scrubbedexpat091

Looks like some progress is being made.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6154624/b...NMSy4ehhUzcaw4

scrubbedexpat091

At least one engineering manager at Transport Canada doesn't like MCAS.

""The only way I see moving forward at this point" is that Boeing's Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) "has to go."

Official Transport Canada comment is that these are just working level discussions.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/can...bgvp8MkUv4q6Es

dave_j

I suspect that there are those not inclined to make the MAX return to flight an easy route for Boeing.
Remember the brickbats that Boeing tossed at Bombardier?
Rearrange the following... Roost - Chickens - Home - To - Coming

scrubbedexpat091

first flight-test Max 10 has rolled off the assembly line a few days ago, Boeing expects to conduct first flight sometime in 2020, entry into airline service is not known at this time pending the outcome of the Max groundings.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...max-10-462495/

caretaker

Would it have been easier, cheaper, and safer to remove all that MCAS stuff and just let the pilots fly the planes instead of trying to fix it? I'm remembering the astronauts' protest over being "spam in a can". I realise the design fault happened in the adaptation of new engines causing the stall problem, but trying to compensate with something that caused 2 crashes and is now so difficult to make work doesn't seem right. I don't want to fly in one, given the trouble they've had to date. In the early 80's Ford put some crap parts in cars to fix little problems instead of addressing design faults, and I had several of those cars. Better to spend money building something right in the first place than pay out on the recalls.

scrubbedexpat091

Seems it would be, but maybe the plane can't fly without it, who knows, guess time will tell.

Airbus and Boeing should have both designed a new narrow-body from clean sheet. Airbus didn't run into the same issues as the A320 family already sits higher off the ground so they didn't have the same engine placement issues on the wing Boeing had.

I think both companies are at a point where they are going to have to consider the next generation of narrow-body to be clean sheet design, especially Boeing.

As a passenger for comfort purposes, I would like to see a small wide-body on the market again, a new updated, more efficient 767 type aircraft. The days of 767's across the US were more pleasent flights vs all the 737's and A320/319/321 models used now.

Boeing did manage to get to 2 small confirmed orders for Max models last week, 20 ordered by an unidentified airline (some buyers prefer not to be identified, this isn't all that unusual.) and SunExpress ordered 10 additional on top of the 32 already on the books, SunExpress is jointly owned airline by Lufthansa and Turkey.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/busin...ers/index.html

caretaker

If air traffic is going to double in the next 20 years I suppose existing designs are going to have to fill the need, given the pace of research and development. I was trying to look up something about research into fuel efficient engines, and came across this bit on new engineering using composites and wing design. I wonder how long until something like their models gets in the air?
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-fuel-e...ft-future.html

scrubbedexpat091

Probably 2030 at the earliest I would guess.

dave_j

This is a bit worrying.
Boeing, like it's planes, seems to be coming apart at the seams.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boein...162111214.html
and.... I don't like this...
" The newspaper also said the company might not have to do a retest and regulators would likely allow Boeing to prove by analysis that it would be enough to reinforce the fuselage in the area where it failed."
Presumably it was designed 'by analysis' in the first place.

scrubbedexpat091

Look at the upside the test aircraft failed at 1.48 times its limit load, only need to get to 1.5 times for 3 seconds to pass and no aircraft would see forces in normal operation reaching 1.48 times its limit load.

The cabin was also pressurized to 10 pounds per square inch which is beyond normal pressurization, and not even something Boeing was required to do but chose to, almost wonder if they had not done such high pressurization if the aircraft would have passed,

I do wonder at times if this new technology being used in the engines is too premature for prime time, considering the issues engine manufacturers have been experiencing. Boeing and Airbus both have had issues with various engines they need for these newer generation aircraft.

caretaker

I think climate change is playing havoc with storm patterns and causing an increase in severe turbulence incidents, so building them really strong seems like a good idea to me.

dave_j

One reason these tests are made is to ensure that the factor of safety designed into the structure has been well understood. The fact that it failed within an envelope where the structure should have remained intact suggests that either the minimum strength of the fuselage material wasn't sufficiently well understood or the variability in the manufacturing process was wider than expected.
In either case the structure failed when it shouldn't have and putting what amounts to a sticking plaster across the failure is a poor substitute for actually understanding why it failed in the first place.
I've no doubt that Boeing will investigate the cause of the failure and may already know the reason, but failures such as these can only make future design safer provided the bean counters are shut away in the vault marked "Danger - Keep Locked"

dave_j

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ging-wing.html
Apparently the reports that a cargo door failed earlier were incorrect. It was a passenger door that only opens inwards that blew out.
Pictures of the failure are frightening.

Gordon Barlow

Even Boeing's military planes are wonky, it seems! Check out this interesting report...
https://www.rt.com/news/474695-austr...-compensation/

scrubbedexpat091

You do realize Boeing doesn't build the engines which are General Electric in this particular aircraft.

That is like blaming Airbus for engine troubles on some of their aircraft when the fault lies with the engine manufacturer.