4 ms·

how `faulty` is the airframe compared to the F-35? I hear that needs massive amounts of sw to keep it balance.

• kalleboo 8y ago
  Military aircraft have very different design goals from passenger aircraft.
• TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  If I recall correctly the F-16 is also an unstable airframe dependant on software, yet arguably higly successful. Although the F-16 is from a different era. Perhaps we’re no longer capable of building complex systems?
  • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Further to my comment above, here's the line from the Wikipedia entry, which I vaguely recalled: The F-16 is the first production fighter aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable, also known as "relaxed static stability" (RSS), to improve maneuverability. 1. The F-16 is the first production fighter aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable, also known as "relaxed static stability" (RSS), to improve maneuverability.
  • Deestan 8y ago
    The F-16 requires specifically trained pilots to fly safely. The Boeing in question was flown by pilots who were not trained for or even made aware of significant modifications to the plane's behavior. A training wheel on a motorbike is not very hard to make well or drive with safely, but if you suddenly discover it during a sharp turn at speed, it's not going to go well.
• mcv 8y ago
  Even the F-16 was controlled by software. I'm not sure if the F-16 was aerodynamically unstable, but some newer jet-fighters are, specifically for more maneuverability, and they rely on software to keep it flyable. However, those tend to be designed with redundant systems in order to avoid a single point of failure. Having a single poorly tested system rely on a single sensor to fix a fatal flaw in the airframe is the real issue, I think. But maybe a passenger plane shouldn't be designed to be unstable in the first place; it's not meant to be a jet-fighter.
  • wahern 8y ago
    Fighters also have ejection seats, which provide the final fail safe mechanism. So you can use more radical and risky solutions without unduly putting the pilot at risk. I imagine the calculus works differently for bombers, cargo, and helicopter aircraft.
    • borplk 8y ago
      I don't think having ejection seats would come into consideration for something like this. Ejection can very badly injure or even kill the pilot and is an absolute last resort.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• parksy 8y ago
  Modern fighter aircraft are often designed to be aerodynamically unstable. This allows the removal or reduction of control surfaces, design of an airframe that is shaped to produce a small radar signature, and by naturally being unstable the craft wants to move around wildly so it has increased pitch, roll and yaw potential. The software is then used to automatically move control surfaces to maintain stability. This is a deliberate design decision and results in a stealthier, faster, more manoeuvrable aircraft. Passenger aircraft on the other hand are designed to be as stable as possible, to ensure stability and control authority are maintained by default as a failsafe. Changing the design of an aircraft that is assumed to be stable by default and introducing software to compensate is a very different proposition to building an airframe from scratch with the explicit intent of it being unstable. The failure mode of an airframe that's presumed stable should be that it will at the very least be able to glide down a reasonable descent slope. The failure mode of an unstable airframe is pilot ejection and loss of the airframe typically, although military aircraft failure tolerances are quite different (the computer should be able to compensate for damaged components no longer responding as intended etc). So in answer to the question, it's not really comparing apples with apples. I would say that a passenger airliner should be able to maintain reasonable balance without constant interjection of a computer. But moreover, if a change in the airframe causes an imbalance that only software can correct, the manufacturer should inform and train the purchasing airlines and their pilots in these new software systems. The fact they apparently did not has caused the deaths of hundreds of people. For that reason I'd say as a whole the 737-Max is excessively, perhaps criminally faulty.
• varjag 8y ago
  Fighter planes have also higher incidents rate than airliners. By orders of magnitude..