The Airplane thread

   #323  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,498
Reaction score
21,054
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
   #325  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
29,498
Reaction score
21,054
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
   #332  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
20,161
Reaction score
8,668
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Yeah I flew on this plane & other B units when they came to Orange County.
All were so loud even with hearing protection but they were awesome to take a flight in and sit in all the stations with active turrets to simulate a mission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #335  

BigJetTech

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
25
Reaction score
30
Location
North Central, WI USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=232710
Shows once again that incomplete testing and rushing a product to market DOES have negative consequences, once customers lose confidence it takes an awful lot of time and hard work to regain that confidence.
Opinion from "inside" the industry.
The above statement is partially true. This aircraft should have been re- type certificated, by the FAA , NOT from a Boeing DER (Designated Engineering Representative). It was done this way to save the "customers" money. The customers being the MAJOR carriers buying the airplane. The fault does not lie alone at Boeings feet. The people buying the airplane negotiate what they want, it's a partnership. I watched it first hand with the 787 development. It was built the way it was ordered to save money !!! - BY THE CARRIERS -

The carriers did not want to spend money on training, and flight crew certification. They didn't want to create a separate class of crews that could only fly the 737 MAX.
The airplane also only has (had) a single AOA vane feeding the MCAS system (from what I can gather)
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ the second one to feed the system and the "disagree" light was an "option" (500K I've heard)

The airplane probably was rushed a bit to market to compete with the A220 (Bombadier-Airbus). Its about CASM - RASM ratio.. bottom line. (Cost Available Seat Mile / Revenue Available Seat Mile) The airlines can control labor costs, equipment costs, it cannot control FUEL costs. Labor and fuel being the biggest ones. It is THE only reason the 747 is not flying passengers for any US based carrier. It's got 4 BRT's (Big Round Things) hanging on it instead of 2. It is still the fastest commercial airliner flying (cruise .86-.87 mach FL420-450) and has one hell of a lift.

Jack, God Bless your Dad, he'd be welcome to ramp check one of my airplanes ANY day :)
 
   #336  

PetrolDave

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
3,626
Location
South Molton, UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=1423
The airplane also only has (had) a single AOA vane feeding the MCAS system (from what I can gather)
... which creates the possibility of a single point failure leading to bad consequences - something that is against all good design principles where fail-safe is essential.

In the 1980's I worked at an aerospace company that designed the DECUs for military aircraft, and the task of the team I was part of as to evaluate the effect of multiple sensor failures on the dual lane DECU - we found and had corrected in the firmware several potential causes of engine flame out when more than one sensor failed (the original design team had already taken account of all single sensor failures).
 
Top