Thoughts on the Boeing tragedies. technically.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by nebel, Mar 20, 2019.

  1. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908
    I do not trust computers, they are more capable than I and for me unpredictable. I like airplanes with a clean upper wing surface, a smooth airflow***. You can clutter up the bottom of the wing, , but keep the area above the leading edge clean for an undisturbed, sucking stream.
    Looking at the pictures, Boeing on the 737 max had lifted the bigger engines up into that critical forward area, rather than working on a higher landing gear. Airflow over the wing would stall earlier when disturbed by these 2 obstructions, programming the computer to keep the nose lower to prevent that earlier stall is a fix but not a good solution. Pilots overruling the computer entered into the dangerous situation, that the program tried to forestall. the stall. In other words: the computer might not have been wrong, switching the autopilot off, did not make the stall disappear. or?
    An Air France Airbus between Brazil and Paris crashed too, because the air flow detectors were inoperative and fooled the computer and the crew.
    *** most ridiculous bad design: Dornier's DO X flying boat with 12 engines in a scaffolding on top of the wing. never could fly well out of ground effect.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    240
    Too much of new technology can be dysfunctional sometimes, at least initially.
    Everytime i purchase something (eg a laptop, a phone, a gadget, a car, etc) with a new high-tech feature that is state of the art that offers a cool but non essential new luxury, almost always i end up having a problem turning it on, or it freezes, etc, because of a silly unexpected problem with the new technology. I guess the same thing can happen with airplanes...
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908
    Pure.primitive pleasure in Flying, driving, diving is not enhanced by the now common add-ons, that you have to by with the latest models. but
    The Boeing case is unique in the design/human connection surely it will be fixable, not like the Comet problems.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    And yet the "Comet problems" were fixed...
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,238
    Federally mandated ops(oil pressure switch) shuts off the fuel pump in case of loss of oil pressure from an accident.
    Unfortunately GM ran the fuel pump directly from the ops which tends to overload it's small contacts.
    So, driving along, and the engine kills and the truck stops running.
    (pre-deleted expletives)

    I drive a diesel truck
    I do not need the ops
    I do not want the ops
    and yet
    I have the ops
    (more expletives)
    I did not buy the truck so that it would just stop working for no good reason.

    Thank you federal government
    Thank you GM
    (Rot in hell You rotten motherfuckers)
     
    candy likes this.
  9. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908
    But there was no Comet 2 max, sad that people had to die to teach us how to make sturdy airtight fuselages. still, Boeings 747s, DC 10s were nearly lost by doors not properly latching. thank you.
    I wish they mandated that Tesla's batteries to be instantly discharged when the airbags go off in an accident. Somebody else just burned to death in that terrible heat when the batteries are damaged. Boeing hat battery problems too, I also nearly burned the house down with lithium batteries charging. .
    Technology is supposed to be our slaves, but can become the master. deadly ruler.
     
  10. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908
    A story on RT Tv. : " An extra pilot, who hitched a ride on a Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX a day before its crash in October, saved it during an emergency strikingly similar to the one that proved fatal, Bloomberg reports

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In this picture you can see how high the engine intake /pilon rises above the leading edge, disturbing the airflow. (airstream curves up from below in front of the wing)
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,719
    Unfortunately, there's no free lunch. Technology that overrules the pilot can be dangerous and pilots that overrule technology can be dangerous too.
     
  12. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    240
    A commercial airplane doesn't do many more things now compared to 50 years ago. It takes off, flies and lands. Most, if not all technological innovations should aim at providing more and more security. I find it crazy that after 100 or more years of experience, airplanes are still crushing.

    Pilots will never be replaced by machines. Its just not safe.
    Maybe there should be an option for pilots to de-activate all fancy technology and just drive the airplane manually, as they did 100 years ago, in cases where technology freezes unexpectingly for no apparent reason.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    I have no idea what a "Comet 2 max" is supposed to be. But the Comet's problems were fixed and the Comet went on to be produced in 3 further versions following the tragic Comet 1.

