Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 94

Thread: Boeing accidents

The Pub is: Forum to generally shoot the breeze. It is NOT: a debate forum (NO Politics, religion, or controversial topics.) Keep it clean, fun and lite!

  1. #41
    Obi Wan Bayless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,434
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    What I can't understand is why was it necessary to take a perfectly balanced aircraft and ad bigger engines which made it inherently unstable?
    Never express yourself more clearly than you can think.
    '48 Ford Prefect
    '67 Sprite (project)
    '74 Super Beetle
    '73 MB 450SE
    '04 Saab Arc
    http://enfoprefect.org

  2. #42
    Great Pumpkin NutmegCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    10,984
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    41
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    91
    Thanked in
    84 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Bayless View Post
    What I can't understand is why was it necessary to take a perfectly balanced aircraft and ad bigger engines which made it inherently unstable?
    Bigger engines allow enlargement of fuselage for more passengers!
    Mac & Phyllis Take a Trip: http://nutmegflyer.com/trip-details-daily-updates/
    History: 1976 MGB, 1959 Triumph TR3A, 1960 Mercedes-Benz 190b, 1958 Rambler American.
    Current: 1953 MG TD27318.

  3. #43
    Great Pumpkin TR3driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Sunny So California
    Posts
    19,194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    100
    Thanked in
    95 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    IIRC, it was because the physically larger engines are more fuel efficient. That both increases range and lowers operating costs, making it more competitive with other newer aircraft designs. They also can produce more thrust than the previous engines. The fuselage was slightly reshaped and slightly longer, but again mostly to reduce fuel consumption and improve range.

    Passenger capacity is actually the same as the previous 737-900ER, but range increased by roughly 20%.

    PS see https://www.b737.org.uk/737maxdiffs.htm for more info about the mods.
    Here's another comparison with the 737-800
    https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compar...800/737_MAX_8/
    Randall
    56 TR3 TS13571L once and future daily driver
    71 Stag LE1473L waiting engine rebuild
    71-72-73 Stag LE2013LBW waiting OD gearbox rebuild

  4. #44
    Great Pumpkin NutmegCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    10,984
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    41
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    91
    Thanked in
    84 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Randall - those are the best descriptions of the 737 MAX variants I've seen. Thanks for posting the links.
    Tom M.
    Mac & Phyllis Take a Trip: http://nutmegflyer.com/trip-details-daily-updates/
    History: 1976 MGB, 1959 Triumph TR3A, 1960 Mercedes-Benz 190b, 1958 Rambler American.
    Current: 1953 MG TD27318.

  5. #45
    Luke Skywalker
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Boeing accidents

    The larger diameter engines are more efficient. The problem on the 737 is that the diameter has gotten so large that the engines are now scraping the ground.
    Boeing apparently looked into increasing the height of the plane when on the ground but that required redesigning the landing gear. Basically they are dealing with a 50 year old design decision on landing gear height

  6. #46
    Yoda John Turney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    43
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    29 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by TR3driver View Post
    ...
    It's also amazing how often the decision to ship product is made by management over objections from engineering. Then when it turns out to really not work, it's usually cast as engineering's fault.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/u...le-danger.html
    It certainly keeps Scott Adams (Dilbert) in business.
    John, BN4

  7. #47
    Jedi Warrior Bob McElwee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Kirkwood, MO
    Posts
    498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    16
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    There was an episode on Smithsonian channel Air Disaster program tonight with the Airbus 330 (?) concerting a system malfunction. The symptom was the automated safety system 'thought' the plane was climbing and put the plane in a steep dive to correct. Problem was the plane was in level flight. The safety function also locked out any manual inputs from the pilot. The investigators eventually found the binary code of the source problem, the airspeed and altitude data(I think) got transposed by one other the three subsystems and confused the main autopilot system. (not a good explanation, I know).
    The 'good' news was this happened at 37,000 feet and the pilots eventually got control of the plane and landed safely.
    I am expecting the Boeing crashes to make the program some day.
    Bob McElwee
    '62 AH Tri-Carb(sold)
    Miss BT

  8. #48
    Yoda TOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Floe Ice, Antarctica
    Posts
    6,097
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    15 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob McElwee View Post
    There was an episode on Smithsonian channel Air Disaster program tonight with the Airbus 330 (?) concerting a system malfunction. The symptom was the automated safety system 'thought' the plane was climbing and put the plane in a steep dive to correct. Problem was the plane was in level flight. The safety function also locked out any manual inputs from the pilot. The investigators eventually found the binary code of the source problem, the airspeed and altitude data(I think) got transposed by one other the three subsystems and confused the main autopilot system. (not a good explanation, I know).
    The 'good' news was this happened at 37,000 feet and the pilots eventually got control of the plane and landed safely.
    I am expecting the Boeing crashes to make the program some day.
    Saw it.
    Question:
    You think the timing of the airing (or re-airing) was an accident?

