The KC 767 Tanker uses a much more modern control computer and systems with much more capability. Actually, I understand a version of what is in the 787. Previous post on this site indicates that it is based off of the Intel 80286 chip. I have not been able to find an easy reference for that.
However, the 737 computer is based of of a Motorola 68040; running 60 Mhz, with 4 MB static Ram, and 32 MB for program and database.http://www.b737.org.uk/fmc.htm
I note that I have found other references that state the same for the 737 computer.
I am fully aware of the concept of best practice... It is not generally a good practice (and certainly not the best practice) to take a program written for a larger faster computer, and then expect it to operate on a smaller slower computer. I think my engineering understandings are intact.
Also, retrofitting in a 787 style cockpit and computer into the 737 would be a very major mod with many more risks than just the MCAS system.
Have a great day
Your talking about the FMC which has nothing to do with with MCAS. The FMC is like the GPS on your car, MCAS is more like the computer that controls ABS.
This MCAS issue is more like a bug in the ABS computer that would lock up the front brakes on a wet corner at high speed. And then blame the driver for not being skilled enough to stop the car from going off the side of the road and crashing.
The driver should have known while travelling out of control at high speed with their front brakes locked up that they could pull a fuse out from under the dash and apply the emergency brake. It’s the drivers fault, not the car.
There is a real lack of reality with the expectations some people have with pilot responses.
Zeke - to use your car analogy with Lionair.
22 Times the Pilots got to the corner and the brakes locked up but the Pilot was still able to save it when ABS failed by pumping the brakes - not once did he think of turning the ABS controller off and maybe not trying to use the main brakes for the rest of the Drive and rely on the emergency brake. He then turned it over to the Co-pilot and forgot to tell him to pump the brakes sufficiently at the next corner or they will never make it.
On ET302 the first time they got to a corner the ABS failed and the brakes locked up - but they saved it - then they did the same thing at the next corner - after that they said - OOPS maybe something is wrong with the ABS - we better turn it off all while leaving a brick on the accelerator pedal.
Then they neglected to remove the brick on the accelerator pedal and expected to make the next corner without ABS. It didn't work.
Both flights had more than sufficient time to take manual control of the flight.
Their basic (not MAX or NG specific) training should have made both flights survivable.
These were not big problems to solve - half a wing didn't fall off or they didn't have to deal with an in-flight fire. Albeit degraded without Electric trim both flights should have been able to land safely if basic airmanship was better.
No-one is not debating that the primary reason the planes crashed is because of Boeing's screwed up design. That has been established beyond doubt.
However the reason Pilot training should be part of the discussion is that no matter how people try to dramatize what happened these should have been relatively easy emergencies to deal with and they exposed problems in the training system. It was a simple solution - Turn off one system and fly the plane manually - the previous Lionair flight showed it could be done.
Basic Pilot skills should have been able to handle these and as it's obvious they did not - something needs to change in the training system - most likely worldwide as evidenced by the NTSB, the FAA, Airbus and I assume Boeing once they are past this are calling for.