    The problem was nothing whatsoever to do with being airtight or not.
     
  14. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908
    thanks for clearing that up. did not know that. Wiki showed there was a Comet 4 and 5 in production.even a Nimrod.
    The parallel here is that 3 Comets, like the 2 Boeing 737 Max crashed within a short time. . cause: corner metal fatigue. RIP, victims.
    other parallel, Boeing will fix this recurring issue too.
    They always have that option, but sometimes,as the OP asserts, the technology is right, and de-activating it does not fix the problem the plane has aerodynamically in flight.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    I see you have problems reading English. Wiki states no such thing.
    The Comet 5 was a proposal only: not only were none built but no metal was cut on that version; hence the term "in production" is false.
     
  16. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here , {copy eight dpa warren, Die Welt) is an image of the Boeing logo of the 737 max, supposed airflow line in black on the fuselage, and it shows it truthfully not over the wing as it should be in reality, centred over the wing, but ahead over the engines. Lift too far forward, is the line a symbolic sign of the trouble?
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    What makes you think that line indicates airflow? (You're wrong).
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,422
    What a depressingly stupid post.
     
  19. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908
    Of course they dont. I point it only out as a Freudian slip on the part of Boeing's art team. That line would beautifully follow the air flow over the wing a few chord widths back.. It is an unwanted omen, in that it indicates a lifting nose, that might have been a phantom message to the computers. The line is the location of a phantom wave.
    The engine position on low pylons can be a very good things for pilots, The crew on United 232 managed to get the DC10 level to an airport, using engine power only to steer yaw and altitude. No stick and pedal control at all. so, hopefully, for Boeing it is not an software, pilot training issue only. ( When the Airbus landed in the Hudson, the copilot was reading the manual too, just like the crew of the Lion Air Boeing going down. )
    Critical flight characteristics are desirable in aerobatic planes, with few seats.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,719
    It's highly unlikely that Boeing's art team know the first thing about airflow. It's more likely a case of you hallucinating patterns where there are none.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    Given that your exact words were "airflow line [my italics] in black on the fuselage" and "Lift too far forward" then it's apparent that you didn't know that.

    The line is placed where it is for aesthetic reasons.

    Bullcrap.

    And now you're just being ridiculous.

    No.

    Nothing whatsoever to do with the engines being on "low pylons".

    This is meaningless in one of at least two ways:
    If by "critical flight characteristics" you mean flight characteristics that could lead to critical failure/ disaster then they're not desirable at all.
    On the other hand if you mean "critical" as in "required to actually fly" then they're desirable in all aircraft.
     
  22. nebel

    Messages:
    1,908
    What I mean is, that in an airliner, flight stability is important. It should not require have duty cockpit activity to maintain safe flight attitude.
    In an aerobatic plane, the Tiger Moth, that I liked for example, the opposite is true, the plane should be "unstable", in the sense of being able to be brought into unexpected (by the opponent) attitudes instantly.
    In this Boeing saga, it is possible, that a build- in aerodynamic flaw, due to the huge engine intakes now reaching over the leading edge, introduced an instability that the manufacturer tried to correct via a computer software solution. Some of the crews were not trained to fly the plane in critical conditions when the computer is off, as happens when you disengage the autopilot, because it appears to act up.
    News is, that the FBI is looking into the possibility that the certification process was influenced to allow questionable flight characteristics/ control issues to be overlooked.
    wishing Boeing, Airbus, all manufacturers well, for our live's sake, and progress, period.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,285
    Just GM.
    Feds not involved in the screwup, except in allowing too much GM influence on regulatory detail and enf0rcement.
    Likewise Boeing: Feds taken out of the loop, large corporation relied on to be rational and prudent at its own expense - disaster.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
    sculptor and nebel like this.

Share This Page