A380's now getting scrapped

[MrMango 671]

4 hours ago, wacmedia said:

Hi,

You said it wac. The 737 was a great plane whose reputation is being destroyed. Boeing should have created a new plane from scratch for the more fuel efficient engines.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-737-max-8-crash-lion-air-deaths-accident-ethiopian-airlines-a9174181.html

The Max has much larger engines, improving the fuel efficiency of the aircraft. But the undercarriage of the Boeing 737 is short, and it sits much lower on the ground than its more modern counterpart, the Airbus A320.

 

Had the latest large engines been hung from the wings, as on previous versions, there would have been insufficient ground clearance.

Instead, the engines were moved further forward and blended into each wing. While intuitively this sounds as though it should have made the aircraft “nose-heavy”, in fact the aerodynamic consequence was that the engine housing themselves generated lift and could tilt the aircraft upwards. 

 

The designers concluded this characteristic increased the risk of a stall, in which the wings do not generate sufficient lift to keep the plane flying safely.

So they installed software called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).

This is old news and doesn't make sense to me. Aircraft engines have been mounted in the wing, on the wing, over the wing, on the tail. on the front etc.

 

[martini9946 129]

4 hours ago, MrMango said:

This is old news and doesn't make sense to me. Aircraft engines have been mounted in the wing, on the wing, over the wing, on the tail. on the front etc.

 

yes but the engines would not fit because of the low under carriage so had to be placed higher up on the wing which affected the centre  of gravity  

[MrMango 671]

32 minutes ago, martini9946 said:

yes but the engines would not fit because of the low under carriage so had to be placed higher up on the wing which affected the centre  of gravity  

Ok so what? I pointed out that when you mount engines on the tail it effects the CG much more, and of course when you mount engines on the front, its the same. 

 

[jacko 8,814]

2 hours ago, MrMango said:

Ok so what? I pointed out that when you mount engines on the tail it effects the CG much more, and of course when you mount engines on the front, its the same. 

 

I suspect when one decides to move the engines on an air-frame that was designed to have them fitted elsewhere the considerations are far reaching. I am not sure it is only about moving the centre of gravity, but where the thrust is based and where it can produce nose lifting forces. That was foreseen, how it was corrected for, was where it failed. 

This is a thread for the A380, there is already another one for the 737 Max where this is discussed. 

[kuranda_bagman 135]

What ever the outcome I read this morning Dennis Muilenburg is in line for a $75 mil payout!

[Rawhide2 1,343]

Considering the amount of trips I've only ever been on a A380 twice and one of those two was when I aborted a trip originally out on Vietnam airways and went home  one way on Malyasian in 2015 in what turned out to be a marathon 14 hours and 5 minutes. Never again in shit seats

Only other time was Qatar on one of their 4 sectors in 2016. Amazing that they're being scrapped already

Edited December 27, 2019 by Rawhide2

[wacmedia 277]

On 12/24/2019 at 9:42 PM, jacko said:

I suspect when one decides to move the engines on an air-frame that was designed to have them fitted elsewhere the considerations are far reaching. I am not sure it is only about moving the centre of gravity, but where the thrust is based and where it can produce nose lifting forces. That was foreseen, how it was corrected for, was where it failed. 

 

Hi,

Correct. It must have been a cost cutting exercise not to start with a clean sheet of paper. 

[Shooter 864]

I sense some are happy Boeing is having problems now with the 737 Max.  I don't get it.  As passengers it is in our best interests for both Boeing and Airbus to succeed.  Without both there is little competition driving innovation and improvement.  Note Boeing didn't do a lot of new stuff for a while after Douglas and Lockheed gave up passengers jet production.  No need.  If a new airline came along they could buy Boeing or Boeing.  Now there is a choice and Boeing is forced to produce new and improved products.

I get it the national pride some have of Boeing over Airbus and vice versa.  But don't let it color the reality - we the public benefit from both being around for the long term.

OK, off the soap box.  Almost fell getting down.  ?

[wacmedia 277]

On 12/28/2019 at 6:24 PM, Shooter said:

.  Now there is a choice and Boeing is forced to produce new and improved products.

I get it the national pride some have of Boeing over Airbus and vice versa.  But don't let it color the reality - we the public benefit from both being around for the long term.

OK, off the soap box.  Almost fell getting down.  ?

Hi,

I don't think the MAX was a new or improved product. There is too much revolving doors between Boeing and FAA.

[Shooter 864]

46 minutes ago, wacmedia said:

Hi,

I don't think the MAX was a new or improved product. There is too much revolving doors between Boeing and FAA.

Yeah pretty obvious it was a screw up of epic proportions.  And it will damage Boeing for years to come.  But it is still in our best interests for them to survive and continue to innovate.

[firth1974 2,659]

[Shooter 864]

37 minutes ago, firth1974 said:

New paint and seat covers good as new.  ?