Earlier versions of the 737 had weaker engines placed further back. The didn't have much pitchup and didn't need an automated system to protect against stalling.
It's not so much that a high AOA caused run away. It's because the pitchup moment with the more powerful engines caused the high AOA which could stall the A/C.
Recall that the Lion Air flight only lasted for a few minutes, and that it had a known bad AOA sensor. It had a discrepancy of 20 degrees with respect to the copilot's AOA sensor. A part of the stabilizer was recovered and showed the trim jackscrew in the full nose down position.
The Ethiopian stabilizer was also recovered and showed the same full nose down position. It is not known yet if there was a problem with the AOA sensor, but the flight was equally short. So when the MCAS wants to put the nose down, and the pilots don't know how to turn it off, the end is very near.
We know that SUCK lifts the blades up, but they don't fold up like an umbrella in the wind. And they're limber, and most often hinged at the hub so they flap too. But they don't fold up because centrifugal force flattens out the cone, making the rotor disk and mast closer to a T instead of a Y.
Now, and I'm the only one who knows this, it's the flattening out of the Y's arms that brings up the mast at the center. Try it yourself with a piece of string and a pencil tied at the middle. Hold the ends close together, then pull the ends of the string apart. See? Centrifugal force lifts the bird up.
Since you muddled this by introducing forward velocity... a descending wing, in a steady-rate descent, is still producing the same lift that it produces in level flight. And it's the same in a steady climb. Same pressure differential in each case.
Bonk wrote in news:q6md19$15fu$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:
So forward airspeed is essential in the equation. Ascending or descending means nothing unless the wing is moving FORWARD through the air.
Think of the air as laminar lines through which the wings cut.
Those molecules cannot provide lift to a wing falling through them. The wing has to have forward velocity in order for the lines to even be in the correct direction.
A diagram of a stalled aircraft would show those lines as being more vertical or in the angle of the 'fall' of the craft.
Forward velocity is REQUIRED. The minimum amount of that measure is KNOWN for each craft. Design targets are currently 180 to 200 knots. That is for landing and when to begin pulling up on take offs. After it is in the air, that airspeed should be increasing even as the plane is climbing. Moreso too since the air thins and overall lift reduces at higher altitudes.
These crashes were both just after take off, so that tells me that it may be an initial climb procedure issue. Too steep or not including enough airspeed gain or perhaps a time when that safety control system is not even activated.
This is an inital climb procedure flaw that took the pilots by surprise and did not get managed correctly leading to catastrophic failure. That system should perhaps not even be initiated until after altitude is reached.
Bonk wrote in news:q6mm5n$edo$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:
OK... I see the plane pic was white paint. I see the little stands they are on. I did not see that. So they ARE on the wing over near the root and on top. HOWEVER... WAY ABOVE THE WING.
Now, Mr. Brainiac... do you know why those engine podiums are so far above the wing? I should not have to provide a hint.
What's a squash effect? Squishband? No, that's a combustion chamber thing. The FAA says there's no such thing as a squash effect. You made that up.
And now you've completely left out BLOWN, as in they are BLOWN flaps. It's the bottom being blown.
Thrust reversers are like bucket-halves that split off of the rear of an engine, swing rearward, and close together in the exhaust stream, making the exhaust do a U-turn. The blown flap is like one half of a bucket, and the thrust makes half a U-turn. Down.
Bonk wrote in news:q6mne3$jo4$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:
It is not my term.
You're an idiot... yes... you.
The vast space between your ears is a combustion chamber thing.
You're an idiot. You never inquired with the FAA. So you're a goddamned liar too.
Bullshit.
Normal passenger planes, cargo planes, and other large form factor aircraft experience this as they land the craft. It is known that the point the pilot aims for is different than where the plane lands on the runway. And they reinforced that fact when they flew the C-
17 test flights and the pilots are the ones who used the term and described the effect, and it is due to the 'blown flaps' incorporated into the C-17.
I worked on (read built)test racks for their computer systems. McD-D had us build redundant test racks which contained 17 of the 51 mission critical computer systems on the plane. Each rack had two of said system on it, and a 'peg board' which allowed the opening or shorting of any conductor(s) in the interconnects between systems. I met with one of their test pilots and the effect was described to me by him.
You don't actually know anything about repairing autos. There is much that is diagnosed by the car itself and you SAVE... In fact, my last vehicle h ad more repairs done by me than any shop and it had fewer shop visits than any car I've owned before... and all that is in spite of the fact that I ha d that vehicle for 20 years, about four times longer than any other car I'v e owned.
I got close to $1,000 a year in vehicle cost including the car itself and r epairs.
You still aren't getting it. The original claim was moving the engines up could push the nose up in flight. It clearly would NOT do that unless there were other factors involved.
olving two parties. You can't solely blame one party.
running, and
Of course they did because they failed to negotiate an agreeable approach. If Trump says "I won't sign X" and you send him X to sign, then you clearl y were not trying to keep the government open.
Five billion dollars was a nothing to the government. That would be less t han $17 from each person in the US. I haven't seen numbers, but I bet the shutdown cost us more than that. It was not a pragmatic issue to let the g overnment shut down, it was purely political on both sides.
at is diagnosed by the car itself and you SAVE... In fact, my last vehicle had more repairs done by me than any shop and it had fewer shop visits tha n any car I've owned before... and all that is in spite of the fact that I had that vehicle for 20 years, about four times longer than any other car I 've owned.
repairs.
1000/year including the car is the magic point of car/cost optimization. I n my younger days I strove for that and achieved it for various stretches. Now I buy new and pour my money down the drain because I can.
