4 ms·
That's absolutely the case. > Now, when the pilots applied power to the engine, the aircraft would have a significant propensity to “pitch up,” or raise its no
by frickinLasers 7y ago
That's absolutely the case.
> Now, when the pilots applied power to the engine, the aircraft would have a significant propensity to “pitch up,” or raise its nose. This propensity to pitch up with power application thereby increased the risk that the airplane could stall when the pilots “punched it”
> Worse still, because the engine nacelles were so far in front of the wing and so large, a power increase will cause them to actually produce lift, particularly at high angles >of attack. So the nacelles make a bad problem worse."
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/boeing-737-max-unsafe-to-fly-new-scathing-report-by-pilot-and-software-designer-ed5jwi2s8kCuGTAgFXR0GA/ https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/boeing-737-max-unsa...
- kuzehanka 7y agoIt's not a safety issue. The 737 MAX has a tendency to nose-up harder than the 737 when thrust is applied. It's different from the 737 but it's not inherently unstable or unsafe or anything of the sort. Someone who understands the flight characteristics of the MAX 8 can fly it just as safely as any other passenger plane. tl;dr the plane isn't inherently less safe, it is different in flight characteristics, and Boeing tried to negate that difference with software in order to cut certification costs. Here's Mentour Pilot explaining it[1]. This is the same guy that recently made the news for 'proving' the 737 MAX 8 MCAS problems. He also explains why Boeing sold AOA disagree as an option, and shockingly, it was not a conspiracy to save a few thousand bucks like reddit/HN seems to believe. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD0JabYjF3A&t https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD0JabYjF3A&t -- Seriously who the fuck is downvoting my comments here? Come out and post a reply explaining your downvote, coward.