يمكنك مساعدتنا بالإبقاء على موقع FlightAware مجاني بدون مقابل من خلال السماح بالإعلانات من موقع FlightAware.com. نحن نعمل بكل كد لجعل إعلاناتنا ملائمة ومناسبة وأن تكون هذه الإعلانات غير ملحوظة من أجل إنشاء تجربة رائعة. يمكن بكل سرعة وسهولة السماح لـ
إعلانات القائمة البيضاء الموجودة على FlightAware، أو الرجاء مراجعة
الحسابات المميزة الخاصة بنا.
This article have 0 common sense when talking (s**t) about 737’s engine placement. ALL aircraft pitch up when accelerating, this is due to wing aerodynamic tendency to pitch up when the wings generate lift (the airfoils commonly used on wings will generate a positive pitch moment, aka pitch up. You will need special airfoil to prevent it happening to flying wings like B-2 bomber) the tail plane is there to generate a normally negative force to balance it out, even in level flight. In addition, on aircraft with engines mounted on wing pylons, the engine will pull forward and try to rotate upward, just like if you have a pen laying on the table and push the tail perpendicularly to the pen, the pen will rotate upward...
The second effect is actually why most airplanes have their engines under and forward of the wing, because this way when the engines are running like in cruise conditions, there would be less stress and twisting in the wings, lightening wing structures.
As for 737 MAX, to make room for the larger LEAP engine, the engine mounting puts the engine higher further FORWARD makes it have LESS tendency to pitch with same thrust settings...Yes there will be some changes to the handling characteristics, but the general layout, dimensions, control characteristics are similar to NG, heck even 757 and 767 are sharing the same type rating and one of them is a wide body and the other is a narrow body... you don’t need to get a new license when you buy a new car do you? (Think type rating like this, you don’t need a new license when switching form a Civic to a Grand Cherokee, but you will need a new license to drive a Semi-truck if you never done so)
The problem why these 2 planes crashed are simple, poor machine-human integration and poor training. The former is Boeing’s fault for not indicating MCAS was activated (unlike stick shaker and stick pusher which have very physical indication when the yoke is shaking/moving). The latter is airlines’s (as well as Boeing’s) fault, pilots should actively disconnect all automated control/stability systems and revert to flying the aircraft themselves (If they done that they would disabled the auto trim, which will disables MCAS), and Boeing should have emphasized the MCAS addition to MAX when doing the “upgrade” training, especially when it is part of flight control system. (I think Boeing left out troubleshooting MCAS in flight manual because they expect the pilots will disable auto-trim when the plane’s nose started to dip unexpectedly.