On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 7:43:31 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wrote :
:
e
t
tall
the
de the
all
zing
nst a
ith
s
down
er
That
ques
ut
racted.
ed
y
ion
he
een
was
ting
time.
y, I
ff
uld
the
l loop
ss.
.This kind of madness can only be corrected by blaming the top levels of ma nagement for allowing such awfulness to be hidden from them (by corporate d esign) This should really wipe out the top 3 layers of management across t he whole company because it indicates technical corruption which is so blat ant that it could have only happened by a terrible management team that enc ouraged this nonsense by their culture. In other words this points to a co rrupted culture .
are
crew in
d her that the building that fall down were the "over-engineered" ones. Th is plane was an over-engineered plane. Too clever by half comes to mind. Arrogant people who think they can overcome the fundamentals of flight thro ugh clever control loops.
fall down are the ones that are engineered *badly*.
might fall for "too clever by half" schemes. Stick to the fundamentals. When it comes to new ideas.... don't let management entice you into signing your name on all the drawings as they compliment you about how smart you a re.
re likely going to be making sure that known fundamentals get applied in a particular project.
434.html
1434.html
You are proving my point, "But the design had a key mistake, experts say". "It?s not clear why workers were doing this, but independent engin eers believe the procedure caused the No. 11 support to fail."
The problem was the mistake and they don't yet know why it happened. You are being a bit premature in even using this as an example since you don't know why it failed.
No indication it was about "fundamentals", whatever that means to you. I g uess it means designing using methods that others took risks on and proved could be done successfully. Clearly it isn't about what the rest of the wo rld calls fundamentals, but rather something more like, "stick to the same tired designs that inflate costs and stretch schedules". If everyone did t hat we would still be building with nothing but stone.
I expect your daughter will find the profession very boring and not in the Musk Boring Company way. I hope she can be happy designing the way the Rom ans did. They did manage to build some rather impressive roads and viaduct s... for their time.
Oh yeah, if we did that, we wouldn't have a problem with Boeing 737s. We'd only have problems with Ox Carts Amalgamated latest wheels made of... wood .
On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 8:46:38 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wrote :
ote:
too
cost
or
e by
it
or
that is diagnosed by the car itself and you SAVE... In fact, my last vehic le had more repairs done by me than any shop and it had fewer shop visits t han any car I've owned before... and all that is in spite of the fact that I had that vehicle for 20 years, about four times longer than any other car I've owned.
nd repairs.
In my younger days I strove for that and achieved it for various stretches . Now I buy new and pour my money down the drain because I can.
Actually my best strategy was when I needed two cars running I owned 3 clun kers and just needed two running at any given time. It really took the pres sure off of owning clunkers
That seems very clear that it was either a pilot error or if the pilots tru ly had no training on this issue, it was a training error. I don't get why people want to call this an airplane design problem. The plane was perfec tly flyable with an AOA sensor failure if you did the right things which we ren't all that difficult to do.
I posted a link about the Air Florida Flight 90 accident which was very com parable. Yes, there was ice on the wings, but the pilots clearly ignored t he stick shaker and most likely could have flown the plane over the bridge if the stick had been pushed to drop the nose enough to stop the stall. Th ey also had cut the engines back after seeing a reading that the power was very high, higher than the engines should have been able to produce. How w as that possible and wasn't it clearly an instrument failure?
On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrot e:
te:
te:
the
as
ght
oo tall
se
d the
made the
ecall
mazing
ainst a
with
is
e down
ther
That
orques
bout
etracted.
gned
a
any
t
ation
the
as
been
AS was
keting
is time.
ary, I
eoff
would
in the
rol loop
ness.
...This kind of madness can only be corrected by blaming the top levels of management for allowing such awfulness to be hidden from them (by corporate design) This should really wipe out the top 3 layers of management across the whole company because it indicates technical corruption which is so bl atant that it could have only happened by a terrible management team that e ncouraged this nonsense by their culture. In other words this points to a corrupted culture .
ey are
kscrew in
.
old 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. Arrogant people who think they can overcome the fundamentals of flight th rough clever control loops.
at fall down are the ones that are engineered *badly*.
ou might fall for "too clever by half" schemes. Stick to the fundamentals. When it comes to new ideas.... don't let management entice you into signi ng your name on all the drawings as they compliment you about how smart you are.
more likely going to be making sure that known fundamentals get applied in a particular project.
71434.html
571434.html
. "It?s not clear why workers were doing this, but independent eng ineers believe the procedure caused the No. 11 support to fail."
u are being a bit premature in even using this as an example since you don' t know why it failed.
guess it means designing using methods that others took risks on and prove d could be done successfully.
It is all about who loses when a design fails. I am all for taking risks on new designs when the designer wins or loses in the market. I am not so mu ch into striving for grand new ideas when the losers are 5 pedestrians who get crushed or 300 passengers who go tumbling into the ground. If that is your idea of cool new design risks then I hope you are no where near the de sign of anything that involves peoples lives. Stick to microprocessor cont rolled nose pickers and take all the chances you want.
Clearly it isn't about what the rest of the world calls fundamentals, but rather something more like, "stick to the same tired designs that inflate costs and stretch schedules". If everyone did that we would still be build ing with nothing but stone.
e Musk Boring Company way. I hope she can be happy designing the way the R omans did. They did manage to build some rather impressive roads and viadu cts... for their time.
'd only have problems with Ox Carts Amalgamated latest wheels made of... wo od.
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.