Revelation wrote:JetBuddy wrote:Instead they made the grave mistake of taking shortcuts and mounting the large engines they way they did.
IMO the grave mistakes were in the MCAS design and implementation, and not in the way the engines were mounted.
There's a lot of unappealing things about a bigger and heavier wingbox and gear arrangement beyond the cost and time to develope it.
There are all kinds of un-asthetic mechanisms on non-FBW airplanes to augment stability, going back to the yaw damper fitted on 707 after "dutch roll" was discovered.
IMO the main issue here is that MCAS was FUBAR'd.
And since slagging Boeing is a theme, how can we be sure that an all-new gearbox and landing gear would not end up having some pretty problematic short comings?
Boeing should be able to pull that off, but that's what we would say about MCAS, and about GE and RR's ability to provide durable blade coatings, and PW's ability to produce reliable bearings, etc.
Slagging management that imposed unrealistic demands on engineers is what is happening from what I have read. The MCAS software did what the programmers were told to make it do. The systems that should have been in place to manage the whole project were either inadequate or deliberately ignored about the risks inherent in the design. Since Boeing had promised it's customers no sim time was required then I am going with the latter option. Once again, the risks of upgrading the old machine to be capable of running the new hardware was not conveyed to customers in order to meet customer demands. You have put up a false dichotomy that Boeing either had to meet customer demands for an upgraded NG or move to the NSA with similar risks. I don't believe the risks inherent in the upgrade were adequately presented to the customers so that they made in ill informed demand to Boeing.
Boeing profits would have dropped for the introduction of the NSA but, even if the program was as badly implemented as the 787, and I don't believe it would have been if lessons had been learned, in the long run the payoff would have been substantial in a duopoly market with Airbus.