Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2019, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)
design, or at very least one who's flight characteristics were well known to many
pilots with a high number of hours in the plane, and made it unstable.
Note: this article concludes MCAS was the design flaw.
https://www.aviationcv.com/aviation-blog/2019/shocking-facts-boeing-737max-crash
However, from the article where it talks about Boeing scrambling to compete with Airbus on fuel efficiency.
"Airbus definitely complicated things for Boeing. They had to improvise quickly.
So, they did. To improve the fuel efficiency of their new jet, they not only introduced new winglets but Boeing also introduced new engines on the 737.
The CFM Leap-1B promised to be more efficient than the older CFM56-7B, which was on the 737NG. And indeed it is more efficient. However, it is also much bigger. It weighs more and it is bigger in size.
Because of its bigger size, Boeing had to change the mounting point of the engine. In short, they put them further forward and much higher on the wings. But the different mounting point made the Boeing 737 MAX prone to a stall. The engine positions on the wings forced the nose of the aircraft to go up.
But the further mounted engines were not the flaw. Nor was the bigger size. Boeing had to one-up Airbus somehow.
MCAS was the problem. The same software, which supposedly had to prevent the aircraft from stalling."
The article goes on to discuss MCAS and it flaws. But back to the design. Would Boeing if not pressured to get a more fuel efficient plane out the door have slapped some honker engines on an exiting design thst nade it more stall prone then the original ? Or would they have designed one that placed the wing/engine mounting to avoid making it stall prone rather the fixing with an automated control system ?
= new reply since forum marked as read
