the new Boeing 787s -- don't let them pass you by (in 2008)!

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63304-2.jpg

from wikipedia:

The Boeing 787, or Dreamliner, is a mid-sized passenger airliner currently under development by Boeing Commercial Airplanes and scheduled to enter service in 2008. It will carry between 200 and 350 passengers depending on the seating configuration, and be more fuel-efficient than earlier airliners. In addition, it will be the first major airliner to use composite material in the majority of its construction.

Features

* Twin aisle seating.
* Cruise speed: 0.85 Mach (903 km/h or 561 mph at altitude)
* Range of 8,500 nautical miles (15,700 km), enough to cover the Los Angeles to London or New York to Tokyo routes.
* Construction materials (by weight): 61 % composite, 20 % aluminum, 11 % titanium, 8 % steel. Composite materials are significantly lighter and stronger than traditional aircraft materials, making the 787 a very light aircraft for its capabilities. By volume, the 787 will be 80 % composite.
* The 787 production line will be able to finish an aircraft in as little as three days, compared to 11 days for the 737.
* Larger windows than any other civil air transport, with a higher eye level, so passengers can see the horizon, with liquid crystal display (LCD)-based "auto-dimming" to reduce cabin glare and maintain transparency.
* Light-emitting diode (LED) cabin lighting will be used instead of fluorescent tubes.
* Cabin air provided by electrically driven compressors (no engine bleed air).
* A version of Ethernet (AFDX) will be used to transmit data between the flight deck and aircraft systems.
* Bleedless turbofans, allowing elimination of superheated air conduits normally used for de-icing, aircraft power, and other functions. These systems are to be replaced with an all-electrical system.
* Higher humidity in the passenger cabin because of the use of composites (which don't corrode).
* The internal pressure will be increased, to the equivalent of 6000 feet (1800 m) altitude versus 8000 (2400 m) on conventional aircraft. This will significantly improve passenger comfort.

more pics here, including some very wacky retrofuturistic interior design concepts that i'm sure got nixed in the end.

like this:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62869.jpg

the urban heat island effect (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 16 July 2005 07:42 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

of course, if you're impatient, the airbus a380 will begin commercial runs in 2006.

the urban heat island effect (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 16 July 2005 07:53 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

While offering 49 percent more room than a Boeing 747, the Airbus 380’s operating costs are cited at around 15 to 20 percent lower per seat. Add to this fewer emissions, less noise, and a seat capacity stretching from the median 555 to a staggering 800 (double the heaving bottoms on a B747), and it’s small wonder airline accountants are beaming. Airbus claims its plane is more fuel efficient than a car. A BBC estimate puts this at 90.6 miles per gallon, per passenger.

http://www.smarttravelasia.com/AirbusVsBoeing.htm

the urban heat island effect (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 16 July 2005 08:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

popular thread

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 16 July 2005 20:13 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

heaving bottoms!

teeny (teeny), Saturday, 16 July 2005 23:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

dreamliner is a cool name. air travel deserves to reclaim its lost dignity, to become something classy again.

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 00:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

See, now if only the designers would make the seat a little bit more bucket-ed, passenger comfort would skyrocket...

Jimmy Mod Is Sick of Being The Best At Everything (ModJ), Sunday, 17 July 2005 00:42 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Why do all the seats on a plane have to face forward?

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 17 July 2005 00:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Actually, when I was a kid, TWA had a center table with chairs around it where you could play cards in flight. This was 1st class on a 747 in like 1971.

Orbit (Orbit), Sunday, 17 July 2005 00:56 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't think those seats will actually appear in any planes we'll ever be in. The airlines outfit the planes with their own seats.

The Dreamliner looks gorgeous. I'm looking forward to it. Although I have to say that name is pretty lame. I prefer the simplicity of 787.

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

they actually changed the name to 787 from the more leet "7E7" (no joke).

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I like the exterior paint job on the 787. I wonder how much it adds in terms of weight.

jim wentworth (wench), Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

certainly it should be "7D7"?

