ChatterBank4 mins ago
Still Troubles
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.//The 737 Max is a terrible unstable design.//
not entirely. a "max" without MCAS handles very differently to a 737NG, but it's still perfectly flyable. to operate it like that would have involved certifying it as a separate aircraft type, and would have required separate training courses. all very expensive. MCAS was intended to make a max handle like a standard 737 so it could be incorporated on the same type certificate. as such it would have been invisible to the crews, who consequently had no clue what to do if it failed. a cascade of time and money saving decisions, and all because airbus beat boeing with the introduction of aircraft with the latest lean-burn engines.
not entirely. a "max" without MCAS handles very differently to a 737NG, but it's still perfectly flyable. to operate it like that would have involved certifying it as a separate aircraft type, and would have required separate training courses. all very expensive. MCAS was intended to make a max handle like a standard 737 so it could be incorporated on the same type certificate. as such it would have been invisible to the crews, who consequently had no clue what to do if it failed. a cascade of time and money saving decisions, and all because airbus beat boeing with the introduction of aircraft with the latest lean-burn engines.
Tora,
Don’t know if you are up to speed on NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS). This will be NASAs replacement for the retired Space Shuttle. Boeing (better at lobbying Capitol Hill than building flying machines) was the chosen contractor. But the programme is massively over budget and 4 years behind schedule. Each launch will cost $2Billion.
Frustrated, NASA held a competition to build the 3rd stage of the rocket in 2017. The private commercial rocket company Blue Origin put in a bid which was significantly cheaper, and was way ahead of Boeing. It was rejected by NASA for spurious reasons, and it turns out NASA has been working with Boeing on the 3rd Stage while the competition was running.
Full story here
https:/ /arstec hnica.c om/scie nce/201 9/11/na sa-reje cts-blu e-origi ns-offe r-of-a- cheaper -upper- stage-f or-the- sls-roc ket/
Don’t know if you are up to speed on NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS). This will be NASAs replacement for the retired Space Shuttle. Boeing (better at lobbying Capitol Hill than building flying machines) was the chosen contractor. But the programme is massively over budget and 4 years behind schedule. Each launch will cost $2Billion.
Frustrated, NASA held a competition to build the 3rd stage of the rocket in 2017. The private commercial rocket company Blue Origin put in a bid which was significantly cheaper, and was way ahead of Boeing. It was rejected by NASA for spurious reasons, and it turns out NASA has been working with Boeing on the 3rd Stage while the competition was running.
Full story here
https:/
// A "max" without MCAS handles very differently to a 737 NG, but it's still perfectly flyable. //
Not really. Because Boeing were a decade late in developing a new more fuel efficient plane, they decided instead to cut corners by modifying the 737. Unfortunately, when the airframe was extended to Max, and the new more efficient engines mounted, the ground clearance was too small. So Boeing decided to attach the wings higher, which totally changed the aerodynamics of the plane, making it much more difficult to fly. MCAS was a sticking plaster to try to mend the flawed design. MCAS was supposed to aid the pilots to the effect that they would not need costly retraining. But it was poorly implemented, and the regulator, the FFA were too cosy to Being to properly do their job, and approved the 737 on a nod. Then the crashes started.
Not really. Because Boeing were a decade late in developing a new more fuel efficient plane, they decided instead to cut corners by modifying the 737. Unfortunately, when the airframe was extended to Max, and the new more efficient engines mounted, the ground clearance was too small. So Boeing decided to attach the wings higher, which totally changed the aerodynamics of the plane, making it much more difficult to fly. MCAS was a sticking plaster to try to mend the flawed design. MCAS was supposed to aid the pilots to the effect that they would not need costly retraining. But it was poorly implemented, and the regulator, the FFA were too cosy to Being to properly do their job, and approved the 737 on a nod. Then the crashes started.
gromit this is the article I was referring to:
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /news/s cience- environ ment-50 322402
https:/
Tora,
The Space Launch system is years behind schedule and vastly over budget. Artemis will not happen in 2024 as planned because of Boeing’s incompetence.
NASA’s asking for tenders for a cheaper vehicle and then opting for Boeing anyway smacks of political shenanigans.
I would not be surprised if the next American on the moon is a privateer from Blue Origins or Space X.
The Space Launch system is years behind schedule and vastly over budget. Artemis will not happen in 2024 as planned because of Boeing’s incompetence.
NASA’s asking for tenders for a cheaper vehicle and then opting for Boeing anyway smacks of political shenanigans.
I would not be surprised if the next American on the moon is a privateer from Blue Origins or Space X.