advertisement


Would you fly on this plane?

So far as engine storage and the like is concerned. Spare engines are "bagged" and sit on a stand until needed. All engines are shipped with hydraulic fluid (I think), but minus engine oil, and spares are stored minus oil. You'd need an engine manual to find out how long an engine can stand unused, which MIGHT be available online.

Engine intake covers seem more than sensible - why risk debris being blown in, and over the particular time of year in the N hemisphere that C19 has grounded planes, I would have thought that birds nesting in them would be a possibility.

cctaylor said:
Probably because Ryanair were too mean to buy the covers, after all they shouldn't be on ground long enough to ever need them!
Click to expand...

All engines are shipped with bright red intake covers. Engines travel covered in bright red blanks and suchlike - anything and everything red has to be removed before flight.
 
Vinny said:
Just as GE lost business to RR on the 787 due to the icing problem, RR has lost business to GE due to the blade problem.
Click to expand...

I didn't know about the GE issue. I'm glad I didn't. I'm not a frequent flyer and Mexico was my first Transatlantic flight. I thoroughly enjoyed it.. secure in the knowledge that as I observed sea ice 40000 feet below.. I was kept airborne by GE engines...

I still reckon four engines is preferable.

And five is better still..
 
Rack Kit said:
The plane that refuses to die. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53843068
Click to expand...
That sounds well dodgy. Is “Enter Air” owned by a couple of right wing Polish politicians and the US Ambassador to Warsaw?

-also liked the logic clanger in their press release-

“Enter Air said the review the 737 has undergone since the crashes in 2019 would produce "the best aircraft in the world for many years to come".

How to commercially crash upwards.
 
Lots of issues to get it re-certified to fly in the EU, so don't expect to see one any time yet. Some are even suggesting it may be a US aircraft only as the FAA is certainly tainted by the debacle.

CHE
 
Barrymagrec said:
They`ll have re-programmed the flight computer in reverse polish notation.
Click to expand...
rps.png
 
CHE said:
Lots of issues to get it re-certified to fly in the EU, so don't expect to see one any time yet. Some are even suggesting it may be a US aircraft only as the FAA is certainly tainted by the debacle.

CHE
Click to expand...

I will boycott any airline that has any 737 Max’s in their fleet. The best flight control software in the world doesn’t make me want to fly an inherently unsafe design.
 
Seconded.
Trouble is they have all sorts of names.
Ryanair’s MAXs have been seen at Boeing with a different name.
 
TUI have said that when theirs start flying all passengers will be informed and given a choice of flight change if so required.

Ryanair have said you can all sod off.
 
The aircraft itself is and always was, absolutely fine. The prolems were with software and pilot training, although some of the controls were counterintuitive compared to just about every other aircarft flying.
The FAA have receieved SO much flack over having an incestuous relationship with Boeing that you can only beleive that that is ended. If so, the glitches will be no more.
 
Vinny said:
The aircraft itself is and always was, absolutely fine. The prolems were with software and pilot training, although some of the controls were counterintuitive compared to just about every other aircarft flying.
The FAA have receieved SO much flack over having an incestuous relationship with Boeing that you can only beleive that that is ended. If so, the glitches will be no more.
Click to expand...

I’m not so sure that the aircraft was always fine myself. The system (software) was put in place as on acceleration the plane (because of the engine position) had a tendency to pull the nose up.. to counteract this the rear control surfaces were automatically set to counteract this..

This was then not made crystal clear to either purchasers or pilots, but there was no other solution as it’s a 30plus year old airframe with far bigger engines which just upset the balance, the ground clearance from engine to runway is only 17 inches - far less than competitors and only so low because the initial design (1960’s!) was lower to negate the need for gangways and just use steps.

the engine was pushed so far forward on the wing that it upset the balance and created this nose up attitude.

Did we also know that the second one that crashed was doing the same thing with bucking up and down trying to slam itself into the ground two days previously?! - The only reason this one recovered was because there was a third pilot in the cabin catching a lift and between the three of them they managed to consult manuals and switch it off... a very lucky scenario for all aboard - with just two in the flight deck there wasn’t enough presence of mind (or minds available?!) to think to consult the manual.

It’s totally Boeing’s fault imo. They had to release a more fuel efficient aircraft as Airbus was stealing orders and with their Dreamliner being delayed and massively over budget, they had to once again upgrade the 737... and imo a step too far...

The software has been changed and I’ve read through the scenarios needed to switch it off and it’s far safer and won’t create the same disaster again, but given the choice, I’d still not fly it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top