Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

It seems like the less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag.


aus+uk / aus.aviation / Re: 737 MAX

SubjectAuthor
* 737 MAXRod Speed
+* Re: 737 MAXComputer Nerd Kev
|`* Re: 737 MAXRod Speed
| `* Re: 737 MAXkeithr0
|  `* Re: 737 MAXRod Speed
|   `* Re: 737 MAXDavid Lesher
|    +- Re: 737 MAXRod Speed
|    `- Re: 737 MAXPhil Allison
`* Re: 737 MAXPhil Allison
 `- Re: 737 MAXRod Speed

1
737 MAX

<op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1145&group=aus.aviation#1145

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Subject: 737 MAX
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 06:32:00 +1000
Lines: 1
Message-ID: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net gmBrC+Ooc45Suz+IS4IymAaZrJx1F1FKQNwvXzX8ckv8wcaHY=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DJMYXc9QgGBNjygftcJPGJ2sxBc=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:32 UTC

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/boeing-737-max-in-mid-air-emergencies-as-us-set-to-launch-probe/101175214

Re: 737 MAX

<62b8ce70@news.ausics.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1146&group=aus.aviation#1146

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Message-ID: <62b8ce70@news.ausics.net>
From: not...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev)
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan>
User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.31 (i586))
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net
Date: 27 Jun 2022 07:24:00 +1000
Organization: Ausics - https://www.ausics.net
Lines: 15
X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail
 by: Computer Nerd Kev - Sun, 26 Jun 2022 21:24 UTC

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/boeing-737-max-in-mid-air-emergencies-as-us-set-to-launch-probe/101175214

Certainly makes both Boeing and the FAA out as quite hopeless, and
it sure sounds like they've been cutting far too many corners
across the board. But it would be nice to have some stats for other
similarly-widespread aircraft to compare with. Especially with the
question over storage conditions while the planes were sitting
unused for so long - it should be possible to compare with other
models which were taken out of service due to lack of demand during
the pandemic, if the stats were available.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Re: 737 MAX

<op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1147&group=aus.aviation#1147

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:10:42 +1000
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan> <62b8ce70@news.ausics.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net pmk6L89EYxiTm2c39W99UQoybT4Tm3Melh+bBAXGJdX3CtaLg=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZDP3yuiiAO0bx55tp/WQ4UzkoxU=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Sun, 26 Jun 2022 22:10 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:24:00 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev
<not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/boeing-737-max-in-mid-air-emergencies-as-us-set-to-launch-probe/101175214
>
> Certainly makes both Boeing and the FAA out as quite hopeless, and
> it sure sounds like they've been cutting far too many corners
> across the board.

> But it would be nice to have some stats for other
> similarly-widespread aircraft to compare with.

In fact the record with the 737 before the MAX is vastly
better even at the same time in its history. The A320 too.

> Especially with the
> question over storage conditions while the planes were sitting
> unused for so long - it should be possible to compare with other
> models which were taken out of service due to lack of demand during
> the pandemic, if the stats were available.

They are.

Re: 737 MAX

<jhsgerFtldpU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1148&group=aus.aviation#1148

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: use...@account.invalid (keithr0)
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:46:02 +1000
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <jhsgerFtldpU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan> <62b8ce70@news.ausics.net>
<op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 8F02ifupCAaRQpp+P0kCsQrk9ABPQtYvtVYY907Wi5BtFM3V8Y
Cancel-Lock: sha1:86R+9b1QF4hKJ8IO/5RhIEePqyw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan>
 by: keithr0 - Mon, 27 Jun 2022 01:46 UTC

On 27/06/2022 8:10 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:24:00 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev
> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/boeing-737-max-in-mid-air-emergencies-as-us-set-to-launch-probe/101175214
>>>
>>
>> Certainly makes both Boeing and the FAA out as quite hopeless, and
>> it sure sounds like they've been cutting far too many corners
>> across the board.
>
>> But it would be nice to have some stats for other
>> similarly-widespread aircraft to compare with.
>
> In fact the record with the 737 before the MAX is vastly
> better even at the same time in its history. The A320 too.
>
>> Especially with the
>> question over storage conditions while the planes were sitting
>> unused for so long - it should be possible to compare with other
>> models which were taken out of service due to lack of demand during
>> the pandemic, if the stats were available.
>
> They are.

There is a feeling in the industry that the Max was a step too far, the
basic design is the best part of 60 years old, the fuselage being based
on the 707 and, in fact, still retains some 707 parts. Over the years,
it has been kludged with lengthened fuselage, bigger engines etc, but
lots of parts still hark back to the original. Boeing was going to leave
it at the NG and design a completely new plane as a replacement, but got
spooked by the by the Airbus NEO family and kludged the design even
further with bigger engines. That caused problems with the short
undercarriage which lead to less than ideal engine placement MCAS etc.

Boeing are in a world of hurt on a lot of fronts, the Starliner fiasco
cost them hundreds of millions, the KC-767 program has had and still has
many problems, the airforce sent back a number of examples due to
quality problems. There are quality problems right across the board
particularly with the Charlotte built 787s, there are about 100 that
have not been delivered due to problems with fuselage joints and FOD.

