1 hour ago, qqwertz said:

Sounds like you fly the plane in RL. Well, you are then the first pilot I met whom I do not envy for their job 😉

I still differ in my opinion with yours. For instance, the fact that the Max easily passed initial stall certification is certainly darkened by the fact that the FAA was getting way too cosy with Boeing back then. Regarding the design, I am quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System

"Because the CFM International LEAP engine used on the 737 MAX was larger and mounted further forward from the wing and higher off the ground than on previous generations of the 737, Boeing discovered that the aircraft had a tendency to push the nose up when operating in a specific portion of the flight envelope. MCAS was intended to mimic the flight behavior of the previous Boeing 737 Next Generation. The company indicated that this change eliminated the need for pilots to have simulator training on the new aircraft."

To me, that is in line with what I read about the design before and indicates that Boeing made a poor design choice to safe money. Both for itself for certifying a new type, and for its customers to avoid retraining costs for 737NG-certified pilots.

I didn't want to start a war of opinion, I am just surprised about how much approval for this plane there is. I pledge to keep silent from now on 🙂 

You should be more surprised at your extreme bias towards the jet even after what biased you is now gone. The specific flight envelope in your quote is a flight envelope pilots should never get a plane into. Don’t see how that’s a problem for you. Needless to say, the plane gets approval because it deserves approval. There is nothing wrong with the jet. Well, maybe the fact that it climbs like a dog. 

52 minutes ago, qqwertz said:

Sounds like you fly the plane in RL. Well, you are then the first pilot I met whom I do not envy for their job 😉

 

What you write is pretty much repeat narrative from the news media.  Stearmandriver actually flies 737 for a living.  I have a friend who fly for American Airlines and also expressed his opinion about MAX early days and it pretty much in par with Steamdriver wrote. It also worth to consider training and experience of pilots who were in control when both accidents happened. I'm not protecting corporate geed, but the way world operate today is that consumer is not aware of 99% accidents and causes that happens everyday. But 1% that goes viral at the top of media breaking new easily sway  public opinion. 

 

I give one example of Air France Flight 447 that did get news attention but didn't snowball like 737 MAX. There was problem with AoA reading, crash with fatalities and service bulletin/modifications 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

 

 

22 hours ago, skully said:

Your wishes are not unrealistic at all!

Check this beauty out:

https://aerialsimulations.com/index.php/707-2/

Bookmarked, thanks!

On 8/14/2024 at 2:13 PM, Kevin_28 said:

iFly posted a new video of their controlled cabin lighting for the Max8

Beautiful...for killing FPS. Hope they have an option for disabling the cabin.

7 hours ago, qqwertz said:

Because the CFM International LEAP engine used on the 737 MAX was larger and mounted further forward from the wing and higher off the ground than on previous generations of the 737, Boeing discovered that the aircraft had a tendency to push the nose up when operating in a specific portion of the flight envelope. MCAS was intended to mimic the flight behavior of the previous Boeing 737 Next Generation. The company indicated that this change eliminated the need for pilots to have simulator training on the new aircraft."

To me, that is in line with what I read about the design before and indicates that Boeing made a poor design choice to safe money.

Yes, a larger engine cowl mounted further forward can create a lifting moment well forward of the CG and thus result in a pitch up tendency at high AoA.  This happens on many aircraft with wing-mounted engines; several are fly by wire and have computer-based flight control inputs to counter it, even. 

There's nothing wrong - or unique - with the fact that this happens on the Max.  It's completely controllable.  It's like complaining about the fact that adding power to underslung engines creates a pitch-up moment.  Sure does, but who cares?  You have flight controls to, you know... Control your aircraft.  😉

The problem occurred when Boeing decided the airplane needed to feel like an NG in this regime.  MCAS exists to help it do that.  Like I say, other aircraft use automated inputs in this regime; that itself is not unusual or troublesome.  But the way Boeing went about it AT FIRST, really highlighted some issues within the company.  MCAS has since been fixed, and the airplane is a good dependable platform (though it dogs out in climb into the 30s as someone pointed out; I joke that they put cruise props on it.)

