Would you fly on this plane?
- Thread starter Rack Kit
- Start date
cctaylor
pfm Member
F16 started the trend and the next generation of fighters have taken it further. A friend of mine flew an F16 at Nellis. As part of the ground crew for Red Flag back in the day. Al was a glider pilot and experienced power pilot. He flew a Pitts Special aerobatic aircraft in return for maintaining it for the owner. (There's a marginally stable aircraft for you)
A chance remark started a conversation with an F16 pilot who also flew gliders, ending "do you want a trip?" No need to guess the answer.
Once they were off the ground it was "you have control, take me to the range". After the bombing run, Al flew it back to Nellis.
To say that his RAF aircrew colleagues were green with envy is putting it mildly.
Rack Kit
pfm Member
I’ve heard about building an unstable aircraft, making it more manoeuvrable but then needing heavy computer power to keep it stable as the pilot points it in the direction he wants it to go.
That’s fine for military use but on a civilian aeroplane is just asking for trouble surely if/when the computer has a problem?
When doing my MSc 'Aircraft Design' group project at Cranfield in the early 80's (civil aircraft, similar size to 737), one of my colleagues did his thesis on active tailplane control. The idea was that the tail could be made smaller, so lighter with all the advantages that would entail, and would be controlled by computer; in effect the natural static stability was reduced by the size reduction and computers helped fly the plane. Over the last 35 odd years the trend has been the same, so not the necessity to fly high 'g' maneuvers in a military aircraft but an aim to reduce weight, etc.
Whilst at Cranfield we used to fly in the 'airborne labs.' which consisted in ex-HP liquidated Jetstreams. We did stability calcs and after one session and were all confused to find out the aircraft was (slightly) unstable in one pitch mode. Turns out this was correct and a 'feature' of the aircraft !
CHE
Whilst at Cranfield we used to fly in the 'airborne labs.' which consisted in ex-HP liquidated Jetstreams. We did stability calcs and after one session and were all confused to find out the aircraft was (slightly) unstable in one pitch mode. Turns out this was correct and a 'feature' of the aircraft !
CHE
Some more developments. Aerospace regulators and engineers are close so that the regulations are pushed in the right direction in an achievable manner. Early days and mostly speculation but it seems a touch odd.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
My sympathies and condolences.
This feels like the beginning of the sort of scandal that could break Boeing. From what I have read, the problem is that rectifying the suspected issue could necessitate a redesign which might put the 737 Max outside the realm of a design which could rely on the grandfather rights of the previous 737 type certificates. Which would mean it had to undergo recertification as an entirely new design. Which would cost Billions and take years. Meanwhile, there are 800-odd option holders for the aircraft who will probably cancel, buy Airbus, and sue Boeing for their losses and costs.
Might make the VW emissions scandal look like small beer. It's going to be interesting.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
It's a big company and i didn't know him very well, but it does make you sit up and think about certain forms of mortality.
AIUI, Boeing got scared when Airbus secured a large American Airlines order with its 320 Neo. They had initially wanted to design a new plane, but realised they didn't have time to do that anymore and would have to "upgrade" the 737 frame (yet again). The latest, most efficient engines are bigger, and the undercarriage on the 737 is a 1960s design when engines were half the size. A bigger undercarriage would mean redesigned wings, etc. etc, so somebody just moved the engines forward so they could be placed further up in front of the wing, which probably did various bad things to airflow, center of thrust versus center of lift, etc. "Fixed" by adding a piece of software to override the poor pilots. Voilà, improved 737. 5000 sold, coming to an airline near you.
AIUI, Boeing got scared when Airbus secured a large American Airlines order with its 320 Neo. They had initially wanted to design a new plane, but realised they didn't have time to do that anymore and would have to "upgrade" the 737 frame (yet again). The latest, most efficient engines are bigger, and the undercarriage on the 737 is a 1960s design when engines were half the size. A bigger undercarriage would mean redesigned wings, etc. etc, so somebody just moved the engines forward so they could be placed further up in front of the wing, which probably did various bad things to airflow, center of thrust versus center of lift, etc. "Fixed" by adding a piece of software to override the poor pilots. Voilà, improved 737. 5000 sold, coming to an airline near you.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
I think we will see a few cancelled orders. That 5000 orders could plummet very soon indeed.
sean99
pfm Member
I think we're getting a bit carried away now. There are no suggestions any other Boeings have safety issues (though the LiIon battery issues on the 787 were quite worrying for a while).
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
No. They’ve orders and sales that top 5,000. I think there are fewer than 400 in service.
NeilR
pfm Member
Take a look at this documentary to get an idea of boeing company culture and why it might not be an isolated issue:
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/broken-dreams-boeing-787/
It was aired a few years ago on ChanneI 4 iirc. I think boeing has serious cultural problems that are now manifesting themselves in aircraft safety.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
FWIW, Dan-Air were flying Comets into the 80s and RAF later still
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
After they'd fixed the fatigue problem...
JensenHealey
pfm Member
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Indeed.