It also looks likely that they will make a loss on the Airforce 1
replacement program.

Re: 737 MAX

<d762967d-d153-401c-905a-ff4acb425bdan@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1149&group=aus.aviation#1149

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f54:b0:3a0:4a5b:2692 with SMTP id m20-20020a05600c4f5400b003a04a5b2692mr3041388wmq.109.1656296291859;
Sun, 26 Jun 2022 19:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:c41:b0:45f:380d:2f6a with SMTP id
r1-20020a0562140c4100b0045f380d2f6amr7284086qvj.54.1656296291266; Sun, 26 Jun
2022 19:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.128.87.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 19:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=124.150.72.180; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.150.72.180
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d762967d-d153-401c-905a-ff4acb425bdan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
From: palliso...@gmail.com (Phil Allison)
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 02:18:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Phil Allison - Mon, 27 Jun 2022 02:18 UTC

Rod Speed wrote:
==============
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/boeing-737-max-in-mid-air-emergencies-as-us-set-to-launch-probe/101175214
>

** Surprised that Rod posted this.

As I have posted here before - just one more MAX crash and all hell will break loose.
According to the above link, that event is a matter of when, not if.

...... Phil

Re: 737 MAX

<op.1oeg9hkfbyq249@pvr2.lan>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1150&group=aus.aviation#1150

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:30:43 +1000
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <op.1oeg9hkfbyq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan> <62b8ce70@news.ausics.net>
<op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan> <jhsgerFtldpU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net iAsp3n6ilXZevDzzXJaAUg4bAvWIxerowqVesJghHp8yTFCbg=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nQRHly1atjNF8wXZD7xUEA6HiT4=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 27 Jun 2022 02:30 UTC

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/boeing-737-max-in-mid-air-emergencies-as-us-set-to-launch-probe/101175214

>>> Certainly makes both Boeing and the FAA out as quite hopeless, and
>>> it sure sounds like they've been cutting far too many corners
>>> across the board.

>>> But it would be nice to have some stats for other
>>> similarly-widespread aircraft to compare with.

>> In fact the record with the 737 before the MAX is vastly
>> better even at the same time in its history. The A320 too.

>>> Especially with the
>>> question over storage conditions while the planes were sitting
>>> unused for so long - it should be possible to compare with other
>>> models which were taken out of service due to lack of demand during
>>> the pandemic, if the stats were available.

>> They are.

> There is a feeling in the industry that the Max was a step too far,the
> basic design is the best part of 60 years old, the fuselage beingbased
> on the 707 and, in fact, still retains some 707 parts.

That clearly wasnt a problem with the 737 before the MAX.

It was in fact by far the safest the world has seen
with mass produced commercial airliners.

The problem was that it wasnt feasible to add the bigger
engines due to how short the undercarriage was.

> Over the years, it has been kludged with lengthened fuselage, bigger
> engines etc, but lots of parts still hark back to the original. Boeing
> was going to leave it at the NG and design a completely new plane as a
> replacement, but got spooked by the by the Airbus NEO family and kludged
> the design even further with bigger engines. That caused problems with
> the short undercarriage which lead to less than ideal engine placement
> MCAS etc.

So was nothing to do with the age of some of the design, just the short
undercarriage.

> Boeing are in a world of hurt on a lot of fronts, the Starliner fiasco
> cost them hundreds of millions, the KC-767 program has had and still has
> many problems, the airforce sent back a number of examples due to
> quality problems. There are quality problems right across the board
> particularly with the Charlotte built 787s, there are about 100 that
> have not been delivered due to problems with fuselage joints and FOD.

All aircraft manufacturers have their design fuckups.

> It also looks likely that they will make a loss on the Airforce 1
> replacement program.

Re: 737 MAX

<op.1oehcor3byq249@pvr2.lan>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1151&group=aus.aviation#1151

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:32:38 +1000
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <op.1oehcor3byq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan>
<d762967d-d153-401c-905a-ff4acb425bdan@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ZdWCr0FjTzHoEXc/z0i0PAebE1Gbb3uxYIt6wVzGGUP86v1Gs=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gy9VS5Sjul75QhsSr1bP+UfzV4U=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 27 Jun 2022 02:32 UTC

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/boeing-737-max-in-mid-air-emergencies-as-us-set-to-launch-probe/101175214

> Surprised that Rod posted this.

Yep, you actually are that stupid.

> As I have posted here before - just one moreMAX crash and all hell
> will break loose.

Not gunna happen, you watch.

That didn't happen with the DC10, stupid.

> According to the above link, that event is a matter of when, not if.

BULLSHIT.

Re: 737 MAX

<t9ch0t$64$1@reader2.panix.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1152&group=aus.aviation#1152

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix5.panix.com!wb8foz
From: wb8...@panix.com (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:06:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex
Message-ID: <t9ch0t$64$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan> <62b8ce70@news.ausics.net> <op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan> <jhsgerFtldpU1@mid.individual.net> <op.1oeg9hkfbyq249@pvr2.lan>
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:06:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="panix5.panix.com:166.84.1.5";
logging-data="196"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3
 by: David Lesher - Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:06 UTC

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:

>keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote

>> There is a feeling in the industry that the Max was a step too far,the
>> basic design is the best part of 60 years old, the fuselage beingbased
>> on the 707 and, in fact, still retains some 707 parts.

