Turbofan

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Turbofan

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Boestar, Your question is above my pay grade. All I know is what Max pilots at AC have told me. The AC Max simulator as of last fall does not replicate MCAS. Obviously this will be addressed with a training and software update. That would be required anyway as MCAS behaviour has been altered. My point was simply challenging the notion that there are not enough Max simulators to get the Max flying rapidly. The software update could be added to NG simulators as well. Flip a switch and train Max-8 MCAS differences.
  2. Don, Part of the 737-8 introduction at AC was a caution to pilots regarding the deceleration ability of the aircraft. If was recommended to use Max full reverse until the pilot was accustomed to how the Max decelerates, as it is slower than most aircraft we are used too. Obviously this is reflected in performance numbers and is not really a safety issue. I’m just saying it doesn’t decelerate as fast as an A320 because of the smaller brakes. The smaller brakes are a function of fit in the wheel well of an aircraft originally designed at far less weight and inertia. Hence the landing and accelerate stop distances have lengthened. Hence less margin for error, incorrect contaminants/ rapidly changing conditions. You don’t see many 737-800’s in Mexico City. AC looked at sending it to MEX as well. Doesn’t work. It’s the same performance issues that steered AC away from the Max-9. If you remember the original order was mostly Max-9’s.
  3. Can’t place bigger wheels/ rotors/brakes on the gear because it won’t fit on retraction. Contrast this to the wheels on the 320 vs 321. The 321’s wheels are substantially larger.
  4. It is my understanding that even the 737 Max simulator does not currently simulate MCAS. Remember MCAS was something no one knew about. Why would it be simulated? The current sim training in the Max tries to mimic MCAS with multiple trim runaways. The NG sim can do this. The problem I’m told with this workaround is that MCAS trims much quicker. I am presuming here that new sim/Max software is part of Max recertification and training program. If this is the case it would also make sense to me that Boeing produce an MCAS module for the NG simulators. Flip a switch in an NG sim and simulate Max MCAS. I find it hard to believe that Boeing would not have a plan for the lack of Max sims.
  5. If I’m reading this correctly Bombardier is contemplating selling out entirely to Airbus on the 220 joint venture because they can’t fund their share of ongoing costs. Selling under duress doesn’t usually produce value. But on the other hand cash is king. Bombardier doesn’t have it, and needs an infusion for restructuring. Sell the rest of the c-series is definitely an option. A better option than another bailout. I hope they get better than a buck this time.
  6. Just to give you an idea, because yes I also was very surprised at how large the A220-300 actually is. AC Mainline 319 120 seats AC Rouge 319 132 seats. AC Mainline A220-300 137 seats. AC Mainline 320 146 seats AC Mainline 737-8 169 seats AC Mainline 321 190 seats AC Rouge 321 200 seats. 5-6 extra rows in a A220-500 and it’s the size of a Max-8
  7. The A220 at AC seats more than the mainline 319 and about equal to the Rouge config. It already is cannibalizing 319 Neo/737 Max 7 sales. The 220-500 would be about the size of a 320 Neo/Max-8. Truth be told the 318 and 737-6 were dropped from Max and Neo offerings because their economics made them uncompetitive. Even the 319 Neo/Max 7 has been struggling in sales against Max 8/9 and Neo 320/321. This efficiency gap was what Bombardier was trying to target with the CS-100/A220-100/300. And what made them such a threat to Airbus and Boeing. An A220-500 will eat into 320 sales if produced. But does that matter to Airbus at this stage? Someone else did the R&D on their next generation narrow body. I can’t see the 220 ever competing with the 321Neo, which currently I believe is the most efficient narrow body offering. If I were Airbus I would upsize the 220-500 just slightly more than initially contemplated to compete directly with a Max8. At 5 across seating all they need is 5-6 more rows from the 220-300.
  8. About a quarter of the way down this article there are very interesting comments from a retired Canadian Colonel about air defence systems and managing them in the presence of civilian aircraft. As are the questions at the bottom. I don’t have any military background. For those that do do his comments and questions sound reasonable? https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEEVudoRNYeypFEbgWf7_VBUqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowqeP_CjDdg_oCMMTh6QU?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen
  9. Russia after MH17. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-plane-crash/russia-u-s-show-evidence-kremlin-backed-rebels-downed-mh17-n161806 Iran now. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-iran-rejects-missile-theory-calls-on-west-to-show-evidence/ The strategy look familiar?
  10. Human shields? Increase the chances of unacceptable collateral damage should the enemy attack?
  11. Yes they are still on the road. There are lots of older aircraft flying too. That wasn’t the point. Cool car by the way. The point was what would happen if Detroit tried to reintroduce a 2020 Buick Riviera as it was made 60 years ago? Im not suggesting the 1960’s Riviera should be banned from the road. I’m not suggesting the 1960’s Riviera is unsafe. I’m suggesting that the regulator would expect the Riviera be brought up to 2020 specifications or it would not be permitted on the road, even though it’s 1960’s predecessor has grandfather rights. It forces safety progress with manufacturers.
  12. I get the sentiment and the one by Conehead one post above. I certainly agree that after all the scrutiny the Max will be as safe as it possibly could be. But the safest plane in commercial service? I don’t think that is possible. I will try a different angle. Let’s say Henry Ford was still making the model T. Could that car really be brought up to today’s standards regardless of intense scrutiny. Sure you could easily add seatbelts. What about Airbags, crumple zones and back up camera’s? Realistically speaking a start fresh approach is the only way to add the new technological advances in safety. How does Boeing add all the redundancies modern aircraft have to an old platform like the Max. Three versus two hydraulic systems. Comparator systems that cross reference 3 sources for Airspeed and altitude. No Rat Air Turbine for electrical/ hydraulic backup. Can the Max be made safe. Probably. Can it be made as safe as modern aircraft with far more robust redundancy? No. Under this line of thinking. Are you going to let the model T on the road without airbags just because the model was created before airbags existed? Again I’m playing the devils advocate here. But if this line of thinking begins to take hold, it already has in limited quarters, dominos could start falling. Not saying it will happen. Just saying I’m starting to wonder. Conehead, I am not familiar with how Walkerton dealt with the aftermath of the water issue. Did they fix the system in place at the time? Or did they replace and modernize it because better safer technology existed?
  13. Do they really have the final call now? That’s my point.
  14. Yes of course it would fly again. I guess for me, I always thought this grounding would be temporary. Never really considered otherwise. Now I’m beginning to wonder. I stress the word wonder by the way.
  15. Anyone else beginning to wonder if the Max may never return to service? What if a foreign aviation regulators, or even the FAA, starts asking itself questions like “ Do we really want to approve this aircraft, its technology and design, flying into 2060? Just think of the politics and public sentiment if a jurisdiction decides the answer is no. It could very well cause a domino effect.