Thread: Pssst want 400 cheap 737s?

Originally Posted by bsperka

You should never use software to hide a hardware problem.

I think a better description would be to 'overcome' a hardware problem. This is standard procedure in many military aircraft which would be un-flyable without it.

Deano

I will ask one of the callers from Delhi who tell me I have a problem with my computer. Maybe they can come up with a fix

Originally Posted by Homestar

One down the farm would be cool - converted to a not so tiny house. 😁

Maybe if they fly one around the place long enough, they’ll crash land one there....

instant dam!

Originally Posted by Pedro_The_Swift

instant dam!

Of Jet A.

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Amazing trivia thanks. Worked with Nimrods in my Anti Sub days. very cool kit.

PS we (Australia ) used P-3 orion not nimrods. Happily played with during exercises somewhere blue and far away

And, few today remember that the Orion is a development of the Lockheed L-188 Electra. And what does Wikipedia have to say about the Electra?

" Initial sales were good, but after two fatal crashes that led to expensive modifications to fix a design defect, no more were ordered."

They had an unfortunate "whirl mode resonance" that led to the wings falling off.

Extensive airframe modifications led to their being quite successful, but not in their primary market in the US. However, with communications nowhere as good as today, the Australian travelling public had not heard of the crashes, and the Electra was used extensively by Australian and New Zealand's international and domestic airlines (Qantas, TAA, Ansett, TEAL etc), giving good service until replaced by jets from about 1970.

Given both the Comet/Nimrod and Electra/Orion history, the future of the 737MAX seems quite clear!

Originally Posted by goingbush

Convert them to Freighters , fire bombers , paying passengers wont fly in them, people do have short memories but I think the 737MAX / NG / 800 or whatever they want to call them is forever tarnished . I know I'd rather walk.

if they are too unsafe then what pilot is going to risk their life to fly them as a freighter or fire bomber?

Correct me if I'm rrong, but part of the problem was Boeing being... too 'Commercially Reactive', to the consequences of what they did with the original design, to tweak and improve...without starting over.

When they upgraded the engines with bigger/better/more economical/whiter-than-white ones, they had to re-position them as the bigger mouths were now too close to the ground. I think they flattened the bottom of the intake to get it up a bit (?) Re-designing the landing gear was a co$t too far!

(Software Engineers / IT Support will see where this is going...)

Whatever, the overall effects of the fiddles was to alter it's handling, most notably at higher angles of attack (nose-up) so much so that it 'wanted' to pitch itself UP even more than expected.... Not welcome when one thinks about aerodynamics at low(er) speeds and only Blue filling the windscreen...and the Brown stuff not far away.

Bottom line was, the differences in controls 'feel' and low/slow/nose-up flight behaviour made it a "new" airplane, and thus there would be a training cost when stepping out of one 737...into the New Improved 737.

Boeing already had a version of MCAS floating around their Parts-Bins, so someone thought to adapt it to the 737, artificially making it 'feel' and react like the previous model(s). Voila! airplane 'feels'the same and no expen$ive cross-over training required.

The e idea was to work in the background and not call attention to itself, - thus, "...did the front seat pass.. er, 'Pilots' really need to know the details ?"

IF MCAS had been restricted in how much 'nose-down' trim it could roll in, AND perhaps only ONE attempt before warning the drivers that things were going pear-shaped, Boeing may have gotten away with it.

Or replace the MCAS Clever Bits with a spoken command to 'Get your nose down NOW!'. With so many mobile phones giving (female) voice instructions...compliance would be guaranteed !

Yes, turn some into Water-Bombers for the Global Warming Fire Seasons, - adding tanks etc (swapping fuel capacity for water?) will change their characteristics and mission profile enough to mandate special training... and an excuse get rid of MCA$ at the same time...

There were more problems with Boeing than met the eye.

Boeing ex-manager warned of a 'factory in chaos'