I've flown -400s, and our current fleet is NGs and Maxs.  I'm happy when I see a Max on my paperwork starting a trip; quieter, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, better cockpit... There's not much to not like.  I fly them to Hawaii often enough; if they're dependable enough for ETOPs, they're pretty dependable.  😉

No reason to keep silent about misconceptions; discussion is how learning occurs.

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Stearmandriver

On 8/15/2024 at 4:43 PM, Starlifter60 said:

Not a realistic wish but I'd love to see an in-depth DC-8 or 707 with the JT3s. No push button flying there!

Hope so too, maybe Just Flight or A2A captain of the ship style

11 minutes ago, bendead said:

Hope so too, maybe Just Flight or A2A captain of the ship style

A2A Connie  COTS was fantastic.

6 hours ago, Luis Hernandez said:

Beautiful...for killing FPS. Hope they have an option for disabling the cabin.

I have not seen a plane yet that needs the cabin disabling and if you don't like the advanced lighting features keep your cabin dark...  

We have no idea how this is optimized or what FPS impact it will have.

People said the same thing about airport interiors until performance was just fine with them modelled...   

10 hours ago, Luis Hernandez said:

Beautiful...for killing FPS. Hope they have an option for disabling the cabin.

This isn’t 1999 with FSX.  If it’s not visible, it’s not rendered. 

One point that is not often mentioned with the MAX and MCAS is that the requirement for MCAS was really customer driven, not Boeing driven. A specific long time 737 customer was refusing to buy the MAX if it required any additional pilot training above the existing pilot training already in place for the 737 NGs the carrier already operated. MCAS was designed to make the stall characteristic match the NG as close as possible. That requirement also played in with Boeings (unwise IMHO) decision to keep as low a profile as possible on the MCAS system. They ultimately came up with a very basic training program, where the pilots basically watched a video representing the differences that they needed to know verses their existing fleet, signed off on having received that "differences training" and were approved to fly the MAX. If Boeing had stuck to their guns and said "No, the pilots will need at least a basic differences sim session before being approved to add the MAX to their existing NG rating, then MCAS could have been more open and public, people could have seen the design, commented on it, possibly driven the change to a second required AOA vane (instead of an optional second vane) and all of this may have possibly been avoided.

14 hours ago, qqwertz said:

Sounds like you fly the plane in RL. Well, you are then the first pilot I met whom I do not envy for their job 😉

I still differ in my opinion with yours. For instance, the fact that the Max easily passed initial stall certification is certainly darkened by the fact that the FAA was getting way too cosy with Boeing back then. Regarding the design, I am quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System

"Because the CFM International LEAP engine used on the 737 MAX was larger and mounted further forward from the wing and higher off the ground than on previous generations of the 737, Boeing discovered that the aircraft had a tendency to push the nose up when operating in a specific portion of the flight envelope. MCAS was intended to mimic the flight behavior of the previous Boeing 737 Next Generation. The company indicated that this change eliminated the need for pilots to have simulator training on the new aircraft."

To me, that is in line with what I read about the design before and indicates that Boeing made a poor design choice to safe money. Both for itself for certifying a new type, and for its customers to avoid retraining costs for 737NG-certified pilots.

I didn't want to start a war of opinion, I am just surprised about how much approval for this plane there is. I pledge to keep silent from now on 🙂 

Speaking as a cabin crew member who has worked oboard of the NG but has rode as a passenger on the MAX, The 737MAX is still just a busted old 1960 airplane in the passenger cabin essentially a pig with lipsick. Still no obvious light/colors or sound or literal screen by the phone that says who is calling who on the interphone (Cabin crew or Pilot). Passenger call lights are missed as the sound is still faint like its 1995. You cant see what passenger is actually calling for assistance without breaking your back to figure out where the little blue light is in the cabin which is harder than you think with First Class divided on a 739MAX.

Sometimes you will get indication or hand motion from the passenger that they rang the call light on accident and you have to walk all the way to row 20 to turn it off for them. Why isnt there a button to turn it off on the panel up front like Airbus? Why are crews still having to get on their knees and breaking fingernails to arm doors with the girt bar? Even the 757 was more advanced than this regarding door arming/disarming. Do the pilots still have to walk to the rear of the aircraft to check water/waste level on the MAX? Considering how nothing else has been upgraded in the back I am assuming Yes.

