First, the distant one, but mentioned here a few times. Computer control and aircraft don't always mix well. FWIW, thanks to some 'Air Disasters' episodes, Airbus planes have experienced accidents when man and machine didn't mesh as expected.
The second of more direct importance.
"Boeing notified the agency of the matter after it discovered the cracks while conducting modifications on a heavily used aircraft. Subsequent inspections uncovered similar cracks in a small number of additional planes. The FAA will instruct operators to conduct specific inspections, make any necessary repairs and to report their findings to the agency immediately," the agency said.
The cracking was found in the plane's pickle forks, which attach the plane's body to its wing structure, CNN affiliate KOMO reported.
IOW, the CFM56 is more than the wing can handle. It weighs less than the LEAP-1B used in the MAX. Yes, Boeing spokescritters say the MAX is not affected. Do you believe that?
CFM56-7B used on the NG: ~5,300 lbs. takeoff thrust ~23,000 lbf.
LEAP-1B used on the MAX: ~6,100 lbs. takeoff thrust ~29,000 lbf.
So, the MAX engine puts more static stress on that poor wing, and more dynamic stress.
The fog comes
on little cat feet.
-- Carl Sandburg
And, so too, the chance that The Worst Case Scenario appears. Out of the fog.
One fact(s) it would be helpful to know: from the original model to the MAX, how many times and in what way, was the wing modified? The wiki says that, as the fuselage was lengthened, so were the wings, three or four depending on how you measure. But other structural changes aren't described. I had my fingers do the walking through The Yellow Googles, but that information didn't come up. I suppose it's, at least, buried deep in FAA files.
No comments:
Post a Comment