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:36 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It takes forever to get everyone onto a 747, I can't even imagine loading one of these...

Thermo, on BA in Business class, every other seat faces backwards. I don't know of any other airline with backwards seats, though. Supposedly facing backwards is safer if you crash on the runway...

lyra (lyra), Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the e stands for "eight"!

xpost: the 757 >>>>>>>> any other boeing aircraft in commercial use.

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

but in terms of comfort the airbus beats 'em all hands down.

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Nah, 737-800. :-) I love the bulkhead seats on that plane.

lyra (lyra), Sunday, 17 July 2005 01:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

""It takes forever to get everyone onto a 747, I can't even imagine loading one of these... ""

This plane is smaller than the 747.

The best Boeing is the 777, me thinks.

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 02:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

aw yeah

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 02:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

because of the massive industry nosedive, the trend now is towards smaller planes, since for most flights during the week they have problems filling seats. airlines lose $$$ for every unsold seat.

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 03:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

yeah, so what's the point? are MASSIVE passenger planes what the world needs right now, in any way?

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 17 July 2005 03:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

if you ask me (and you didn't), the cardinal rule of good customer service is that you get back what you put in. there are people out there with money, and they'll pay (maybe not first-class prices, but they'll pay) for a great flight. people don't just stop flying because of security concerns -- it's because THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE is a massive headache.

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 03:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

are MASSIVE passenger planes what the world needs right now, in any way?

probably not.

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 03:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

something i could see doing really well: a small, mid-price airline geared exclusively towards adults and older children (no infants/toddlers = quieter ride for passengers, probably less of an insurance risk for the airline, and every seat is paid for), that guarantees top-notch service, good food, and a comfortable ride. like jetblue, but moreso, and without the false premise of being "discount." perfect for regular middle-class people who would be willing to pay $400 for business class/economy plus but not $800.

aqua teen hongro force (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 03:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Can you imagine when/if god forbid the first Airbus with 800 passengers goes down. I don't want to fly with that many other passengers, makes me feel sort of uneasy for some strnge reason I can't explain.

ryan_d, Sunday, 17 July 2005 03:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This B787 vs. A380 thing is quite interesting, actually.

Will the future of commercial air travel be point-to-point on medium-sized, highly efficient airplanes (let's hope so), or hub-to-hub on massive, economy-of-scale utilizing planes (let's hope not)?

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 04:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Remember Airbus is also putting out another plane, the A350, which is a direct competitor to the 787, with a few more seats and a taller cabin.

The A380 is pretty efficient, as planes go, as well, however that efficiency does depend on them being fully loaded, that goes for all planes.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 06:08 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I hadn't realized that Airbus is developing a plane to compete with the 787. So the A380 is really designed to go head-to-head with the 747. It's kind of odd that Airbus is introducing a plane in 2005 to compete with a plane that dates back to 1969. I suppose Airbus was tired of ceding the jumbo market to Boeing.

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 06:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The A380 fits into a segment of the market that neither plane make fills and also gives Airbus the big plane it's never had before.

The 787 is Boeing's all new replacement for the 757/767 series of smaller long distance planes. In response to the efficiency games, Airbus has put out a spoiler plane in the form of the A350 derivative (90% new design though) of the A330. Basically it comes from two different views of where air travel is going.

The dreamliner is a point to point airliner, ideal for smaller loading from smaller airports, it could easily be the spring board for inter-continental budget airlines, if it is as efficient as claimed.

The A350 is less radical than the dreamliner, but still a very advanced aircraft with heavy use of composites and should have comparable fuel economies with the 787 mainly through cramming in a few extra seats.

The A380 is about maximising capacity on congested routes from congested airports, Europe-East Coast, Tokyo-Osaka, although it's also been taken by Airlines such as Emirates and Singapore who are locked into hubs in tiny nation states and need to maximise number of seats on planes. You better beleive that someone is going to cram 800 seats on one of these things for the Tokyo Osaka run.

If the A380 is a success then Boeing can always revive it's 747-800 stretched version of the 747.

They'll be space for both in the market as they are going after different niches.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 06:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

it could easily be the spring board for inter-continental budget airlines, if it is as efficient as claimed.

here's hoping. the market is definitely there for that. north america -> asia will do outstandingly well.

jody heatherton (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 06:51 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Are you in the biz Ed?

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 06:54 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

No, but there has been some good economist and new scientist coverage of it, plus the early stages were going on through my time at university, studying engineer; my faculty has a Rolls-Royce funded tribology lab and did a lot of work which went into the Trent 900 and 1000 engines. (Also going back further, my A-level physics teacher was a former Rolls-Royce engineer who'd worked on earlier Trent engines.)

Someone needs to be working on powering these planes on vegetable oil/ethanol blends.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 06:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

someone needs to be working on taxing all these planes out of the sky

lol

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 08:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Then how will we go from continent to continent. By ship?

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 08:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

auto-gyro

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 08:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

When is teleportation going to get up and running?

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 08:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Zeppelins!

Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Sunday, 17 July 2005 09:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know, I'm a little skeptical of zeppelins.

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 09:36 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

magic carpets. most ecologically sound solution yet!

jody heatherton (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 09:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

also, carrier pigeons

jody heatherton (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 17 July 2005 09:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I want one!

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Sunday, 17 July 2005 10:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

ship is ok. my folks did swansea to cornwall in a week hahaha

why not just stay on yr continent, then you can use the best ever form of transport: train.

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 11:36 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I think I'd require a sizable flock of pigeons to get me across the Pacific.

Clearly the best advancement in international transport would be to build superfast elevators through the center of the Earth. Something like a pneumatic tube.

http://zapatopi.net/pneumatic/beachsub2.jpg

http://zapatopi.net/pneumatic/beachsub.jpg

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 12:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The Zipparu crew hard at work. "Safety is our Number 1 priority!"

http://www.uboatarchive.net/JtOpsCtr11.jpg
Craig keeps a close eye
http://www.uboatarchive.net/JtOpsCtr6.jpg
Jenny updates the big chart

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 12:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

why do they never say "profit is our number 1 priority"?

its often said that safety occupies this top spot, but it seems to actually occupy maybe....10th place, priority-wise?

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 12:19 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I'm wondering how well/not well these new 'composite materials' burn.

sgs (sgs), Sunday, 17 July 2005 12:53 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I would think they'd melt.

Super Cub (Debito), Sunday, 17 July 2005 13:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This plane is smaller than the 747.
Ah yeah, I was thinking of the new HUGE Airbus. Too many new planes...

lyra (lyra), Sunday, 17 July 2005 15:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Have you ever seen a graphite hockey stick break?

Jimmy Mod Is Sick of Being The Best At Everything (ModJ), Sunday, 17 July 2005 15:14 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Why hasn't the FAA grounded these planes yet???

flappy bird, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 23:51 (two months ago) Permalink

I would think Boeing is doing everything they can behind the scenes with the FAA to keep them from doing that.

I work for a company that supplies some aviation equipment for the 737 and was slightly relieved it didn’t have anything to do with what what we provide them. I will say that based on the stories I’ve been told, Boeing is ridiculously strict with this kind of stuff so the fact that this is even happening is a major fuckup on their end.

Western® with Bacon Flavor, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 00:19 (two months ago) Permalink

UPDATED #FAA Statement regarding @Boeing 737 MAX. pic.twitter.com/HxObBr7qRf

— The FAA (@FAANews) March 12, 2019

(My day job is supporting the FAA. I can only say that some of the responses to FAANews are...interesting.)

Anne Hedonia (j.lu), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 00:28 (two months ago) Permalink

Hmm, so the acting administrator of the FAA is a former aircraft manufacturer lobbyist, and the Secretary of Transportation is Mitch McConnell's wife. Sounds like we've got some tough independent oversight.

o. nate, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 00:34 (two months ago) Permalink

The industry-to-government-to-industry revolving door continues to turn at full speed.

Anne Hedonia (j.lu), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 00:42 (two months ago) Permalink

jfc let's just stay out of step with every other country on every single issue, what could go wrong?

