737 Max

Er, your comprehension skills indicate you need more coffee.

Reply to
Tom Gardner
Loading thread data ...

the were also moved forward, and how a move affects things depends on where they end up in relation to the center of gravity

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

I believe you are in denial of the facts.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Moving them forward would also push the nose down. Sure the total effect would depend on the center of gravity, but the relative effect compared to the previous engines only depends on that they were pushed forward.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Sigh.

When at school, some formal comprehension tests were of the form Given statement X and statement Y, which of the following is correct:

1 X is true, Y is false 2 X is false, Y is true 3 X is false, Y is false 4 X is true, Y is true, Y is a consequence of X 5 X is true, Y is true, Y is unrelated to X

In this case answer 5 is correct.

(I've also seen such questions in pre-employment Critical Thinking Analysis tests. )

Reply to
Tom Gardner

three_jeeps wrote in news:c7bb3509-2260-487f-88d8- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

The primary system is the only one monitored and 'relied on'. Upon a failure mode in that system, the redundant systems get switched in. I would presume that would start with the transducer. If the mode changes, the system continues.

One would thinK that a mission critical AOA transducer would have a redundant unit.

I would *almost* bet on it. Everything else does.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

A flame... ANY flame is the worst possible presence in highly flammable environments.

It's a word thing... flame... flammable... try to keep mutually exclusive.

We try to contain those locations where we bring the two together. INTERNAL combustion engines... Turbine engines... rocket engines... Cutting torches... furnaces...

Then we got a nation full of dopes like Trump whom would walk up to a small bonfire with a can of gas to toss onto it as a 'fix'.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

The engines likely had a different weight. The reposition was likely to modify the center of gravity to accomodate the weight change.

They do not torque anything. The attachment arm gets pushed against, not torqued. The engines are not merely pushing against a monkey bar.

I am sure the force vectors are exactly where they were designed to be. They have been doing this stuff for decades.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:6bd0604a-dd74-4c58-aeb8- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Human, ya dope.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

So IF the second plane crash is for the exact same reason, the we CAN blame the President for shutting down the government.

Because the FAA AND Boeing were in the midst of alterations that would halt the issue.

Donald J. Trump may very well have blood on his hands in this.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

t
b
m

You are overthinking the arm, engine move thing. They didn't overthink it.

I put my trust in their engineering, not your cursory guesses.

This is a control surface/pilot/automation thing. The pilot fought the system and the system fought the pilot, and that made the altitude transitions detrimental to regaining control.

I do not think the system should deny the pilot control. There should be a single master switch for that.

I do not think the engines are involved at all.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

The 387 MAX oscillation is not a phugoid. It is a PIO (pilot induced oscillation, combined with positive feedback from the elevator trim.

A phugoid doesn't have any pilot feedback. It is a natural oscillation in the airframe itself.

I have been flying for 50 years. I don't recall ever coming across an airplane with a strong enough phugoid to notice. So all the natural oscillations such as phugoid, dutch roll, etc, are designed out before the plane goes into manufacturing.

Reply to
Steve Wilson

Correction : 737 MAX

Reply to
Steve Wilson

You're an idiot.

Reply to
krw

No, if you read the article you would know the engines were too tall to fit under the wing with the "short" landing gear. I suppose extending the lan ding gear is a big deal, so they simply moved the engines in a way so they wouldn't hit the ground. They also made the bottom of the engine flat rath er than arbitrarily round. I recall they made a big deal about the flat bo ttom as if it were an amazing piece of engineering.

Of course they provide torque if they are not exactly aligned with the cent er of gravity. If the center of force of the engines is raised, if all els e is the same, it will tend to push the nose down while someone said it wou ld tend to push the nose up.

Actually, I'm not sure it relates to the center of gravity rather than the center of force of the wind resistance of the plane. That is what the engi nes are pushing against.

You didn't read anything about this did you? The 737 MAX was a redesign of the 737. The engines were a big part of this. Many things in a design ar e trade offs. There are very few perfect designs where all parameters are optimized. This is the situation here. They needed the larger (read "tall er") engines to make the craft cheaper to fly. This led to compromises in various areas reducing some performance functionality. Specifically it has been said the engine changes tended to push the nose up, so the MCAS was a dded to adjust for that.

Personally, until I read something authoritative to the contrary, I think t he MCAS was simply added to help prevent stalls on takeoff after retracting the flaps. It just doesn't seem right they would bother with an active de vice like this to compensate for an unbalanced plane. I expect they would adjust something else in the design to balance it out.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

In the real world the government was shut down because of a dispute involving two parties. You can't solely blame one party.

I'm not sure why the government shutdown required Boeing to stop work. Do you? Engineers don't need a government inspector looking over their shoulders while they work.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Your description is overly simplistic. The system could have been over rid den by the pilot if he understood what was happening. The pilot wasn't den ied control. He just didn't know what was going on and so didn't correct i t... rather than couldn't correct it.

Part of one of the reports talked about how another flight had the problem (I believe this exact same plane if I recall correctly) and the pilots retu rned it to the airport.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

It is. Where do you see the failure?

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I guess you have no clue what a thrust vector is then.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

In the real world, you dippy dumbfuck, the governement was deliberately shut dowqn by a childish, treasonous bastard devoid of any clue about which "one step" at a time our nation takes. Thus far, all of those steps have been backward, not forward. Wake the f*ck up.

Nice try blaming the house and senate, when there were budget bills vetoed at the desk in the oval office.

I was not blaming one party. Learn to read. I EXPLICITLY blamed the one asshole that did it, and that asshole is Donald J. Trump.

Wake the f*ck up.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

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.