The 737 MAX uses an adjustable stabilizer, moved by a jackscrew, to provide the required pitch trim forces.
This is how ALL large planes have adjusted elevator trim for DECADES. It's nothing new to the MAX.
Supposedly, this design aimed to prevent stalling.
Adjusting trim is to alleviate control forces so inputs don't need to be held. If an aircraft is trimmed properly, it will stay in whatever attitude you want, even without further control inputs. It has nothing to do with "preventing stalling." You can trim a plane right into a stall if you're dumb enough.
Through inspections, however, it was discovered that there are actually issues regarding the vertical stabilizers on many Boeing MAX jets. The problem involves two fittings that attach the jet’s vertical tail to the rear end of its fuselage; the issue has been described as "significant."
This has fuckall to do with pitch trim and stalling. The vertical stabilizer is responsible for yaw control. At any rate, what exactly are the problems? Surely if this wise redditor knows of them, they know the nature of the problem and are not merely talking out of their ass, right?
the only reason Boeing implemented MCAS in the first place was that the poor engine placement and relative size on the MAX jets messed up the weight distribution of the planes, an essential design flaw that they tried to "work around" instead of remediate.
MCAS stands for "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System." Note it doesn't say "Stability Augmentation" anywhere. The reason it was implemented wasn't because the aircraft is unstable, but because the change in engine placement causes the plane to handle somewhat differently than a normal 737. So in order to prevent requiring a separate type rating for the MAX, the MCAS was implemented. Yes, this was done poorly, and yes, dealing with it fucking off should have been part of the training, but does NOT make an un-flyable plane flyable. It simply makes it handle like 737 pilots expect. Plebbitor even says this earlier, while still erroneously referring to it as a "stabilizing system."
Then there's the loose bolts on door plugs. And the bolts with missing nuts.
Diversity hire niggers slacking on the job != design flaw.
Airbus is Boeing's largest competitor and has a similar market share. Between 2014 and 2024, there were 264 incidents involving Airbus planes and 971 incidents involving Boeing planes. That makes Boeing's aircraft nearly 4x more dangerous than their competitor's.
And here is the buried lede. The whole thing sounds like some Eurofag Airbus fanboy foaming at the mouth. Define "incident." That can mean anything from some retard forgetting to close a latch and necessitating a return to the field, to a hull loss with everyone onboard dead. Simply counting the number of "incidents" and saying that makes a plane "4x more dangerous" is disingenuous fear porn.
And lol @Conspirolojeet thinking something posted on REDDIT of all places is going to contain anything even close to a factual accounting, or even competent understanding of anything.
Boeing's problem is diversity hire people putting things together. A lot of the recent problems with planes in service have been caused by United having diversity hires and fucking up maintenance. But it's not like the 737-MAX is some brand new design. It's an iteration of an airframe designed by White men decades ago.
uvulectomy 4 points 3 weeks ago
This is how ALL large planes have adjusted elevator trim for DECADES. It's nothing new to the MAX.
Adjusting trim is to alleviate control forces so inputs don't need to be held. If an aircraft is trimmed properly, it will stay in whatever attitude you want, even without further control inputs. It has nothing to do with "preventing stalling." You can trim a plane right into a stall if you're dumb enough.
This has fuckall to do with pitch trim and stalling. The vertical stabilizer is responsible for yaw control. At any rate, what exactly are the problems? Surely if this wise redditor knows of them, they know the nature of the problem and are not merely talking out of their ass, right?
MCAS stands for "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System." Note it doesn't say "Stability Augmentation" anywhere. The reason it was implemented wasn't because the aircraft is unstable, but because the change in engine placement causes the plane to handle somewhat differently than a normal 737. So in order to prevent requiring a separate type rating for the MAX, the MCAS was implemented. Yes, this was done poorly, and yes, dealing with it fucking off should have been part of the training, but does NOT make an un-flyable plane flyable. It simply makes it handle like 737 pilots expect. Plebbitor even says this earlier, while still erroneously referring to it as a "stabilizing system."
Diversity hire niggers slacking on the job != design flaw.
And here is the buried lede. The whole thing sounds like some Eurofag Airbus fanboy foaming at the mouth. Define "incident." That can mean anything from some retard forgetting to close a latch and necessitating a return to the field, to a hull loss with everyone onboard dead. Simply counting the number of "incidents" and saying that makes a plane "4x more dangerous" is disingenuous fear porn.
And lol @Conspirolojeet thinking something posted on REDDIT of all places is going to contain anything even close to a factual accounting, or even competent understanding of anything.
Boeing's problem is diversity hire people putting things together. A lot of the recent problems with planes in service have been caused by United having diversity hires and fucking up maintenance. But it's not like the 737-MAX is some brand new design. It's an iteration of an airframe designed by White men decades ago.