Emperor Tonetta Ketchup (sleeve), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 00:59 (two months ago) Permalink

these planes are safe, and until we see the evidence in the form of 9, maybe 10 more crashes, we're gonna let these things fly.

fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 01:35 (two months ago) Permalink

I’m flying american tomorrow and thankfully have learned it’s not on one of these planes. really not sure what I’d do if it were...on one hand it seems incomprehensible that the planes would allowed to continue flying if there really were something wrong and that other countries are grounding them out of an abundance of caution, but...jeez

k3vin k., Wednesday, 13 March 2019 01:39 (two months ago) Permalink

do Delta or Spirit use em?

fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 01:46 (two months ago) Permalink

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/#/customers no spirit or delta

interesting that the chinese civil aviation admin says: yeah, this problem with angle of attack sensors happens all the time. Carl Liu, a 23-year-old pilot who has been flying 737s since June for a Chinese domestic airline, said the new model would sometimes show that the aircraft was climbing steeply, even though it was climbing by 10 degrees, and automated systems would nudge the plane’s nose down, causing a temporary loss of control. (also damn this pilot is 23 years old??) https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3001428/china-taking-lead-ground-boeing-737-max-signals-challenge-us-authority
i'm not sure i'm convinced it's part of a move against boeing in the ongoing trade war but there's that factor too, i guess.

XxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx (dylannn), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 09:31 (two months ago) Permalink

that sounds sketchy af

PaulDananVEVO (||||||||), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 09:35 (two months ago) Permalink

I had a grim lol at someone saying that pilots were not informed about aspects of its autopilot and "why not?" "oh we didn't want to overburden them with too much information".

calzino, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 09:48 (two months ago) Permalink

The EU has banned the 737 Max from its airspace now.

A bunch of pilots have reported weird readings and needing to manually compensate to override erratic automatic functions.

The line the airlines still using them seem to be sticking to is that experienced pilots with the appropriate training should be able to manage it ok. I’ve read that the ‘training’ is a 90-minute iPad presentation though.

ShariVari, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 10:29 (two months ago) Permalink

i'm trying to understand what went on... the mcas gets the wrong reading from angle of attack sensors, thinks it's climbing, nudges the nose down, but does it eventually recover in most cases or does it have to be—and this is where i don't know what pilots do on takeoff—put back under manual control, mcas switched off? and put back into a climb? what role does maximum command limit play in this?

i see that they're updating the software by april: https://qz.com/1570960/boeing-will-update-the-737-maxs-flight-software-by-april/

XxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx (dylannn), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 11:36 (two months ago) Permalink

what's the over/under on the software update introducing another catastrophic bug and/or bricking the plane entirely

kiss me dadly (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 11:41 (two months ago) Permalink

they're not allowed to fly in France atm (and the rest of the EU too, I think).

AlXTC from Paris, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 11:52 (two months ago) Permalink

The software fix to solve the unexpected nosedive problem in these planes had been expected in early January but the government shutdown reportedly "halted work on the fix for five weeks." pic.twitter.com/KDFwnuFIuX

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) March 13, 2019

I'm gonna need some verification of these claims, but if the Federal Government shutdown did delay rollout of a software patch....*laughs bitterly*

Anne Hedonia (j.lu), Wednesday, 13 March 2019 12:24 (two months ago) Permalink

Also I don't think there is a head of the FAA right now. Only an acting administrator. An article I saw said that there were 5 complaints logged in a voluntary database against that model type and the plane nosing down. I don't know how relative that is against other complaints.

Yerac, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 12:58 (two months ago) Permalink

(CNN) — US pilots who fly the Boeing 737 Max have registered complaints about the way the jet has performed in flight, according to a federal database accessed by CNN.
In one of the complaints, a captain reported an autopilot anomaly which led to a brief nose-down situation -- where the front of the aircraft pointed down, according to the federal database. In another complaint, a first officer reported that the aircraft pitched nose down after the autopilot was engaged during departure. The autopilot was then disconnected and flight continued to its destination, according to the database.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/pilot-complaints-boeing-737-max/index.html

omar little, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 14:02 (two months ago) Permalink

canada joins ban

mookieproof, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 15:55 (two months ago) Permalink

US ban now as well.