>That clearly wasnt a problem with the 737 before the MAX.

>It was in fact by far the safest the world has seen
>with mass produced commercial airliners.

>The problem was that it wasnt feasible to add the bigger
>engines due to how short the undercarriage was.

So they COULD HAVE fixed the problem, with longer gear.

The original reason a -100 had such short gear was to allow a
small station, such as say YWYY, to have no baggage handling
gear beside a muscled bag slinger and a cart. (Early ones even
had on-board airstairs.)

But no airline is going to fly a Max into such a field; its goal
was/is to compete at YSSY, etc. where baggage 'ramp lice' is
everywhere.

They needed to change the wing anyhow; accommodating longer gear
at the same time could have been accomplished without a lot of
hand-wringing..

But Boeing seemingly is no longer a company where sound
engineering prevails. It's now one where the beancounters rule
all, and are they appear devoted to skimping any way they can
get away with it.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Re: 737 MAX

<op.1ofrfam4byq249@pvr2.lan>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1153&group=aus.aviation#1153

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 05:07:48 +1000
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <op.1ofrfam4byq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan> <62b8ce70@news.ausics.net>
<op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan> <jhsgerFtldpU1@mid.individual.net>
<op.1oeg9hkfbyq249@pvr2.lan> <t9ch0t$64$1@reader2.panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net mPk1NCC7Cr5lUuehDQ4jfAryTsbIeo2ZyYLjLywSnZP6XkbZs=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kgPCdleNtdZHeuuJVlgX7XvSvXI=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 27 Jun 2022 19:07 UTC

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 01:06:05 +1000, David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:

> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>
>>> There is a feeling in the industry that the Max was a step too far,the
>>> basic design is the best part of 60 years old, the fuselage beingbased
>>> on the 707 and, in fact, still retains some 707 parts.
>
>> That clearly wasnt a problem with the 737 before the MAX.
>
>> It was in fact by far the safest the world has seen
>> with mass produced commercial airliners.
>
>> The problem was that it wasnt feasible to add the bigger
>> engines due to how short the undercarriage was.

> So they COULD HAVE fixed the problem, with longer gear.

No, the original 737 was designed to have such
short legs and you can't just stick longer legs on it.

> The original reason a -100 had such short gear was to allow a
> small station, such as say YWYY, to have no baggage handling
> gear beside a muscled bag slinger and a cart. (Early ones even
> had on-board airstairs.)

> But no airline is going to fly a Max into such a field; its goal
> was/is to compete at YSSY, etc. where baggage 'ramp lice' is
> everywhere.

> They needed to change the wing anyhow; accommodating longer gear
> at the same time could have been accomplished without a lot of
> hand-wringing..

Wrong.

> But Boeing seemingly is no longer a company where sound
> engineering prevails.

That's mindless bullshit too.

> It's now one where the beancounters rule all,

That's mindless bullshit too.

> and are they appear devoted to skimping any way they can
> get away with it.

That's mindless bullshit too.

Re: 737 MAX

<3be9f881-365c-414b-8bd4-ee43f9878ef4n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=1154&group=aus.aviation#1154

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.aviation
X-Received: by 2002:adf:d1c6:0:b0:21b:ca9b:23d8 with SMTP id b6-20020adfd1c6000000b0021bca9b23d8mr9693203wrd.692.1656386072781;
Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1183:b0:31b:2e86:4874 with SMTP id
m3-20020a05622a118300b0031b2e864874mr4330841qtk.313.1656386071988; Mon, 27
Jun 2022 20:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.128.87.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: aus.aviation
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t9ch0t$64$1@reader2.panix.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.33.213.17; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.33.213.17
References: <op.1od0nmmzbyq249@pvr2.lan> <62b8ce70@news.ausics.net>
<op.1od474p9byq249@pvr2.lan> <jhsgerFtldpU1@mid.individual.net>
<op.1oeg9hkfbyq249@pvr2.lan> <t9ch0t$64$1@reader2.panix.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3be9f881-365c-414b-8bd4-ee43f9878ef4n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 737 MAX
From: palliso...@gmail.com (Phil Allison)
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 03:14:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Phil Allison - Tue, 28 Jun 2022 03:14 UTC

David Lesher wrote:
================
>
> >The problem was that it wasnt feasible to add the bigger
> >engines due to how short the undercarriage was.
>
> So they COULD HAVE fixed the problem, with longer gear.
>

** Far cheaper to do it the way they did.

> They needed to change the wing anyhow; accommodating longer gear
> at the same time

** The wheels stow in the fuselage - almost meeting .

> But Boeing seemingly is no longer a company where sound
> engineering prevails. It's now one where the beancounters rule
> all, and are they appear devoted to skimping any way they can
> get away with it.
>

** True enough.

But the real problem derives from Boeing being allowed to self certify nearly every dam thing.
Yanks are real slow to learn the meaning of "conflict of interest" .

...... Phil

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor