Comments by "GH1618" (@GH-oi2jf) on "Boeing to potentially increase 737 Max production, dependent on FAA green light on fix" video.

  1. Mike — They will have a new version of MCAS when delivered.
    3
  2. Ben Franklin — It is taking longer than expected and nobody is saying why, but Boeing are not in the dark. They know what is going on. Maybe it is political.
    1
  3. taketimeout2 — The problem has been fixed. Every aircraft maker returns grounded planes to sevi e after fixing a problem, when they can.
    1
  4. taketimeout2 — I don’t nderstand why Muilenberg isn’t gone yet. The board is in his pocket, I guess.
    1
  5. Sagar Byahatti — It is more complicated than that. There are multiple software revisions.
    1
  6. soxnation1000 — The front landing gear is longer to help accomodate the larger engines. MCAS does not have to do with the engine size, but with the takeoff thrust.
    1
  7. soxnation1000 — There are no aerodynamic issues that arise from relocating the engines. The MCAS was intended to compensate for the increased takeoff thrust which increases the pitch-up moment, so that the handling would feel similar to the NG series. This was done to eliminate the need for a new type rating for pilots. The main gear could not be lengthened without significant redesign of the aircraft structure. There is not a lot of xtra room to work with on an aircraft. Everything is a tight fit.
    1
  8. asdsdjf — That’s a sweeping generalization which doesn’t hold water. Boeing did screw up here, but Airbus had a similar problem in the A330.
    1
  9. Ferdinand Willemse — Apart from MCAS, the design was not flawed. The FAA have been trying to get all the regulatory agencies on board for resumption of service. I don’t know what they will do if there is a holdout. I don’t think they should allow one authority to prevent ungroundingeverywhere else.
    1
  10. Tm Kapp — All aircraft with the thrust vector below the center of mass, which means most commercial jetliners by far, have a pitch-up moment under power. This is compensated for by adjusting (trimming) the horizontal stabilizer. It is routine. The only differences in the MAX are that the engines have higher takeoff thrust than on previous models of the 737, and the design of the MCAS, which is an automatic trim feature, was badly botched. The MCAS has been fixed and the 737 MAX will be flying safely soon.
    1
  11. Tconcept 2001 — Yes. What is your question? “Operationally suitable” means that the approach is acceptable. It was publicized and it seems acceptable to me, so I don’t think it is controversial.
    1
  12. Tony Whitten — This was discussed a few months ago. Whether the plan announced then has been changed is unknown, but you should look for old videos explaining it.
    1
  13. MattDSTNY — No, the engines were not relocated as a part of the fix. That would be a huge and unnecessary expense. There is nothing wrong with the engine location. The nose gear was lengthened when the MAX was designed to help accomodate the larger engines.
    1
  14. Tconcept 2001 — That is completely wrong. The only people saying that know nothing about physics or aeronautics.
    1
  15. forrest gump V — You don’t have to fly on anything you choose not to.
    1
  16. forrest gump V — I don’t care what they call it. If you do, you’ll just have to deal with it.
    1
  17. BillyBobpeeps — That is not true. In all commercial airliners, the center of gravity is forward of the center of lift.
    1