h a l f b a k e r yFewer ducks than estimates indicate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
With the demise of Boeing's flying coffins (the 737 MAX) there is no reason why they shouldn't be offered as non-flying structures to anyone with a better idea than parking them in yet another desert boneyard (see link).
So, my idea is to make them available for inventive reconfigurations in the form
of a global competition.
My own initial offering is to convert one into that of a bi-plane. The entire process could serve as an apprenticeship for the CAD designers, engineers and technicians needed to add another set of wings to an existing 737 MAX. The ability to actually fly would be a bonus, especially given that in its present form the 737 is as viable as a giant breeze block with wings.
Another version would see the 737 with its wings and tail clipped to become a luxury "stumpy bus". Its diminished form would still be viable as a road transport vehicle, able to make long highway journeys, provided there were no low level bridges, and the engines had been converted to run on a non-polluting power system.
My final idea is for the fuselages of the planes to be cut up into cross sections for purchase as extreme home cinemas. Each cross section would contain a full row of seats spanning the width of the plane. A bulkhead with an access door. A toilet and galley/cooking area, along with high def wide screen projection and surround sound would complete the facilities on offer.
Now all I need do is to convince Boeing that this is a worthwhile project.
Chesley Sullenberger
https://en.wikipedi...hesley_Sullenberger
Prostrate yourself, bang your forehead on the floor and declaim "We are not worthy !" [8th of 7, Feb 23 2020]
boneyard
https://www.flexpor...anes-salvage-value/
.... to calm down DrBob [xenzag, Feb 23 2020]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Actually, what you want is a triplane, but with the three sets
of wings oriented orthogonally. In that way, the plane will be
capable of remaining airborne regardless of the commands
sent by the computer. |
|
| |
"Land, land, land damit! I keep telling it to land but it just won't go down." |
|
| |
As [Max] points out, there's nothing much wrong with the airframe (apart from an over-reliance on fragile composites, which is true of most current civil aircraft) - it's the die-by-wire flight control system that is (literally) the killer. |
|
| |
Replacing the electronics with good old fashioned pushrods, hydraulics and cables would fix the problem, at the expense of reduced payload, range, passenger capacity, or any combination of the preceding. The older systems are heavier. |
|
| |
Oh, and you actually have to train the pilots to fly, instead of giving them a game console to play on. That's a huge part of the problem. Many commercial pilots lack competency in stick-and-rudder skills and are bewildered when the automation betrays them. There aren't enough Sullys to go round ... |
|
| |
link? What link?
//it just won't go down//
As it is a Sunday, I shall heroically resist the urge to make any outdated, smutty comments involving theologians & thespians. |
|
| |
Altho bigger engines are usually a good thing. Not always, but usually. |
|
| |
It's not that the problem "was" the FCS, the problem "is" the FCS; and not just in the MAX. Most civil aircraft built in the last 20 years (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) are critically compromised; it's just that most punters aren't aware of it yet, and the aviation industry - including the regulators - are trying very hard to keep the facts quiet. |
|
| |
The big winners are, bizarrely, Sukhoi, who have their own home grown systems. Simpler, cruder, more demanding on piloting skills ... but carved from solid, not just cribbed from the less desirable bits of the MS Flight Sim graphics engine ... |
|
| |
// if pilots knew when to override it // |
|
| |
That's the killer. Too many pilots lack a sense of the "feel" of what the plane's doing. |
|
| |
It's perfectly reasonable to put an aircraft in straight and level flight, then tweak the throttles to adjust pitch and yaw; private pilots do it all the time, because it's part of the fun; like seeing how fast you can put a car into a corner before it starts to unstick a bit. It's how the crew managed to get their crippled DC-10 into Sioux City with no hydraulics. But such familiarization is strongly discouraged on civil airliners, even though it's normal, harmless and indeed very useful; military pilots do it all the time, because they're expected to be able to fly and land with important bits damaged or shot off ... situations no autopilot can ever cope with. |
