3 ms·
It actually was if I recall. https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_reading_room/media/737_RTS_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic
by salawat 5y ago
It actually was if I recall.
https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_reading_room/media/737_RTS_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_read...
Page 10:
>The 737 MAX was designed to handle and feel the same to the pilot as the 737 NG.
Without the MCAS function, in some small areas of the flight envelope — such as
approaching a stall and during higher g-force maneuvering — the new engines contribute
to the control column feeling lighter in the 737 MAX than the regulations allow. These are
not areas of the flight envelope in which the airplane normally operates. However, FAA
regulations - specifically 14 CFR 25.143, 25.201, 25.203, 25.251, and 25.255 - still
require the control column to have a higher pull-force feel in these flight regimes than
would exist on the 737 MAX without the added stability from the STS and MCAS function.
- VBprogrammer 5y agoGood find! Interestingly I remember that being a relatively well accepted explanation here before the Ethiopian crash which is before that was published. Though I'm sure similar wording appeared elsewhere.