ShariVari, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 18:40 (two months ago) Permalink

This is as appropriate a moment as any to revive this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW-pFoYgaUs

pomenitul, Wednesday, 13 March 2019 19:08 (two months ago) Permalink

update: I’m alive

k3vin k., Wednesday, 13 March 2019 23:08 (two months ago) Permalink

thank you president donald trump

flappy bird, Thursday, 14 March 2019 02:51 (two months ago) Permalink

i had the fun of flying on one of these this afternoon! i, uh, wasn't thrilled about it. looked like about half the southwest planes at lax were 737 maxes.

circles, Thursday, 14 March 2019 03:49 (two months ago) Permalink

had to happen and even if the authorities hadn't grounded them, the operations would have to do (by association, individual leisure travellers and corporate travel programs wouldn't fly any of those airlines at all)

JD Salinger - King of Trainers (King Boy Pato), Thursday, 14 March 2019 09:14 (two months ago) Permalink

Amazing reporting by @seattletimes on the fatal flaws in the Boeing 737 MAX's flight control system—and the regulatory capture within the FAA to hastily approve it. Essentially, this plane could try to crash itself because of a single faulty sensor.https://t.co/LdnnMhN1Gx pic.twitter.com/Z9Iwnz7YBs

— Reed F. Richardson (@reedfrich) March 18, 2019

This still seems completely extraordinary.

ShariVari, Monday, 18 March 2019 15:28 (two months ago) Permalink

i am not aviation engineer, but "this plane could try to crash itself" seems... bad?

i'm w/ tato, super hot AND weird!! (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 18 March 2019 15:31 (two months ago) Permalink

No no, the pilots just needed to be told to switch off that part of the plane if/when it decided to crash itself, and if they didn't know how to do that, it was because they didn't buy the optional part of the safety manuals which explained this. Not at all Boeings fault, really.

Frederik B, Monday, 18 March 2019 16:05 (two months ago) Permalink

do you want to turn off The Medusa Touch suicide pilot option yes/no?

calzino, Monday, 18 March 2019 16:08 (two months ago) Permalink

it's incredibly horrifying and i mean horrifying.

Hunt3r, Monday, 18 March 2019 16:43 (two months ago) Permalink

boeing seems cool

Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air didn't pay extra for Boeing's "upgrades" on communications, navigation, and safety features, so Boeing didn't warn them that the planes were prone to sensor malfunctions that would send them crashing into the ground. https://t.co/2Nvka4tNVI

— Ben Taub (@bentaub91) March 21, 2019


On a plane that was prone misreading the angle of attack (and then overcorrecting), Boeing charged extra for the "angle of attack indicator" and the "disagree light"—features which "could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings." pic.twitter.com/DclKa8pOYo

— Ben Taub (@bentaub91) March 21, 2019


And don't think for a second that this was a developing world issue. Major U.S. airlines also didn't buy these safety "upgrade" features, as they were not required by the F.A.A. pic.twitter.com/EhR21vuQMD

— Ben Taub (@bentaub91) March 21, 2019


Boeing even charges extra for back-up fire extinguishers, despite the fact that "a single extinguishing system may not be enough to put out flames that spread rapidly through the plane." And you have no way of knowing which safety features your airline has bought. pic.twitter.com/8j4lV51FXM

— Ben Taub (@bentaub91) March 21, 2019

i'm w/ tato, super hot AND weird!! (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 22 March 2019 16:14 (two months ago) Permalink

this all stinks of engineering/business management hell. I wonder how the AoA sensors can be so bad. They look pretty "dumb", which usually means they'd be more robust than a wiimote.

