737 Max

"Lift" comes from flow induced pressure differences across a structure.

Over-pressure below the structure and under-pressure above it have exactly the same effect.

The downwash from the helicopter blades is part of the flow that creates th e lift.

It doesn't have to.

The circulation around the wing changes state and the wing stalls.

The flow around the wing changes to one that doesn't generate enough differ ence in air-pressure between the top and bottom of the wing to generate as much lift as was present at a slightly lower angle of attack.

The flow under the wing doesn't change as much as the flow above the wing, but a wing has to have at least two sides to exist.

An over-simplification, and not a useful one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

He might have used an unfamiliar name, but the effect is well known.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

No, not "so" it is essential, as in "therefore it follows... " And you snipped your own words, the context that brought us here.

Angle of attack, not airspeed, is responsible for a stall. Airflow can't follow the wing surface once past a critical angle.

Just a piece of yarn taped outside the window, let the pilot's brain process that.

Reply to
Bonk

Insurance and (in some states) registration costs can really put a dent in that strategy. I also found that cars that aren't used pretty continuously deteriorate rather quickly. You really have to rotate them, and keep all running, for that strategy to work.

I definitely follow your latest strategy anymore. I gave up working on my own cars (even oil changes) well over twenty years ago.

Reply to
krw

No, I thought it was the picture I wasn't getting, now it's a claim?

Your reply to "Why didn't they put them on top of the wing?" wasn't an objection to putting them on top of the wing?

How does "that *wouldn't* push the nose down..." fit in? I agreed with it, then you seemed to reject that.

So, never mind.

Reply to
Bonk

Huh? "the plane pic was white paint" means... what? Little stands?

So, what turns this into HOWEVER? They're still on top of the wing.

They aren't so far above.

formatting link
formatting link
How tall are those, um, podiums?

Reply to
Bonk

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 9:04:41 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wrote :

ote:

You are being a bit premature in even using this as an example since you do n't know why it failed.

I guess it means designing using methods that others took risks on and pro ved could be done successfully.

on new designs when the designer wins or loses in the market. I am not so much into striving for grand new ideas when the losers are 5 pedestrians wh o get crushed or 300 passengers who go tumbling into the ground. If that i s your idea of cool new design risks then I hope you are no where near the design of anything that involves peoples lives. Stick to microprocessor co ntrolled nose pickers and take all the chances you want.

You still don't understand. The mistake wasn't in trying something that wa sn't exactly like what had been done 1,000 times before. No two bridges ar e the same, so they all require new work. The mistake was in execution. T here are many new ideas used all the time. I've seen any number of new des igns executed well. This one screwed up and the trick will be to find out why and try to prevent that again.

Your advice is the worst possible because it won't prepare her for the real ity of the world she will be working in. She will become a hack before she ever gets started.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

See there, DLUNU? Bill is your buddy. Do not flame Bill Sloman again because he is smarter than you, better educated than you in all areas, and will not grind your face into the dogshit even after you have treated him badly.

Reply to
Bonk

Not all that much of a buddy.

Possibly true, but may very well be false.

Getting a Ph.D. means that I'm better educated than him in at least one are a, but I've just had a couple of plumbers in because they are better educat ed than me when it comes to Australian plumbing, and DLUNU is almost certai nly better educated than me in several other areas.

I don't grind anybody's face into the dog shit, but I will point out when p eople have got stuff wrong, even when I generally approve of what they post .

You don't qualify for that list, and have just made it more unlikely that y ou ever will.

Other people have different priorities.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Ok...another troll king on s.e.d.

Reply to
bulegoge

You don't qualify.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

He talks about how trim works in the 737MAX. Other planes do it in different ways.

My apologies. You are correct.

The LEAP 1A is capable of 31,690 lbf thrust, but that's not the engine Boeing selected for the MAX. They picked the LEAP-1B, which shows

1B Boeing 737 MAX 23,000 - 28,000 lbf (100 - 120 kN)

formatting link

The Boeing 737 Next Generation uses CFM56-7B27 27,300 lbf (121 kN)

formatting link

which has very similar thrust. So the only reason for the pitchup is the engine placement.

