이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 11

Virgin Australia delays the deliveries of its Boeing 737 MAX 8s on order

제출됨
 
Virgin Australia has delayed the deliveries of its Boeing 737 MAX 8s due to ongoing uncertainty and safety concerns surrounding the aircraft. Virgin Australia has postponed the delivery of the first Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft to 2025. The airline has 48 Boeing 737 MAX 8 in its order book with Boeing. Virgin has also announced that it converted 15 of its MAX 8s on order to MAX 10s, with the first deliveries delayed from November this year to July 2021. (airlinerwatch.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Highflyer1950
This site gives a pretty good explanation on the MCAS on the 737 8/9 Max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBqDcUqJ5_Q
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
So, why has the speed, auto throttles issue not been discussed or how did I miss it? The auto throttles had to have been either not selected, or deselected as an initial departure speed of 250 or max.300 would have been bugged and would have clearly reduced the power setting below 94%. If they were deselected, the first part of any nose down stab trim runaway "red box" item is throttles Idle! I still can't wrap my head around the noise of Niagara Falls in the cockpit with the clackers going off and whatever other new world warnings were poisoning the environment at 400+ knts. and an experienced ATP forgetting the throttles. In most emergencies, slower is your friend, unless you already stalled it. This guy did not address it. Your thoughts?
Highflyer1950
Exactly. The only thing I could think of was they did at some point turn off the auto throttle but did not manually reduce from take off thrust. The weird thing is why didn’t they try the autopilot sooner before the a/c got so far out of trim as MCAS would have been inhibited, other than the assumption that a run away trim was an autopilot issue rather than an MCAS one. This, I believe is where Boeing failed to meet the pilot training requirements and proper R&D for the newest features on the Max? I’m sure once all AOA info is wired through the flight computers and “all” the safety annunciator lights become standard equipment, Boeing will have a great product again.
tyketto
Smart move by VAU here in converting the MAX 8s to MAX 10s. As we know that the B38M and B39M have the clearance landing gear design issue which was one of the factors for Boeing to develop MCAS, the -MAX 10 shouldn't have that issue. Getting the MAX 10s in should be a better deal, though Boeing is still screwed on the B38M/B39M.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
What I don't get, and why the "beep" they didn't do, is design/install the same style landing gear on the MAX 8-9...instead stupidity took over and used software and a half assed software coding at that...you DO NOT EVER rely on reading from just 1 instrument.
tyketto
IIRC, the problem there is based on the width of where the landing gear would be located versus the distributed weight on the fuselage. If that was off, then the landing gear along with the engines would also contribute to a sharper AOA.

The body is stretched a bit more on the -10, so that wouldn't be the problem. So again, the B38M and B39M have the same engineering design flaw, while the -10 doesn't.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
My understanding was the landing gear are located and then stowed same area as the 8 and 9. The difference being these gear would retract to fit in same stow area and then extend, once un-stowed to allow extra clearance. I think I see your point, however with extra clearance, could the engines not remain where the NG and earlier engines are? Or are you thinking the aerodynamics, with the shorter fuselage sitting taller, would be flawed, upon take off and landing?
tyketto
If they had that extra clearance, then the LEAP engines could easily remain where they are, and we wouldn't have the need for MCAS, let alone have had LNI610 and ETH610 occur. The funny thing is, the MAX10 has that clearance since the fuselage is longer and a bit wider, while the B38M/B39M aren't.

That is why the MAX10 gets a pass on this and may possibly not need MCAS at all, while the B38M and B39M do.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
That is what I thought about the engines, however due to the aerodynamics of the smaller MAX fuselage, it may have proven interesting landings and takeoffs with taller gear. I had thought of the longer gear and some way to make it stow where it should, such as retraction or pivot, but no way to prove it would work.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!