say it with sausages (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 22 March 2019 16:24 (two months ago) Permalink

i mean call me old-fashioned but i just don't think paid-for downloadable content should be a business model which should be applied to air safety

i'm w/ tato, super hot AND weird!! (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 22 March 2019 16:28 (two months ago) Permalink

new board description ^

flappy bird, Friday, 22 March 2019 16:49 (two months ago) Permalink

please don't put the weird EA-hating tantrum videogame lords upset that they have to pay for extra character outfits while also unable to resist doing so on the same level as this issue. this involves some hardware and has better, older analogues.

say it with sausages (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 22 March 2019 17:08 (two months ago) Permalink

then again, you may have just been playing off my wiimote comment. apologies.

say it with sausages (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 22 March 2019 17:18 (two months ago) Permalink

naw i was totally trying to gamergate boeing

i'm w/ tato, super hot AND weird!! (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 22 March 2019 17:22 (two months ago) Permalink

the FAA should drag the gamergate lords away from their current john wick number trailer, call the flight simulator a videogame, and enjoy how they badger boeing into a future clean safety record.

say it with sausages (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 22 March 2019 17:30 (two months ago) Permalink

horse armour fine whatever

paid DLC so my plane doesn't crash I draw the line

PaulDananVEVO (||||||||), Friday, 22 March 2019 18:00 (two months ago) Permalink

i am not aviation engineer, but "this plane could try to crash itself" seems... bad?
― i'm w/ tato, super hot AND weird!! (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 18 March 2019 15:31 (four days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

this is so incredibly fucked

PaulDananVEVO (||||||||), Friday, 22 March 2019 18:01 (two months ago) Permalink

that comment is actually bad because the same system that can crash the plan can potentially save the plane in some situations. it exists for a reason. the auto-pilot, -stabilization, -etc of aircraft is coupled to the evolution of giant aircraft, and you want those systems to exist the same way you want your car to be capable of 100 mph on flat land because that's a much lower speed going up a hill.

say it with sausages (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 22 March 2019 18:17 (two months ago) Permalink

The future is crowdfunded/upgradable DLC safety features during the flight booking process.

Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 22 March 2019 18:51 (two months ago) Permalink

i had the fun of flying on one of these this afternoon! i, uh, wasn't thrilled about it. looked like about half the southwest planes at lax were 737 maxes.

― circles, Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:49 PM (one week ago)

probably an 737-800. Can confirm all the SWA 737 MAX flights in/out of LAX were cancelled one week ago.

Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 22 March 2019 18:53 (two months ago) Permalink

This and the other comments about sensor triple redundancy in the article best sum up the engineering problems with the plane. The problems are more fundamental than "dumb planes are safer".

As R. John Hansman, a professor of aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me in a March 28 interview,

"As I understand it, at high angles of attack the Nacelles -- which are the tube shaped structures around the fans -- create aerodynamic lift. Because the engines are further forward, the lift tends to push the nose up -- causing the angle of attack to increase further. This reinforces itself and results in a pitch-up tendency which if not corrected can result in a stall. This is called an unstable or divergent condition. It should be noted that many high performance aircraft have this tendency but it is not acceptable in transport category aircraft where there is a requirement that the aircraft is stable and returns to a steady condition if no forces are applied to the controls."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/04/02/mit-expert-highlights-divergent-condition-caused-by-737-max-engine-placement

say it with sausages (Sufjan Grafton), Tuesday, 2 April 2019 18:15 (one month ago) Permalink

got off a 737-800 a few hours ago and my knees are still feeling it. screw safety, what these things need is 3 more inches of legroom

PPL+AI=NS (imago), Tuesday, 2 April 2019 19:38 (one month ago) Permalink

I feel your pain as a 6'4" guy. Legroom is driven by the airlines' seating configuration, not the manufacturer. Our discomfort is another row or two of ticket revenue. NPR has an article that suggests nothing will change. Would like to see officials load their own families on a 90-second evac trial, and then praise seating arrangements.

the body of a spider... (scampering alpaca), Tuesday, 2 April 2019 20:23 (one month ago) Permalink

Note to self - fly airbus

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190403/p2g/00m/0bu/002000c

American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Friday, 5 April 2019 07:08 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.