Max 10
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 666
Except I didn't, because a shaker is entirely different than a stick pusher system or the more robust mcas.
It's clear you just interpret words how you want because you're the aforementioned guy who just wants to argue on internet forums.
It's clear you just interpret words how you want because you're the aforementioned guy who just wants to argue on internet forums.
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 862
The MCAS (to my knowledge) was installed on the Max's due to a change in how the aircraft handles while going to full thrust in certain situations.
The engines were moved forward and up. Moving them up moves the thrust-line closer to the airplane's longitudinal axis which REDUCED the pitch moment-arm with regard to thrust. This REDUCES the pitching-moment produced as thrust is increased or decreased.
The problem that MCAS was designed to address relates to the certification requirement that pitch forces must increase proportionally as the AoA increases. i.e. As you keep pulling the nose up, it becomes increasingly more difficult to continue to pull up. This is a normal, desirable handling characteristic of a stable airplane. As AoA increases, the nacelles produce some lift as a result of them deflecting airflow downward. The MAX's nacelles are both larger and located farther forward. Being farther forward of the lateral axis increases the moment-arm of the lift generated from the nacelle as does the increased size of the nacelle.
This increased nose-up moment from the nacelles, in very high AoAs, reduced the natural increase in nose-down tendency as AoA increases. MCAS was designed to introduce additional nose-down bias, in very high AoA situations, through the introduction of nose-down stabilizer trim.
The 737-10 is nearly six feet longer than the 737-9 and fourteen feet longer than the 737-8. That additional length increases the moment-arm of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator which reduces the effect of the increased pitch-moment from the lift generated by the engine nacelles. The design is intended to meet certification requirements without MCAS. That will be confirmed, or not, in certification flight testing.
#44
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Thanks Larry..
Just trying to remember which aircraft I use to fly that had a stick pusher on top of a stick shaker.
Maybe it's a system that time has made redundant due to software limitations?
I guess I just assumed that it was also a function of thrust due to this little statement-
The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law was implemented on the 737 MAX to mitigate the aircraft's tendency to pitch up because of the aerodynamic effect of its larger, heavier, and more powerful CFM LEAP-1B engines and nacelles
But it will be interesting to see if the M10 does away with the MCAS, as it seems that (they way you described it) the longer the aircraft, the less of an issue it is.
I also got this tidbit from AW&ST-
The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight control law managed by the flight control computer (FCC) and introduced on the 737 MAX to help it handle like a 737 Next Generation (NG), particularly at slow speeds and high angles of attack (AOA).
Hence why I relate the MCAS to a type requirement and not so much as an anti stall system.
Then I also found this nugget (from Wiki) -
"Contrary to descriptions in news reports, however, Boeing emphasized that MCAS is not an anti-stall system"
Thanks for your insight!
What are your thoughts about the seating configuration? (which was my original question! lol)
Just trying to figure out the window shade issue and the tv monitor. Seems like a nightmare.
Motch
PS) Guess I should have typed Stall Shaker/Stick Pusher. Some have one, some have both..?!
Just trying to remember which aircraft I use to fly that had a stick pusher on top of a stick shaker.
Maybe it's a system that time has made redundant due to software limitations?
I guess I just assumed that it was also a function of thrust due to this little statement-
The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law was implemented on the 737 MAX to mitigate the aircraft's tendency to pitch up because of the aerodynamic effect of its larger, heavier, and more powerful CFM LEAP-1B engines and nacelles
But it will be interesting to see if the M10 does away with the MCAS, as it seems that (they way you described it) the longer the aircraft, the less of an issue it is.
I also got this tidbit from AW&ST-
The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight control law managed by the flight control computer (FCC) and introduced on the 737 MAX to help it handle like a 737 Next Generation (NG), particularly at slow speeds and high angles of attack (AOA).
Hence why I relate the MCAS to a type requirement and not so much as an anti stall system.
Then I also found this nugget (from Wiki) -
"Contrary to descriptions in news reports, however, Boeing emphasized that MCAS is not an anti-stall system"
Thanks for your insight!
What are your thoughts about the seating configuration? (which was my original question! lol)
Just trying to figure out the window shade issue and the tv monitor. Seems like a nightmare.
Motch
PS) Guess I should have typed Stall Shaker/Stick Pusher. Some have one, some have both..?!
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 328
Because it’s not just the feel. The actual maneuvering characteristics changed with the new engines. At high AOAs the engines themselves started producing lift like a wing. This caused the actual control forces to get lighter at higher AOAs. Changing how it feels wouldn’t do anything to counteract those control forces...
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 862
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Because it’s not just the feel. The actual maneuvering characteristics changed with the new engines. At high AOAs the engines themselves started producing lift like a wing. This caused the actual control forces to get lighter at higher AOAs. Changing how it feels wouldn’t do anything to counteract those control forces...
#50
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
No. Even if they made it another type rating, the pitch up moment in high AOA/high thrust situations isn’t certifiable under 25.203.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post