LIFTS a wing up. At a certsain point the forward velocity and the angle of attack no longer create enough of that pressure differential to lift the wing.

It has NOTHING to do with the underside of the wing.

Even at full flaps, the TOP surface of the wing is where all that LIFT comes from.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Cursitor Doom wrote in news:q6m30o$skd$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

I had a "shotgun pistol" That was a sawed of 20Ga with a cut stock.

If you held it at arms length to fire it, you should place your left hand right up next to the left side of your face/eys.

It torqued counterclockwise and back, and was real easy to catch in your hand each time like clockwork.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

No, that's SUCK.

So what, then, lifts the blades up?

Wing fences and vortex generators go on the top side. And the HondaJet has its engines on top.

That describes a descent. You're way off if you're referring to a stall.

But this messes with your admiration for C-17 blown flaps.

Reply to
Bonk

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.