The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investment Analysis Clubs / Macro Economic Trends and Risks


Subject:  Re: Boeing Engineering Date:  3/17/2019  4:56 PM
Author:  SuisseBear Number:  555094 of 572133

* Airframe problem. They wanted to use the 737 airframe for economic reasons, but needed more ground clearance with bigger engines.The 737 design can't be practically modified to have taller main landing gear. The solution was to mount them higher & more forward.

Let’s face it. Compounded by bad engineering decisions and suboptimal maintenance this is first and foremost a management problem as well as a regulatory funding problem.

Saving money and time to market by re-using a half-century old design incompatible with today’s engines was more important to senior management than building an adequate airframe.

As for the interface to the regulator, this article has some unsettling details:

The original Boeing document provided to the FAA included a description specifying a limit to how much the system could move the horizontal tail — a limit of 0.6 degrees, out of a physical maximum of just less than 5 degrees of nose-down movement. ...

After the Lion Air Flight 610 crash, Boeing for the first time provided to airlines details about MCAS. Boeing’s bulletin to the airlines stated that the limit of MCAS’s command was 2.5 degrees.

That number was new to FAA engineers who had seen 0.6 degrees in the safety assessment. ...
Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us