  9. #49
    Jedi Warrior Bob McElwee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Kirkwood, MO
    Posts
    498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    16
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    TOC, that thought crossed my mind when the researching the problem got the the automated systems. It seems like this was some time ago so it very well may have been a re-airing. I do enjoy the show.
    Bob McElwee
    '62 AH Tri-Carb(sold)
    Miss BT

  10. #50
    Great Pumpkin DNK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Mount PLeasant SC
    Posts
    17,472
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Don
    "Stick a Wedge in it!"
    Mount Pleasant,SC

  11. #51
    Yoda glemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    13
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    I read this today linked from another site, same basic story is repeated on a number of news sites. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sea...crash/%3famp=1

    Three things stuck out to me, system relies on a single sensor, system corrects at four times the initial certified angle of adjustment on the stabilizer, system resets itself quickly if pilot tries to manually override.

    Pure armchair hillbilly observations, seat of the pants it feels like commercial jets seem to climb at a much steeper angle than they did 20-30 years ago. If true is this because they have the stall alarms and autopiloting features to try to eliminate stalls so they fly closer to the limit? Better low speed power and efficiency of modern turbojets? Traffic concerns? I am totally off base, they climb like they always did?

    If in fact this system relies on one sensor, why? Surely there is more than one way to sense that a plane is climbing vs. diving? Gaining altitude vs. losing? Wouldn't a modern plane have sophisticated enough systems to integrate this data from multiple sources and adjust accordingly? Isn't that basically what autopilot does now?

  12. #52
    Darth Vader
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Macon Georgia
    Posts
    2,515
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    33
    Thanked in
    31 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    I think there are 2 of the angle of attack sensors one on each side of the aircraft and it seems there may have been a disagreement between the 2 sensors indicating different angles of attack..
    Seems that they are easily damaged when the aircraft is on the ground so a backup system or a way of verifying the information would seem like a good idea.

    David
    TR3A TS75524L

  13. #53
    Yoda GregW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    7,690
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    18 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by glemon View Post
    it feels like commercial jets seem to climb at a much steeper angle than they did 20-30 years ago.
    Planes outta' Burbank climb steeply to keep noise down for the city, except for the area right around the airport where I think it is even louder than if they used a shallow climb rate.

  14. #54
    Great Pumpkin TR3driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Sunny So California
    Posts
    19,194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    100
    Thanked in
    95 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by glemon View Post
    Pure armchair hillbilly observations, seat of the pants it feels like commercial jets seem to climb at a much steeper angle than they did 20-30 years ago. If true is this because they have the stall alarms and autopiloting features to try to eliminate stalls so they fly closer to the limit? Better low speed power and efficiency of modern turbojets? Traffic concerns? I am totally off base, they climb like they always did?
    I believe it is mostly to reduce noise pollution to the surrounding neighborhoods. Sound follows an inverse square law, doubling the distance cuts the noise level by 75% (-6db). So the quicker they get up in the air, the less noise is heard on the ground.

    Some areas actually have noise rules; climbing too slow can put you in violation. A friend of mine used to build noise monitoring systems that would ultimately link back to which flight and which pilot violated the rules.
    Randall
    56 TR3 TS13571L once and future daily driver
    71 Stag LE1473L waiting engine rebuild
    71-72-73 Stag LE2013LBW waiting OD gearbox rebuild

  15. #55
    Jedi Knight
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,017
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Mike
    66 TR4A

  16. #56
    Darth Vader
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Macon Georgia
    Posts
    2,515
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    33
    Thanked in
    31 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    TR3A TS75524L

  17. #57
    Jedi Knight
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,017
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Sustained? Impressive!

  18. #58
    Darth Vader
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Macon Georgia
    Posts
    2,515
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    33
    Thanked in
    31 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    I saw one taking off in England. The Lightening was still in operational service at the time We were standing by the airfield fence only a few 100 feet away. Still remember the diamond shock waves in exhaust at the pilot engaged the afterburner. The noise was a physical thing and probable was not the best thing for young ears.

    David
    TR3A TS75524L

  19. #59
    Obi Wan
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Damascus, MD
    Posts
    2,021
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    Some may recall that when the 727 first came out, there were several crashes. Pilots were trying to fly the plane "by the seat of their pants" rather than following the manual. Better training resulted in the 727 going on to have a very good safety record.

    Even back in the days of propliners, there was a national concern when three DC-4s crashed in about a week's time in 1946.

  20. #60
    Great Pumpkin DrEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Elsinore, DK
    Posts
    32,808
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    53
    Thanked in
    52 Posts

    Re: Boeing accidents

    One of my first performance aircraft rides! T-38 Talon.
    '64 MGB, '67 Lotus Elan S-3 DHC,'69 Lotus Elan +2
    '78 Alfa Romeo Spider-undergoing surgery: O=\*/=O
    '84 300D Turbo-"Diesela"-Now my Daily: Oo|≣|oO
    '02 Toyota Camry- SWMBO's 'new-to-her' Daily. <sigh>
    Chaos & Mayhem PTY, LTD..C.I.O. & Floor Sweepervisor

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •