EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

Retro Button Would Further Automation On the Boeing Max & Ev

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronic for beginners - Retro Button Would Further Automation On the Boeing Max & Ev

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Bret Cahill
Guest

Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:45 am   



Quote:
4. Increased Safety. If a fan blade snaps off it
can't impale any passengers or critical structures.

5. When the power fails in VTOL mode it won't autorotate, and
it won't glide.

For a quick pre take off check the pilot first runs the engines
at max locked in the launcher. The plane is only released at a
somewhat lower safer RPM still well above take off thrust.
Maximum power is only used for this test and is not necessary or
desirable for the rest of a fuel efficient flight.

The props on an Osprey would hit the runway if they aren't
tilted back a little. The fans are fixed here so, if you don't
want 1 story high landing gear, it's the same situation as an
Osprey that somehow got rotors stuck in horizontal flight.

Fans always need to be strong enough to chop up birds, but,
without landing gear, they need to disintegrate like tempered
glass when they first contact the runway in emergency landings so
large shards don't impale passengers in the aft cabin.

I read that Osprey blades disintegrate into broomstraws.

Military hardware is supposed to be dangerous. It's considered
"romantic" when poor troops get needlessly killed.

The broomstrawed blades flail around, and remain attached.


They already solved that issue! Can they do anything about the dust?

Quote:
You lose far more than half the performance if you lose one of your
two engines. The second engine just brings you to the crash site,
as they say.

At least as safe the standard 2 conventional wing mounted ducted fans
where a lot of rudder is required to fly on one engine.

No rudder is necessary here.

No climb performance with one.


Higher bypass = faster climb. That's not in dispute.

What's in dispute is keeping the engines on the wings.

> Might maintain altitude.

If you don't have the numbers it's best to just stick to greater than and less than logical decisions.

Quote:
At least it will
descend at a lower rate enroute to the crash site.


What's surprising is how often a lot of people can survive crashes.

Best listen to the flight attendant.

Quote:
You'll want at least collective pitch control on your 100 fan
blades.

Why?

For instant response while taking off and touching down.


Faster, cheaper and more reliable to use control surfaces.

Quote:
The fans, and
these are big ones, aren't going to spin up or down quickly. But they'll
be good flywheels and hold RPM while changing blade pitch gives
precision control.


Control surfaces are proven technology. The Wright Bros used them.

Quote:
Probably cyclic control too. Lose a single blade, and you may lose
control of all the rest.

Any imbalance forces from the loss of a blade are well over an order
of magnitude less than a smaller low bypass fan like the GE 90.

The mess of pitch linkages between blades might not let one go cleanly
without jamming up the whole works.


There's no duct so it just flings free of the rotor. Even if it grazes a wing it won't be a straight on collision.

Quote:
A helicopter rotor disk is mostly empty space, and your fan disks
are mostly solid. This isn't going to autorotate.

Why would there be much of a need to auto rotate? It only spends a
few seconds near vertical.

That's when the power fails!


Why wouldn't the engine fail during the maximum rpm test conducted when the plane is restrained in the launcher?

Again, there is more than enough thrust for take off at a lower safer fuel efficient rpm.

> Near the ground, with no forward speed.

Exactly vertical may not be necessary or even desirable.

> Even if you could knock it over to horizontal in a split second... what now?

How's it any different than any other conventional aircraft flying horizontal?

Quote:
Won't glide either

Passenger airliners spend a lot of time gliding?

When they have to.


Post some youtube videos of large passenger aircraft gliding.

> They have a pretty good range too.

Fuel is 80% of airline operating cost. If you ever get much altitude gliding a thermal, demand a partial refund of your ticket.

Just don't mention my name.

> But this craft, with huge drag rings encircling it, is doomed.

Why can't the fans be geared together like a tandem version of the Osprey?

If one engine goes down you still have an operational aircraft.

Quote:
unless you can stop the fans and feather all those blades.

But I don't want to discourage you.

That's obvious as you haven't provided any argument on why this isn't
at least as safe as conventional wing mounted ducted fans.

I want blimps to come back.


They need even more monstrously yuge propulsion surfaces. I'd look into making the blades out of inflatable rubber.


Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill
Guest

Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:45 pm   



Quote:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html

If they want to increase fuel efficiency with big fans they need to _really_ start from scratch:

Instead of pussy footing around with incremental increases in bypass ratio GE, RR, Boeing, Airbus and any rooftop not big enough for a real airport need to get together to rethink the entire aviation system.

Put the fuselage inside of 2 counter rotating fans and the core engines in tandem inside of the fuselage, geared together in case one engine fails like the Osprey. The engine room would split the cabin area in two displacing a few dozen seats so the wide body version would have a for cabin and an aft cabin, bathrooms and crews etc.

1. A yuge increase in bypass ratio / fuel savings.

2. Reduced the drag from the engines as ducting is no longer necessary.

3. High low speed thrust for safe VTOL.

4. Increased Safety. If a fan blade snaps off it can't impale any passengers or critical structures.

5. Possible noise reduction opportunities

Then they have two options:

1. Conventional landing gear and runways.

2. Dedicated space saving launch pads that load passengers while the craft is horizontal then, after everyone is strapped in, rotates for VTOL from building roofs.


There may be a military advantage putting large planes on small ships. After it proves to have a good safety record in the navy, then go civilian - commercial with a derivative.

Placing the engine in the fuselage takes up a few dozen seats, but there should be space in the engine room for checked on baggage.

Notice the 30 MW core engine isn't very large w/o the runway dragging fans:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pilots-searched-checklist-lion-air-crash-indonesian-investigators-102059439--finance.html


Bret Cahill

Bonk
Guest

Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:45 pm   



On 03/20/2019 11:02 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
Quote:
You'll want at least collective pitch control on your 100 fan
blades.

Why?

For instant response while taking off and touching down.

Faster, cheaper and more reliable to use control surfaces.

The fans, and these are big ones, aren't going to spin up or down
quickly. But they'll be good flywheels and hold RPM while
changing blade pitch gives precision control.

Control surfaces are proven technology. The Wright Bros used them.


The fan blades /are/ the control surfaces. During the time it's
vertical, this is a helicopter.


<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_LEAP> has this:

"The fan has flexible blades manufactured by a resin transfer molding
process, which are designed to untwist as the fan's rotational speed
increases."


You're going to twist and untwist yours too. But you can't afford to
wait for the fan's rotational speed changes.

Bonk
Guest

Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:45 am   



On 03/20/2019 11:02 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
Quote:
But this craft, with huge drag rings encircling it, is doomed.
Why can't the fans be geared together like a tandem version of the Osprey?

If one engine goes down you still have an operational aircraft.


With no engines, it's a windmilling prop. It's worse than that, two
counter-windmilling props.


Quote:
unless you can stop the fans and feather all those blades.
But I don't want to discourage you.
That's obvious as you haven't provided any argument on why this isn't
at least as safe as conventional wing mounted ducted fans.
I want blimps to come back.
They need even more monstrously yuge propulsion surfaces. I'd look into making the blades out of inflatable rubber.


This got me thinking. You could charge a blimp like a balloon, rub it
with some wool. Then send it up, and it would be propelled by Earth's
magnetic field.

Bonk
Guest

Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:45 am   



On 03/17/2019 11:09 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
Quote:

Put the fuselage inside of 2 counter rotating fans and the core
engines in tandem inside of the fuselage, geared together in case one
engine fails like the Osprey. The engine room would split the cabin
area in two displacing a few dozen seats so the wide body version
would have a for cabin and an aft cabin, bathrooms and crews etc.


I think this would work.

Bret Cahill
Guest

Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:45 pm   



Quote:
Put the fuselage inside of 2 counter rotating fans and the core
engines in tandem inside of the fuselage, geared together in case one
engine fails like the Osprey. The engine room would split the cabin
area in two displacing a few dozen seats so the wide body version
would have a for cabin and an aft cabin, bathrooms and crews etc.

I think this would work.


They can start off with a small drone before going to a full size drone, although, the small drone step isn't really necessary unless they need small drones. They pretty much know how everything will work long before anyone ever touches a single piece of material. The entire navy is going to drones. Why be anywhere you don't want to be?

Obviously you cannot plug an after burner, even partially, but there may be an opportunity to adapt this technology for commercial aviation:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90316833/scientists-have-discovered-a-shape-that-blocks-all-sound-even-your-co-workers

Ductless fans are noisy no matter how or where you put them on an aircraft.


Bret Cahill

Bonk
Guest

Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:45 am   



On 03/22/2019 11:11 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
Quote:
Obviously you cannot plug an after burner, even partially, but there may be an opportunity to adapt this technology for commercial aviation:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90316833/scientists-have-discovered-a-shape-that-blocks-all-sound-even-your-co-workers


!!! fantastic !!!

I want that on my motorcycle.

Bret Cahill
Guest

Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:45 pm   



Quote:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html

If they want to increase fuel efficiency with big fans they need to _really_ start from scratch:

Instead of pussy footing around with incremental increases in bypass ratio GE, RR, Boeing, Airbus and any rooftop not big enough for a real airport need to get together to rethink the entire aviation system.

Put the fuselage inside of 2 counter rotating fans and the core engines in tandem inside of the fuselage, geared together in case one engine fails like the Osprey. The engine room would split the cabin area in two displacing a few dozen seats so the wide body version would have a for cabin and an aft cabin, bathrooms and crews etc.

1. A yuge increase in bypass ratio / fuel savings.

2. Reduced the drag from the engines as ducting is no longer necessary.

3. High low speed thrust for safe VTOL.

4. Increased Safety. If a fan blade snaps off it can't impale any passengers or critical structures.

5. Possible noise reduction opportunities

Then they have two options:

1. Conventional landing gear and runways.

2. Dedicated space saving launch pads that load passengers while the craft is horizontal then, after everyone is strapped in, rotates for VTOL from building roofs.


There are only 2 - 3 options for combining the engine area with the rest of the plane:

If you want radially symmetric centrally mounted engines with the fan on a drive shaft then you need an exo skeletal structure to go over the fan. Otherwise the fan is mounted on a ring gear and the engines off center.

Bret Cahill
Guest

Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:45 pm   



Quote:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html

If they want to increase fuel efficiency with big fans they need to _really_ start from scratch:

Instead of pussy footing around with incremental increases in bypass ratio GE, RR, Boeing, Airbus and any rooftop not big enough for a real airport need to get together to rethink the entire aviation system.

Put the fuselage inside of 2 counter rotating fans and the core engines in tandem inside of the fuselage, geared together in case one engine fails like the Osprey. The engine room would split the cabin area in two displacing a few dozen seats so the wide body version would have a for cabin and an aft cabin, bathrooms and crews etc.

1. A yuge increase in bypass ratio / fuel savings.

2. Reduced the drag from the engines as ducting is no longer necessary.

3. High low speed thrust for safe VTOL.

4. Increased Safety. If a fan blade snaps off it can't impale any passengers or critical structures.

5. Possible noise reduction opportunities


6. Big prop-fans eliminate stall issues

https://www.yahoo.com/news/737-max-crash-details-reveal-000703550.html

Just gun the engines and the control surfaces start working.

Quote:
Then they have two options:

1. Conventional landing gear and runways.

2. Dedicated space saving launch pads that load passengers while the craft is horizontal then, after everyone is strapped in, rotates for VTOL from building roofs.


Bret Cahill


Bret Cahill
Guest

Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:45 pm   



Quote:
Put a retro or "my kingdom for a horse" switch on anything that seems unnecessarily over automated or when the additional sophistication is of a minor advantage.

If anything doesn't seem perfect, tap the retro switch and you are back to flying by the seat of your pants or at least something that is less complicated / more proven technology.

It may seem counter intuitive but this would actually _further_ automation and sophistication by taking some of the pressure off the designers trying to get every unanticipated situation right the first time.

It may also reduce some of the concerns about AI.

It's astounding this isn't SOP in every design engineering dept.


Not sure of the hold up here. Has anyone heard of any active patents on retro buttons?

"The issue, which surfaced during FAA simulator testing, concerns the ability of pilots to quickly reassert control of the plane if an automated flight handling system pushes the plane downward, said a person familiar with the matter."

https://news.yahoo.com/us-faa-boeing-must-address-issue-737-max-052756185.html

Just put the retro button in and call it a day.


Bret Cahill

default
Guest

Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:45 am   



On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:41:20 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill_at_aol.com> wrote:

Quote:
Put a retro or "my kingdom for a horse" switch on anything that seems unnecessarily over automated or when the additional sophistication is of a minor advantage.

If anything doesn't seem perfect, tap the retro switch and you are back to flying by the seat of your pants or at least something that is less complicated / more proven technology.

It may seem counter intuitive but this would actually _further_ automation and sophistication by taking some of the pressure off the designers trying to get every unanticipated situation right the first time.

It may also reduce some of the concerns about AI.

It's astounding this isn't SOP in every design engineering dept.

Not sure of the hold up here. Has anyone heard of any active patents on retro buttons?

"The issue, which surfaced during FAA simulator testing, concerns the ability of pilots to quickly reassert control of the plane if an automated flight handling system pushes the plane downward, said a person familiar with the matter."

https://news.yahoo.com/us-faa-boeing-must-address-issue-737-max-052756185.html

Just put the retro button in and call it a day.


Bret Cahill


Yeah that's all pilots need. Half of them are barely able to keep up
with the technology they use and you'd add another button that would
change the whole configuration of how the plane behaves to control
inputs?

You are forgetting that the flawed system was an effort to correct a
very real problem with large engines mounted forward of their usual
location changing the characteristics and forcing a nose up stall. The
real criminal action was to put profit before safety and that is the
result of corporate greed and a faulty response to competition.

jfeng@my-deja.com
Guest

Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:45 pm   



On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 2:42:52 AM UTC-7, default wrote:
Quote:
You are forgetting that the flawed system was an effort to correct a
very real problem with large engines mounted forward of their usual
location changing the characteristics and forcing a nose up stall. The
real criminal action was to put profit before safety and that is the
result of corporate greed and a faulty response to competition.
I think their problems started when the bean counters took over the company and moved the HQ to Chicago. The company was no longer being run by the engineers/pilots who had jet fuel in their veins and who knew what they were looking at when they walked around the manufacturing plant.


default
Guest

Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:45 pm   



On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), "jfeng_at_my-deja.com"
<jfeng_at_my-deja.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 2:42:52 AM UTC-7, default wrote:
You are forgetting that the flawed system was an effort to correct a
very real problem with large engines mounted forward of their usual
location changing the characteristics and forcing a nose up stall. The
real criminal action was to put profit before safety and that is the
result of corporate greed and a faulty response to competition.
I think their problems started when the bean counters took over the company and moved the HQ to Chicago. The company was no longer being run by the engineers/pilots who had jet fuel in their veins and who knew what they were looking at when they walked around the manufacturing plant.


I agree. Boeing sacrificed their reputation in an effort to boost the
short-term value of their stock.

Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, and imported their management culture
then managed to alienate their core group of engineers and committed
workers. The 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas set in motion the
accidents that cost the lives of 350 people.

The same thing is happening in other companies and will likely result
in other poor choices and more deaths.

Bret Cahill
Guest

Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:45 pm   



Quote:
Put a retro or "my kingdom for a horse" switch on anything that seems unnecessarily over automated or when the additional sophistication is of a minor advantage.

If anything doesn't seem perfect, tap the retro switch and you are back to flying by the seat of your pants or at least something that is less complicated / more proven technology.

It may seem counter intuitive but this would actually _further_ automation and sophistication by taking some of the pressure off the designers trying to get every unanticipated situation right the first time.

It may also reduce some of the concerns about AI.

It's astounding this isn't SOP in every design engineering dept.

Not sure of the hold up here. Has anyone heard of any active patents on retro buttons?

"The issue, which surfaced during FAA simulator testing, concerns the ability of pilots to quickly reassert control of the plane if an automated flight handling system pushes the plane downward, said a person familiar with the matter."

https://news.yahoo.com/us-faa-boeing-must-address-issue-737-max-052756185.html

Just put the retro button in and call it a day.


Bret Cahill

Yeah that's all pilots need. Half of them are barely able to keep up
with the technology they use and you'd add another button that would
change the whole configuration of how the plane behaves to control
inputs?

You are forgetting that the flawed system was an effort to correct a
very real problem with large engines mounted forward of their usual
location changing the characteristics and forcing a nose up stall. The
real criminal action was to put profit before safety and that is the
result of corporate greed and a faulty response to competition.


Designing a high volume plane from scratch is not a trivial undertaking. A lot of modifications are safe, like adding tip winglets. Some like engine size and position, maybe things get more complicated.

But whether the original design or after thought jerry rig proves to be difficult to fully predict in every situation, it's _always_ smart in _any_ industry or product to have over rides so the user has additional last ditch options.

It is curious that there aren't more over rides in consumer products designed in from the git go.

The philosophy of over rides should be a mandatory 3-hour course in every engineering dept. Crowd source www.retrobutton.com for every day and not so common over rides as well as a list of places where they are needed but lacking.

Sorry. jerryrig.com has already been taken.


Bret Cahill

default
Guest

Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:45 pm   



On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill_at_aol.com> wrote:

Quote:
Put a retro or "my kingdom for a horse" switch on anything that seems unnecessarily over automated or when the additional sophistication is of a minor advantage.

If anything doesn't seem perfect, tap the retro switch and you are back to flying by the seat of your pants or at least something that is less complicated / more proven technology.

It may seem counter intuitive but this would actually _further_ automation and sophistication by taking some of the pressure off the designers trying to get every unanticipated situation right the first time.

It may also reduce some of the concerns about AI.

It's astounding this isn't SOP in every design engineering dept.

Not sure of the hold up here. Has anyone heard of any active patents on retro buttons?

"The issue, which surfaced during FAA simulator testing, concerns the ability of pilots to quickly reassert control of the plane if an automated flight handling system pushes the plane downward, said a person familiar with the matter."

https://news.yahoo.com/us-faa-boeing-must-address-issue-737-max-052756185.html

Just put the retro button in and call it a day.


Bret Cahill

Yeah that's all pilots need. Half of them are barely able to keep up
with the technology they use and you'd add another button that would
change the whole configuration of how the plane behaves to control
inputs?

You are forgetting that the flawed system was an effort to correct a
very real problem with large engines mounted forward of their usual
location changing the characteristics and forcing a nose up stall. The
real criminal action was to put profit before safety and that is the
result of corporate greed and a faulty response to competition.

Designing a high volume plane from scratch is not a trivial undertaking. A lot of modifications are safe, like adding tip winglets. Some like engine size and position, maybe things get more complicated.

But whether the original design or after thought jerry rig proves to be difficult to fully predict in every situation, it's _always_ smart in _any_ industry or product to have over rides so the user has additional last ditch options.

It is curious that there aren't more over rides in consumer products designed in from the git go.

The philosophy of over rides should be a mandatory 3-hour course in every engineering dept. Crowd source www.retrobutton.com for every day and not so common over rides as well as a list of places where they are needed but lacking.

Sorry. jerryrig.com has already been taken.


Bret Cahill


You should watch the series Mayday Air Crash Disasters (or something
like that) When they attribute crashes to pilot error it is often
because the pilots don't understand how the machines they fly are
supposed to work.

The 737 Max relied on a single sensor with no redundancy to tell the
aircraft attitude, the pilots had no idea that the software could and
would take control in the event the computer determined the attitude
was too steep. The computer was programmed to reassert itself without
the pilots knowledge if the sensor was still giving a nose-up
indication, it did this periodically. Pilot input at the controls was
ignored while the computer tried to correct what it saw as a steep
angle of attack.

You are right about over-ride in the sense that the pilot should be
the last and ultimate arbiter of flight surface control - not the
machine.

The plane could be aimed at the ground, but as long as the one sensor
said it was nose-up, it was still going to force the nose down.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronic for beginners - Retro Button Would Further Automation On the Boeing Max & Ev

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map