Boeing 737 Max design error

true, but seeing as it's hinged towards the rear it's most likely going to want to move towards one extreme or the other, rather than towards centre, so such a set-up seems non-useful.

no such thing as normal, and the airodynamic force will likely be in the wrong direction anyway. all this is in the flight manual.

dunno about him, but I can only wade though so much bullshit.

--
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Banders wrote in news:qbf13l$3gl$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

Reminds me of the GE facility bird strike test mount.

Ever heard of the "chicken gun"?

They loaned it to the railroad guys once, because they expressed an interest in knowing how resilient the front windshield on the engines was.

The correspondence was of a desperate nature asking what they were doing wrong as the windshields were exploding on impact with each shot. They were sure they had some setting wrong or such.

The GE jet engine guys answered back...

"One must utilize a thawed chicken."

So I conclude that our aircraft would likely not be able to make it through a sharknado.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:b1e8a338-474e-41dc-875b- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

When you revert to 90s+ era schoolboy punk grammar, you lose what little credibility you may have thought you once possessed.

All of YOUR "rofl"s and "libs" and other childish horseshit only serves to prove that you are unable to answer each citation of your errors.

IF they had only retracted the slats on the other wing, they would have been in balance and though not the approved setting for a takeoff, the plane would most certainly have been able to do so.

They call that hindsight.

But that is technical. I see a different ass in this discussion, and that ass is you.

Wolf Bagger wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:

to

Your grasp of real world scenarios is... more likely... flawed.

All 'remains' were removed. per se.

Any REMAINING 'bits'... and there will be some, would get 'flushed' in this manner, on the engine, while running live.

Ground walnut shells have been used for cleaning for decades and remaining particulate from them gets burned off.

Yu up to snuff now? I have doubts.

Wow, I didn;t know that "BS" and "nitpicking" had gone out of fashion.

Both incorrect and irrelevant of course. My point was that with a jackscrew design for the leading edge slats instead of a piston actuator that DC-10 would have flown following the engine out procedure, which the crew was correctly following. I can't understand why you and Banders can't accept that very factual statement and instead want to argue. Your suggestion that the crew could have retracted the slats on the other wing would require that the crew KNEW the slats had retracted on the one wing. The crash report shows they had no idea it had occurred, so to suggest that in the space of

50 secs between takeoff and impact, the crew should have taken a procedure that would be expected to actually cause a crash, ie retracting the slats on takeoff, with one engine out to boot, is totally absurd. And you're also incorrect that had they done that, the plane most certainly would have been able to fly. The crash report found from simulator testing that had they done that which they had no way of knowing to do, the crash "may not" have occurred.

Wrong, always wrong.

That's what we're all using, but trader's is his 'common sense'.

Here's an interesting thing.

High-Lift Systems on Commercial Subsonic Airliners

NASA uses "linear hydraulic actuator" or "hydraulic cylinder", I think that nobody but trader would use the word piston.

DC-10 slats are in there, pages 63 and 64 of the paper (73 and 74 of the pdf).

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

Agin, YOUR ignorance is glaring, and it shows that YOU'RE just no more than a mental midget. You may want to read YOUR words again, you may figure out where YOU'RE lacking.

You failing to catch what I was nailing you on is further evidence.

I spelled it out for you here again, but you could still miss it.

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 9:33:37 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@decadence.org

Heh there DL, have you found the cites for us for all those B1 bomber crashes that you claimed were due to fly-by-wire?

ROFL

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

Heh? Wtf is 'heh', you stupid f*ck?

Are you such an illiterate retarded f*ck that you cannot remember the response you got the last time you posted this retarded immature putz boy query?

Yep, you are 100% immature putz, boy.

You could be more of an immature little putz, just not in this life.

Let me guess. No crash citations to back up your BS about there being B1 bomber crashes due to fly-by-wire failures, just lots of insults and vulgarity.

You are so far gone that you don't see the irony in that accusation. Maybe your buddy Bill can help.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:31a47c7a-aa24-44ab-88f7- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Learn to read.

Funny, you complain how evil Trump is, but you're just like him. You make up complete BS, and then when challenged about it, you lie and then just double down on it again and again. All you posted was a link to wiki about the B1 bomber, nothing about all the crashes attributed to fly-by-wire that you claimed. You're also like Trump with the silly, childish insults. Birds of a feather....

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

The crash data is there, idiot.

Sure it is. Just cut and paste right here the part about the crashes that were caused by fly-by-wire. You know damn well if it existed, you would have done that a week ago. I did that for you with two crashes that I referenced, the DC-10 at O'Hare, the jet from Mexico to Seattle caused by the horizontal stabilizer being freed from the jackscrew. Cut and pasted the relevant parts right here. Cut and paste broken?

Wrong, always wrong.

Maybe in the 60s or something but no-one is going to put this junk through a modern turbine with small internal orifices.

Turbines are also notable for not processing large chunks of bone during normal operation. Any one which has processed a member of ground staff is certainly going to receive a strip down before it sees further flight.