Have any UK or European airlines or regulators grounded the 737 Max aircraft?Yep and the list is growing.
Just announced 38 minutes ago, FAA grounds 737 Max, grounding now effectively worldwide.Might provide Airbus with a much needed 'lift' as it scrambles for new business post A380
The next disaster for Boeing will be when the first airline cancels an order in favour of an A320neo. Others will quickly follow.
There are only two players and both have previously suffered loss of sales and retaliatory action by unhappy airlines due to delays and groundings. The few sales of the B747-8i was in part due to the delay of the A380, Ethiopian Airlines bought A350's due to delays in B787 etc.Just announced 38 minutes ago, FAA grounds 737 Max, grounding now effectively worldwide.Might provide Airbus with a much needed 'lift' as it scrambles for new business post A380
The next disaster for Boeing will be when the first airline cancels an order in favour of an A320neo. Others will quickly follow.
BG
The plot thickens guys based on the belowA couple of points..................
and now wonder if Boeing knew about the issues but continued to allow the planes to fly.
Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in softwareThe point is they shifted the centre of gravity, and that is a recipe for disaster.
All the information I've found suggests that the engines were actually moved forward and upward to accommodate their larger diameter. I have heard the statement about the engines being moved back but I've found nothing to support it. Something else might have altered the balance. The wing was altered between the 400 and 800 series but only the winglets were changed for the -8.
From Wikipedia
In mid-2011, the objective was to match the A320neo's 15% fuel burn advantage, but the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency.
So it isn't immediately clear why the extra concern about stalling required the new software....
Peter
Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in softwareThe engines were indeed moved forwards and upwards for the 737 MAX, not backwards.
All the information I've found suggests that the engines were actually moved forward and upward to accommodate their larger diameter. I have heard the statement about the engines being moved back but I've found nothing to support it. Something else might have altered the balance. The wing was altered between the 400 and 800 series but only the winglets were changed for the -8.
From Wikipedia
In mid-2011, the objective was to match the A320neo's 15% fuel burn advantage, but the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency.
So it isn't immediately clear why the extra concern about stalling required the new software....
Peter
Note 1: The british Tornado fighter (and in fact most modern fighters) are intentionally made unstable so they can change direction VERY quickly, as built they would be unflyable. There rendered flyable by having a complex massively redundant computer system that flies the aircraft. The pilots controls input into this system telling the aircraft what the pilot wants it to do.You might be thinking of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has largely replaced the Tornado.
You might be thinking of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has largely replaced the Tornado.I have a soft-spot for the Tornado. A very effective ground-attack aircraft with great payload capacity and 'on-the-deck' flight characteristics. It's performance at the 2001 Avalon Airshow was memorable.
The Panavia Tornado was developed by Germany, Britain and Italy in the late 1960s and early 1970s (first flight 1974) and is an inherently stable airframe with electro-hydraulic controls. It certainly isn't super-manoeuvrable, it's basically a downsized version of the F-111 with very similar manoeuvrability optimised for bombing runs. In many ways the Tornado was quite unsophisticated for the time of its development, considering that nations like France, the USA and USSR were working on early fourth generation fighters (including super-manoeuvring) around the same time, but it did end up proving to be a reliable low-cost option which worked well for Britain, Italy and Germany in the various low-level conflicts where it was deployed (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).
Oops sorry, Yes, its the Typhoon is the fighter I was thinking of NOT the Tornado.Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in softwareThe engines were indeed moved forwards and upwards for the 737 MAX, not backwards.
All the information I've found suggests that the engines were actually moved forward and upward to accommodate their larger diameter. I have heard the statement about the engines being moved back but I've found nothing to support it. Something else might have altered the balance. The wing was altered between the 400 and 800 series but only the winglets were changed for the -8.
From Wikipedia
In mid-2011, the objective was to match the A320neo's 15% fuel burn advantage, but the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency.
So it isn't immediately clear why the extra concern about stalling required the new software....
Peter
This would suggest that the tendency to pitch up - the reason for adding the MCAS - is down to aerodynamic factors, not the weight distribution. My guess would be that the nozzle being up closer to the wing is causing the fast moving exhaust from the engine (fast moving = low pressure) to stall the wing at low speeds, where the exhaust from a traditional below-wing engine would be well clear of the wing.Note 1: The british Tornado fighter (and in fact most modern fighters) are intentionally made unstable so they can change direction VERY quickly, as built they would be unflyable. There rendered flyable by having a complex massively redundant computer system that flies the aircraft. The pilots controls input into this system telling the aircraft what the pilot wants it to do.You might be thinking of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has largely replaced the Tornado.
The Panavia Tornado was developed by Germany, Britain and Italy in the late 1960s and early 1970s (first flight 1974) and is an inherently stable airframe with electro-hydraulic controls. It certainly isn't super-manoeuvrable, it's basically a downsized version of the F-111 with very similar manoeuvrability optimised for bombing runs. In many ways the Tornado was quite unsophisticated for the time of its development, considering that nations like France, the USA and USSR were working on early fourth generation fighters (including super-manoeuvring) around the same time, but it did end up proving to be a reliable low-cost option which worked well for Britain, Italy and Germany in the various low-level conflicts where it was deployed (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).
Remember too that the original 737-100/200 only had 14000 - 16400 lbf thrust engines, while the new 737-MAX has up to 29300 lbf thrust per engine.Its likely the increased thrust causing the nose to pitch up is the issue, you get this on a Cessna 182 when one needs to "go around", ie abort a landing, opening the throttle causing a massive pitch up, (Note 1). In fact one of the requirements for the type endorsement is that one has enough strength to hold the yoke in when one opens the throttle on a "go round".
The newer versions because of their length also have to be careful to not tail-strike on rotation (another reason for the wing being moved backwards, and engines forward for CoG and nacelle ground clearance considerations).
It's a 50+ year old airframe design being taken to the absolute limit.
It is pointless speculating about the cause of accidents. Let the investigations take their course. Here’s two Airbus accidents, an A330 and an A300, that were predominantly caused by pilot error, but in which design flaws could arguably be a contributing factor. Note how far forward of the wing the engines are in both designs.I regard both of these as pilot error, in both cases the controlling pilots miss understood aircraft performance through lack of/poor training, the effect of technology in both cases was minimal, ie in both cases an experienced pilot would have had little problems. For the MAX 8 the same applies, ie a well trained pilot would have little problem.
Pilots managed to stall the aircraft after the pitot tubes iced up, causing erroneous airspeed indications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
The co-pilot used light aircraft techniques and snapped the vertical stabilizer off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
Post Script............Emirates have been increasing their back to basics training and now encourage their pilots to manually fly below 10,000'.
Poor pilot training is becoming an increasing problem in commercial aviation, a lot of airline management believe the increasing amount of automation means that they can lower there standard of training, Air France flight 447 and American Airlines flight 1549 (airbus crash landing in the Hudson river) are classic demonstrations that this NOT the case.
woodford
Going back to basics..................Post Script............Emirates have been increasing their back to basics training and now encourage their pilots to manually fly below 10,000'.
Poor pilot training is becoming an increasing problem in commercial aviation, a lot of airline management believe the increasing amount of automation means that they can lower there standard of training, Air France flight 447 and American Airlines flight 1549 (airbus crash landing in the Hudson river) are classic demonstrations that this NOT the case.
woodford
Back to basics being,
- check your horizon (not impacted by any systems failure)
- check your throttles/push throttles to (I think) 90%
Have these two correct chances are you will stay airborne.
Subscribers: railblogger, RTT_Rules
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.