Shox Dr
Chief Engineer to Carlos Fandango
- Messages
- 18,007
- Location
- East Yorkshire
There is a big problem in China with people throwing coins into the engines, in hope of a safe flight.
Apparently 5 (coins) were removed from one engine last week
- Thread starter mart
- Start date
There is a big problem in China with people throwing coins into the engines, in hope of a safe flight.
Apparently 5 (coins) were removed from one engine last week
slim_boy_fat
Member
- Messages
- 29,540
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
There is a big problem in China with people throwing coins into the engines, in hope of a safe flight.
Apparently 5 (coins) were removed from one engine last week
Well, at least they discover that on the ground.Pigeon_Droppings2
Member
- Messages
- 6,037
- Location
- london
Computers are amazing...but can always be improved....usually with the addition of a large manual override switch!!!
Sounds like the typhoon, it’s aerodynamically unstable but the computers keep it up with some sort of wizzardry, something to do with adjusting those funny ears next to the cockpit I think.
Fine on a jet you can eject from but not too keen on airliners going that way, wonder how it affects it gliding performance if the engines quit.
KemppiFrog
Member
- Messages
- 4,263
- Location
- Aquitaine
The 737 has been modified over 50 yrs to bring it 'up to date' so the latest max version is not related to the original. Boeing had a lot of the market back then, but Airbus now have more than half. The new engines were to bring the 737 up the match the fuel economy of the equivalent Airbus. But the alterations to the airframe and thrustline,gave it some odd charactaristics. So they built in a new softwear to counter that. Unfortunatly, they neglected to include it in the manuals...as it might overload the workload of the pilots. So when things went wrong, they were not aware of what to do (like switch off the errant system)
Part of this is the cost of certifying a new design (I used to see this in light aircraft) so it is easier and faster to 'modify' an existing aircraft way beyound what it originally was.
in both the cases, things happened very fast, like 3 mins to try and sort out an unstable situation.
Part of this is the cost of certifying a new design (I used to see this in light aircraft) so it is easier and faster to 'modify' an existing aircraft way beyound what it originally was.
in both the cases, things happened very fast, like 3 mins to try and sort out an unstable situation.
Last edited:
Pigeon_Droppings2
Member
- Messages
- 6,037
- Location
- london
3 minutes....definitely not enough time to turn the power off and on again....which is how I attempt to solve 99% of my software issues!
Pigeon_Droppings2
Member
- Messages
- 6,037
- Location
- london
Seems just a bit odd that 1 faulty sensor (or type of sensor) can confuse their software.
I'm not a pilot...but if a plane is stalling surely the software should look to verify that...for example
1. yes the angle of attack is too steep...
2. and there is evidence of a stall....wouldn't the aircraft be losing speed for example?
I'm not a pilot...but if a plane is stalling surely the software should look to verify that...for example
1. yes the angle of attack is too steep...
2. and there is evidence of a stall....wouldn't the aircraft be losing speed for example?
ajlelectronics
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 9,964
- Location
- Gloucester, England
A conventional stall warner is a flap switch in the airflow. If the airflow becomes unstable in an aerodynamic stall, the flap switch operates a horn in the cockpit. Totally foolproof.
For the wings to stall, there must be excessive climb angle for the airspeed. You can have steep climb as long as the airspeed remains sufficient. The wing will stall when the air speed decays below the limit. The way to recover from a stall it to push the nose down and start to wind the engines up to full power. As the aircraft recovers, the nose can be brought back up and the power reduced back to cruise power. This does take quite a bit of altitude though, in a light aircraft around 3000 feet can be lost, which is why an approach stall is always going to hurt. I don't know but I would guess that a heavy is going to need far more than 3000 feet to recover.
Just as a point of interest, if an aircraft is deliberately held in the stall, it will nod its nose whilst doing a fair impression of an airborne brick. Recovery is largely automatic if you stop forcing it to stall.
Last edited:
Pigeon_Droppings2
Member
- Messages
- 6,037
- Location
- london
Been far too long since I've done any wing lift calculations!
I seem to remember it's all about maintaining the laminar flow otherwise yo get turbulence on the top surface. But I can't remember why thats bad....drag I guess?
I remember doing the vortex calculations which happen on the wing tips (flowing from high to low pressure)...then a few years later those wing tip verticals started appearing to prevent the vortex which basically causes energy loss.
slim_boy_fat
Member
- Messages
- 29,540
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Sadly, the only ones to derive any benefit from this tragedy will be Lawyers. 
brightspark
Member
- Messages
- 40,457
- Location
- yarm stockton on tees
here
Pigeon_Droppings2
Member
- Messages
- 6,037
- Location
- london
Sounds like planes just need a big red switch with a label which says "bypass flight computer"...when stuff goes wrong that really isn't the time to start figuring stuff out. Thats why fire exits for example are clearly indicated and very easy to operate!
My Hyundai Tucson has autonomous breaking....I remember on a roundabout it decided I was going to hit another car....I wasn't because my brain had already done the calculations properly and assessed the situation. But for some reason the car decided to hit the break!....which ironically did almost make me lose control because it did so on a tight bend!
My Hyundai Tucson has autonomous breaking....I remember on a roundabout it decided I was going to hit another car....I wasn't because my brain had already done the calculations properly and assessed the situation. But for some reason the car decided to hit the break!....which ironically did almost make me lose control because it did so on a tight bend!
My Insignia has the same. I hasn't braked yet but several times it has flashed up a red warning in my face which has made me jump. Usually when coming up a steep hill to a set of traffic lights. I lift off but it thinks I will hit the other car.
Why don't I just turn it off?
imagine if you had an accident - hit a child who ran out for example - and you had turned off the auto braking. They would rip you apart in court!
brightspark
Member
- Messages
- 40,457
- Location
- yarm stockton on tees
just noticed this
roofman
Purveyor of fine English buckets and mops
- Messages
- 12,320
- Location
- North West with water on 3 sides
that's opened my eyes
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 9,963
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
That's pretty horrific, if it turns out to be the case - taking these kinds of shortcuts can never be acceptable.
fixerupper
Member
- Messages
- 1,682
- Location
- Crete Greece
Yeah I just read that this morning ...gobsmacked ...I know nothing about planes ...but IF this is true it seems profit has
come before safety ....
come before safety ....
That video has the usual "slight spin", which is all too common these days. Boeing almost certainly advertised that the max was "similar to fly" as the standard machine because it is. The problem of being nose light was fixed by software. The reason the planes crashed was nobody thought to tell the pilots that the software was controlling the takeoff angle, not some strange conspiracy by Boeing. How many plane orders would they have lost by telling airlines the pilots would need a few more hours to learn the aircraft before flying it? However the video, and the rest of the media are spinning a conspiracy about greedy capitalists. If they knew the reason for the first crash and did nothing about it, so allowing the second to happen, then yes Boeing are responsible for that, the usual corporate, "deny responsibility for everything" response is the cause of a lot of avoidable accidents, but the crash investigators would have known everything that Boeing knew about the first crash, and didn't do anything to prevent the second.