|
| |
Oh, they practice asymmetric flight, and engine-out landings in the simulator, but they don't get to "play" with the real aircraft, which is a tragic mistake. Put a jet-jockey in the right hand seat of a puddle jumper, say "You have control", and watch the little beads of sweat on the forehead pop out ... |
|
| |
If you want to let them try a landing, best to carry a big can of air freshener. And put a disposable cover on their seat. Sphincter control not guaranteed. |
|
| |
You're missing the point here: These planes are
defunct. It doesn't matter what Boeing does, no
one will fly on them again, so they should be
scrapped and repurposed. The final nail in these
flying coffins will be when the travel insurance
companies refuse cover for anyone travelling on
them. |
|
| |
Except that can't happen. The investment in planes and
associated infrastructure must run into the trillions. The
planes have a fault; it can be identified and, once that's done,
they will be allowed to fly again. |
|
| |
Even before any fixes, I'm sure the odds of a 737 Max having a
safe journey were better than the odds of a bus having a safe
journey. |
|
| |
No one will fly in them. It's simple. Regardless of
how much money has been invested in them, they
will forever now be known as Boeing's flying
coffins, so they'd be well advised to get on board
with my idea and cut their losses. I am doing my
best to help them out of the big hole they have
dug for themselves here. |
|
| |
Well, once they solve the square-window problem with the
Comet, it went on to be fairly successful. And that was
despite the fact that the roof had come off several times. |
|
| |
People want to get from A to B cheaply and quickly, and they
don't really want to pay for safety. |
|
| |
If no one wants to fly in these aeroplanes they could be refitted as
cargo planes and flown by remote control. |
|
| |
... into tall buildings... |
|
| |
Well, if I ended up flying on a 737 Max, I don't think it would
bother me particularly. Of course that may say more about
me than about the plane. |
|
| |
Ah yes, but if you had a choice, and there was no
insurance for the winged coffin, or if you were
buying a ticket for someone you cared about. The
brand is now toxic. Watch as they renamed it and
go through all sorts of laughable nonsense to
convince people that it's somehow safe to fly in
something that's liable to decide to fly itself into
the ground on a digital whim. At least with an
extra set of wings it would give people a laugh,
and we need that in these days of universal
Hitler/Trump revulsion. |
|
| |
It wasn't safe before; it's just that now, more people know. But they don't care- not really- because it's going to happen to someone else. |
|
| |
Besides, the people who die in commercial aviation accidents mostly aren't important enough to be worth spending money on. If they were, standards would be higher. After all, they won't spend their own money on their own safety. If you want to travel fast and cheap, the system will stabilize at an acceptable level of fatalities - as it has. It's always been like that, and always will be. |
|
| |
You can already get laughs for free from the Democrats ... |
|
| |
"How to win an election: Step 1- choose a credible candidate ..." |
|
| |
Sp. "adulation", shirley ? |
|
| |
There are some minor copyright issues to overcome,
but their best option is to rename the 737-Max the
"Airbus A340" |
|
| |
//no insurance for the winged coffin// If there were no
insurance available for passengers on 737 Maxs, my first step
would be to set up an insurance company to cover passengers
on 737 Maxs. Wouldn't even need to charge a high premium,
as long as I'd cornered the market. Even without any fault-
fixing, the 737 Max has a crash rate of 2 in 500,000. So, if you
want a million pounds cover, that's going to cost you £4 if I
want to break even, or £8 if I want to make a 100% profit. |
|
| |
//rename the 737-Max the "Airbus A340”. With a
few bits bolted on, it could be modified to look
like one too. That's a good competition entry. |
|
| |
Max - that logic didn’t work so well for Concorde.
It had a perfect safety record until one hit a piece
of metal on the runway and c’est la vie or rather
c’est la mort. The problem here is not numbers,
it’s perception. The 737 brand is dead in the water
- it’s toxic and no one will risk contamination from
any toxic brand, especially when there are other
choices. Boeing should get on with cutting them up
like I have proposed. I’ll be writing to them and
won’t be taking no for an answer! |
|
| |
Yes, but [xen], you said that nobody would be able to get
insurance. My point was simply that if insurance were
needed, someone would step in and make a profit by
providing it. |
|
| |
I just don't understand how it is that when people demand a knee-jerk
reaction, they're surprised when they get a knee jerk reaction. |
|
| |
1 June 2009, an Air France A330 flying Rio de Janeiro to Paris as flight
AF447 had some problems with sensors; their pitot tubes stopped
reporting airspeed. A combination of stupid reactions by the air crew and
stupid decisions built into the warning systems resulted in the pilot
holding the stick all the way back - forced the plane into a stall, and held
it there all the way to the ocean. |
|
| |
Many demands were made that aircraft design be updated so that this
could never happen again - if something goes wrong, and the plane can
see it's being stalled, the system should take the control away from the
pilot and get the nose down. |
|
| |
Well, such a system was designed - but it wasn't implemented, because
you have to tell the flight crews about the systems, and if they know
there's one that's going to try to take over when it disagrees with the pilot,
the pilot is just going to shut it off. |
|
| |
But then along comes the 737 Max, which has a change to the way the
engines are mounted - in such a way that it just might put the nose up
when you get in some particular flight attitudes. This required the system
to have some built-in capability to prevent such a stalling tendency. But
also, simultaneously comes along the Max's largest customer, saying
(while holding up large $$$) that whatever the fix is, make it look to the
pilots like there's been no change, so that training costs are minimal. |
|
| |
Hmmm... automatic nose down, don't tell the flight crews... oh, yeah, we
have one of those on the shelf. |
|
| |
Piss on Boeing all you want, but keep in mind that what they produced
was precisely to customer spec. |
|
| |
[lurch] In which case, Boeing could be criticised for putting the
interests of its sales department and its bottom line ahead of the
safety of its passengers. |
|
| |
I really liked the term "stumpy bus". I get an interesting
visual. |
|
| |
// Boeing could be criticised for putting the interests of its sales department and its bottom line ahead of the safety of its passengers // |
|
| |
By that measure, rain can be criticised for making people wet, and wind for blowing things about ... |
|
| |
Don't forget the shareholders - the manufacturers and the airlines both; but the main pressure comes from the passengers. |
|
| |
If you put two check-in desks next to one another and at one you paid a USD$200 premium for "A statistically safer flight" using a lower-tech less stressed airframe that flew slower, guess where the queue would be ? |
|
| |
Passengers get what they pay for. |
|
| |
//convert one into that of a bi-plane.// |
|
| |
This might actually be a goer. Given the issues with the
pickle forks in 737 NG airframes <link> it might be
prudent to double up on wings and therefore half the
stress on the mounting structure. How to go about it? I
think a full set of extra wings would be somewhat draggy?
How about a nice set of canards? Everyone likes canards,
and they'd be a great way to add pitch authority. |
|
| |
//lack competency in stick-and-rudder skills// |
|
| |
The jokes on the stick-and-rudder crowd when the 737
rudder issue rears its head. |
|
| |
//The bigger engines were mounted further forward and
higher up on the wing. This gave the plane a tendency to
pitch the nose up.// |
|
| |
Something about this doesn't pass the sniff test. Pitch up
in response to adding power from underwing engines is as
old as underwing engines. It's because you apply force on
the end of a lever away from the center of, in this case,
drag. Mounting them further forward should make no
difference, mounting them higher up on the wing would
HELP. Reading around, it seems the nacelles generate lift
ahead of the wing, which is the problem. Raising the nose
makes the nacelles generate MORE lift, like leading edge
extensions. Hence the need to catch it before runaway. |
|
| |
Fundamentally, the 737 has been enlarged to the weight
& dimensions of a 757. But, it only has 1/2 the rudder
area, 3/5 the horizontal stabilizer area and 1/2 the
elevator area. Apparently the trim wheels are miniature
too, small enough that you can't apply enough force to
move them under aerodynamic loading. |
|
| |
// they'd be a great way to add pitch authority. // |
|
| |
Will that be operated by the pilot, or triggered semi-randomly by software ? Just askin' ... |
|
| |
// Mounting them further forward should make no difference // |
|
| |
Yes it does, because it extends the moment of rotation with respect to the mainspar (C of G). The thrust axis is below the C of G and if you move the nozzle (the effective point of action) forward you lengthen the lever. |
|
| |
But as you correctly point out, raising the point of action towards the centreline of the wing does indeed reduce the turning moment. |
|
| |
// has 1/2 the rudder area, 3/5 the horizontal stabilizer area and 1/2 the elevator area // |
|
| |
Oh, but there's so much less drag ... |
|
| |
Look what happened when they tweaked the empennage on the MD-11. It stopped and it dropped and it never flew again ... |
|
| |
I still think the bi-plane modification is the way to
go, but let's see how Boeing responds. |
|
| |
//Look what happened when they tweaked the empennage
on the MD-11// |
|
| |
OK guys, when we made the control surfaces smaller and
put in a software fudge, planes crashed and we got in
trouble, so let's not do that again OK? Right, does anyone
know why the plane with the software fudge and in which
everything but the control surfaces was enlarged seems to
have got us in trouble? |
|
| |
We blame the Marketing department. |
|
| |
The air is much thicker now than it used to be, but the metal on the planes has gotten thinner. |
|
| |
The thickness hasn't changed that much; rather, there's much greater use of "lightweight composites" which is a synonym for cardboard dipped in glue. |
|
| |
It's not even particularly good cardboard... |
|
| |
I've seen that cardboard, and it's the very best - Kellogg's' Cornflake Boxes, so it's got to be the thicker air. |
|
| |
Xen, the bit about the brand being toxic doesn't
make a lot of sense. |
|
| |
Nobody except the frequent fliers really knows what
model of plane they'll be on until they're on one and
they bother with the emergency exit description
card. |
|
| |
//greater use of "lightweight composites" which is a
synonym for cardboard dipped in glue.// |
|
| |
I frequently laugh, sometimes out loud, at people who
buy carbon fiber bikes, fishing rods and the like. Are you
sure you want a bike that can be ruined by dropping it?
How competitive is fishing if a 22g saving will help? But
I'm fine with composites in aircraft. Aluminium isn't that
good. Even the fancy alloys are 50+ years behind the
fancy alloys in steel. There are steels with better
properties in all parameters apart from, crucially,
density. Aircraft are held together with glue already
because of unweldable aluminium alloys, and it's the poor
aluminium fatigue performance that kills practically
every airliner. |
|
| |
With the various composites you gain a real strength-to-
weight advantage, you can over build like crazy and still
save weight. Not ideal for turbine blades as yet though. |
|
| |
// But I'm fine with composites in aircraft. // |
|
| |
If you can afford the short design life and the highly conservative margins of safety that the military adopt, sure. If you can snap the fin off merely by firm use of available rudder authority, that's different. |
|
| |
// There are steels with better properties in all parameters apart from, crucially, density. // |
|
| |
There's a lot of steel in smaller aircraft. Always has been. |
|
| |
// Aircraft are held together with glue already because of unweldable aluminium alloys, // |
|
| |
Partly, but that's also partly because the sections are so thin. You can use the panels from a Bell 206 to wrap your Christmas turkey, but the airframe is actually welded steel tubing. |
|
| |
If you build aircraft to be rugged and resilient, then you can't fly people around so cheaply. If you stick them in cardboard boxes, then you can. |
|
| |
No too many of them die. Shame for the pilots, tho. |
|
| |
But the worst thing is that it enables ordinary people to travel, which is undesirable. Of course, the real mistake is teaching them to read and write ... some of them start to try to think for themselves, and that way disaster lies. |
|
| |
// and it's the poor aluminium fatigue performance that kills practically every airliner. // |
|
| |
Poor fatigue performance in very thin sections. There are a lot of WW2 era aluminium aircraft still flying; tough, solidly made things, with all proper wings and propellers and stuff, not frangible passenger-packets whose designers have been inspired by the tube of Pringles on their desk ... |
|
| |
Worse, they might have been inspired by the actual Pringles, not the tube ... crunch ... |
|
| |