The forward galleys that crews are expected to work in as first class seats continue to climb are nothing short of ridiculous. Also Why in 2024 are crew still having to call pilots for cabin temperature on the newest aircraft from Boeing?  Most just dont bother so if you are hot or cold on your next Boeing flight and thew crew said they called for it? They didn't. Maybe I am a little biased and I am probably leaving a ton of stuff out but this is what I remember working on a 737 one day and an Airbus the next. I really appreciate the thought Airbus shows for the cabin crew on their airplanes. Its not even close when it comes to passenger cabin perks but maybe its because Boeing builds their planes mostly for Southwest/Ryanair model where there isnt much service and really just about transporting point to point. When you think about the cost cutting measures Boeing did to get this thing certified its no wonder they haven't bother with upgrading anything else.

18 hours ago, 737_800 said:

Your comparsion would work if I had said I don't board airplanes in general because of safetey concerns. I just prefer to not board an airplane that has been known for malproduction and people who tried to reveal drawbacks ''vanished''. If that would be the case with a type of bus model or train model, I would certainly do the same 😉 

Nope. You've been traumatized by propagandists who's only goal is selling advertising.

You really need to do the math:

The Max was very safe before the crashes, and even more so now.

If it were inherently unsafe, it would've crashed more often, and those crashes would've occurred even with highly trained flight crew.

There have been over 10,000 737s delivered.

If it were unsafe, we'd know about it, and Airbus would be miles and miles ahead in sales.

Use facts rather to overcome emotions when making decisions.

 

19 hours ago, qqwertz said:

Accidents are unavoidable in any kind of transportation. What sets the Max apart is that it is badly designed from the start for the sole reason of saving money. I don't think the 737 max is an unsafe plane anymore, but anytime I see one, I am reminded of Boeing's reckless attempt to squeeze 2010s engines under a 1960s fuselage.

Nope. You're mal-informed pretty much across the board.

You're completely ignoring the fact that those airlines cheaped out on training their pilots.

The problems happened with major US carriers, too, and nobody died.

If the attempt were reckless, the Max's would still be crashing.

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Nope. You're mal-informed pretty much across the board.

You're completely ignoring the fact that those airlines cheaped out on training their pilots.

The problems happened with major US carriers, too, and nobody died.

If the attempt were reckless, the Max's would still be crashing.

And... the various Congress hearings, legal condemnations, firing of top management, FAA challenges for complacency, Boeing pleading guilty, flying doors, fired whistle blowers etc, etc, were all for no other reason than witch hunting to satisfy the press and the consequences of uncontrolled emotions in the public unable to understand the difference between a serious US pilot training and a lousy one elsewhere...  Boeing has mismanaged its production and betrayed its clients, period, and the time has come to acknowledge it and turn this around speedily to save this iconic brand for the sake of aviation and the safety of the flying public.

Back to topic now regarding this magnificent rendition of (yes indeed) a problematic aircraft, nice job from iFly, if the systems and flight models are identical to the cabin characteristics so far, this promises to be a market winner, albeit for a short period until MSFS 2024, when we will have a sudden surge of 737 Max..

Edited August 17, 20241 yr by Bernard Ducret

1 hour ago, Bernard Ducret said:

And... the various Congress hearings, legal condemnations, firing of top management, FAA challenges for complacency, Boeing pleading guilty, flying doors, fired whistle blowers etc, etc, were all for no other reason than witch hunting to satisfy the press and the consequences of uncontrolled emotions in the public unable to understand the difference between a serious US pilot training and a lousy one elsewhere...  Boeing has mismanaged its production and betrayed its clients, period, and the time has come to acknowledge it and turn this around speedily to save this iconic brand for the sake of aviation and the safety of the flying public.

Your last sentence is entirely correct.

Your lead in to it shows you fall for Kabuki theater.

Everyone wants a simple answer, a single bad guy to vilify. 

These situations are never - ever - as black and white as you believe.