Aircraft becoming far too complex to fly...

Emp_Fab

Interesting!  That makes sense.   Don’t think that this will be the end of the type though..  the vast majority of the flying public have no idea or interest on what they’re boarding, as long as it’s cheap.

strtdv

Bumping this as I read 2 things that blew my mind today:

1) Cosmic radiation can change bit states (which is more of an issue at altitude where you get about 300x the amount you get at sea level) and in simulations this has caused errors to occur in the MTAS software

2) Isaac Asimov predicted this would be an issue in the 1950s

dano

strtdv said:

Bumping this as I read 2 things that blew my mind today:

1) Cosmic radiation can change bit states (which is more of an issue at altitude where you get about 300x the amount you get at sea level) and in simulations this has caused errors to occur in the MTAS software

I used to design avionics systems and that's something we always had to deal with on digital stuff like FPGAs. The ability to detect an event caused by external particles and reboot without affecting the operation. 

Grumpyrocker

SouthpawMark said:

I watched a documentary about the Vulcan bomber on Amazon Prime last night. Apparently it had one button you needed to press to start all four engines, and get ready for flight, and you could be airborne within 2 minutes. It was designed in the late 40s. If they could make something so complex so simple to fly back then, why can’t they do as much now? It seems to me that modern planes are built deliberately complex in order for some people to justify their existence. 

Why did it have this button? Because safety didn't matter. When it was used it was used because those pilots were going to be up in the air before enemy nukes landed, and they were going on a one way trip to do the same to the USSR. 

 In this era military planes were designed without much thought to safety. Just look at the safety record of aircraft such as the Harrier, Starfighter, or Tomcat - widowmakers all. 

Those rose tinted spectacles are clear, it's blood that's making them look red.

Deadman

I see the Boeing boss has gone and MAX production has been halted. About time too, but it makes you wonder who's above him and still there calling the shots. 

Hurling_Fruitmig

It’s interesting to look at some of the opinions voiced in the first page of this thread in the light of everything that’s come to light about MAX since.

Nitefly

Deadman said:

I see the Boeing boss has gone and MAX production has been halted. About time too, but it makes you wonder who's above him and still there calling the shots. 

Yep, I read about this yesterday: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50893490

It took the long enough...

goldtop

Deadman said:

I see the Boeing boss has gone and MAX production has been halted. About time too, but it makes you wonder who's above him and still there calling the shots. 

I can't help but think that Boeing is too big to fail, or even to be properly regulated. So there may be blood-letting as PR instead of deep change.

Might have been different if the two Max crashes were in the USA.

Danny1969

The Max was only a stop gap, it's essentially an ancient plane retro fitted with different engines which destroyed the flight characteristics and then require software to help keep the thing on an even keel. It will continue with a lot of changes, designing a new plane from scratch is too big a task  but it won't have the same name that's for sure.

JezWynd

Danny1969 said:

The Max was only a stop gap, it's essentially an ancient plane retro fitted with different engines which destroyed the flight characteristics and then require software to help keep the thing on an even keel. It will continue with a lot of changes, designing a new plane from scratch is too big a task  but it won't have the same name that's for sure.

Don’t think ‘stop gap’ can be used to describe what was was shaping up to be their best selling plane. Boeing have turned into lazy bean counters who would rather cripple the superior competition by lobbying for massive tariffs than invest in new designs. How the mighty have fallen.

ICBM

The utter stupidity of it all is that they cut corners and rushed the new model into production in order to stop Airbus getting the jump on them, but there was never a chance of that since Airbus simply don't have the production capacity to deliver A320/321s any faster than they are already doing - and which is now probably the only thing that will save the Max, since the customers can't simply switch their orders to Airbus even if they want to.

It will be interesting to see what discounts the customers will demand to take 'new' 737s that could be a year old by the time they are finally modified and certified for service. Boeing won't want to start making genuinely new ones until all the backlog is cleared. They also may have to pay compensation for pilot training since it's unlikely the Max will be certified as identical to the old model now, which was the whole point of the MCAS software...

Axe_meister

Airbus should have more capacity now as they have cancelled the A380. 

ICBM

Axe_meister said:

Airbus should have more capacity now as they have cancelled the A380. 

I think that facility is going to be used for the A350.

crunchman

ICBM said:

Axe_meister said:

Airbus should have more capacity now as they have cancelled the A380. 

I think that facility is going to be used for the A350.

What size will the market be going forwards?  With Greta and here friends on the rampage, there might not be as much growth in aviation as some think.

Axe_meister

Aviation industry will find a way. They have some of the best minds looking into better fuel efficiency and bio fuels. Even looking at electric propulsion.

ThePrettyDamned

Axe_meister said:

Aviation industry will find a way. They have some of the best minds looking into better fuel efficiency and bio fuels. Even looking at electric propulsion.

I agree. If people mobilise and choose not to fly as much, they will be forced to find solutions. 

Like increasing flight costs to something more sensible... 

crunchman

Axe_meister said:

Aviation industry will find a way. They have some of the best minds looking into better fuel efficiency and bio fuels. Even looking at electric propulsion.

Moving people by air is inherently going to use a lot more energy - unless you go back to airships.  The speed they fly at, the energy overcoming drag is huge.  They get around that to some extent by flying very high.  To carry enough fuel (or batteries if you go electric) for a long flight, you use a lot of energy getting to that altitude.  To get a hundred tonnes to 12,000m uses 12GJ of energy.  That's a huge amount.  You will get some of that back on the descent, but nowhere near all of it.

For shorter journeys, we should be using rail.  This Heathrow expansion is idiocy.  Build better (subsidised) rail services, and kill off the the domestic flights, and use the freed up slots to provide the extra interntational routes, if they are required.

hywelg

crunchman said:

For shorter journeys, we should be using rail.  This Heathrow expansion is idiocy.  Build better (subsidised) rail services, and kill off the the domestic flights, and use the freed up slots to provide the extra interntational routes, if they are required.

Agree with you on that. Who actually asked the flying public if they'd like to be able to fly from Heathrow rather than Stansted, Birmingham, Doncaster, East Mids, Bristol or weherever.? Answer no-one because asking that question would have given an answer that they didn't like. Yes there is a case that the National Airport should be well served with flights but forcing people like me to travel to London to get a flight is stupid. Anyone North of Watford would no doubt prefer to fly from somewhere else.

Reverend

Axe_meister said:

Aviation industry will find a way. They have some of the best minds looking into better fuel efficiency and bio fuels. Even looking at electric propulsion.

Large catapults and commercial trebuchets are to obvious answer.

Deadman

MAX is due back into service in Spring 2020, apparently. I'm not getting on one. Seriously! I'll hold off flying until I know there's no more risk of getting on one until everyone else has tested it. A recent 'survey' said 2 out of 5 people wouldn't get on one. I mean, come on, is that all? I don't believe it and I don't trust Boeing one bit after this.

Looks like I'll be sailing/driving for the next couple of years at least.....