It is interesting that the Airbus A320NEO uses the LEAP-1A

Max. Continuous 140.96 kN (31,690 lbf)

formatting link

formatting link

This has very similar engine placement to the MAX, but there is no mention of pitchup or MCAS

formatting link

formatting link

So it looks like Boeing really blew it on the MAX. As well as the loss of life, there is the cost of grounding the planes and paying the cabin crews during the shutdown. Some customers will want to sell their place in line and go for the A320neo. But after two crashes in a row, they may not get much for their place.

There is severe reputational damage for Boeing, so after customers take delivery, they may find passengers don't want to fly on Boeing aircraft. The public could probably absorb one crash, but two in a row is very bad. Most passengers could not tell the difference between the different Boeing planes and will just lump them together and pick another flight on a different plane, probably Airbus. I'm sure the customers are weighing all these factors in deciding what to do. This is very bad for Boeing.

Reply to
Steve Wilson

Bonk wrote in news:q6n4i3$9e0$1 @gioia.aioe.org:

So you are a mechanical nitwit too.

Do you even know what a stantion is?

Those little things the engines were mounted on. Thos TWO FOOT LONG things. Yes, ya dope, those are the "STANDS" the engines are mounted on.

The white paint? I said it. I looked at the first pic I saw and it was a side wiew of a white painted plane and I did not see the stands the engines were on because they blended in, and it looked like the engines were on the fuselage.

Damn I said I saw what you were talking about so wake the f*ck up.

I agreed.

Yes, idiot... they call them 'stands' or 'stantions' or pedistals. Goddamn, it is hard to talk with someone about mechanics when they do not even have a grasp of the lay terms, much less the technical terms. And likely then zero grasp of their functions.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Bonk wrote in news:q6n4i3$9e0$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

No. They are 'above' the wing. "On top of" would be like the underside engines except ON the wing. Two feet above the wing is ABOVE the wing, NOT "on top of" it.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Bonk wrote in news:q6n4i3$9e0$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

Two feet above and WELL BEHIND.

Damn dude. Take off the horse blinders.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Steve Wilson wrote in news:XnsAA16369531993idtokenpost@69.16.179.23:

The 8 inch forward move? Hardly. And closer to the wing, not farther... so... less of a torque arm, not more.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

:

son

Wil

r

he

, t

int o s

t
u
o
g
e
t

n

s

What I think may have happened is that Boeing knew there was a problem and after the first crash they rushed in with a fix package (training , informa tion, etc...) , but in reality they did not really understand the exact det ails of what happened but they thought they did. And then the second plane crashed. Boeing should have grounded the planes after the first crash and made sure they understood the problem. This second crash is really awful o n so many levels. I kind of get P.Oed thinking about it. I have a serious goal in my career which is to never write 2 ECN's for the same problem. B oeing is writing 2 ECN's for the same problem and they used human beings as Guinea Pigs to vet out their first ECN.

I can also tell you (seriously true) my wife is taking that same flight in about 2 weeks ... from Addis Ababa to Nairobi and was scheduled to be on t hat plane and that route.

g

Reply to
blocher

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

You're a goddamned presumptuous idiot.

Who wrote your stupid ticket when you were conceived? Your father?

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Step 1. Plane # 1 crashes --- 150 + people die Step #2 Boeing assures people this is a one off event and provides information to make sure this does not happen again Step #3 Max 800 take to the air again--- All is Well! Step # 4 Plane # 2 crashes and another 150 + people die. Step # 5 The MAX800 gets grounded worldwide

Conclusion....whatever Boeing said about stoppping these planes from crashing after the first one did not work.

I cannot fathom how you think this is a stupid interpretation of what happened....but who knows....or you are just another troll king around here.

Reply to
blocher

snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:ff8ccac6-69a4-4f03-b30d- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yu seem to spit out words a lot just to see where they splatter.

You acting like a troll or not, you still have maturity issues.

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.