Is Boeing a Buy Here?

[redduck]

I dunno. If the FAA said a feature was not necessary, then it would be an option to be charged extra.

Does anybody have an idea how much whatever safety feature is being discussed in this thread would cost?

 

[Boho]

I'm fairly certain your intuition about planes is pretty much dead wrong.

Planes fly at high altitudes and at constant speed and at lower than max speed to save on fuel costs. I have never heard of diving to pick up speed to save on fuel costs.

Also, diving by itself is not the safest way to gain speed. Diving sometimes results in running into the ground, which is not safe. The safest way to gain speed that I know of is to add throttle and ensure a straight and level flight attitude.

The above is what I know based on about 50 hours of private pilot training. I may be wrong and would welcome correction by those who know more than me.

I just read "Higher powered aircraft can often be flown out of the stall by the addition of power. The purpose of such a stall recovery is to minimize any loss of altitude. This is a more aggressive stall recovery than the usual lower the nose technique."

That's what I had in mind. If you don't want to trust a computer to keep a safe elevation then it seems best to have it "fly out of a stall" with addition of power.

 

[MichaelB]

Using the same intuition I use in stock picking, I bet planes sometimes dive to pick up speed to save fuel costs rather than because it's the safest way to gain speed.

That's what I had in mind. If you don't want to trust a computer to keep a safe elevation then it seems best to have it "fly out of a stall" with addition of power.

In addition to stock picking and piloting, in what other areas do you have such strong intuition?

 

[REWahoo]

If you don't want to trust a computer to keep a safe elevation then it seems best to have it "fly out of a stall" with addition of power.

More power, even the use of an afterburner, can't always be relied on to fly out of a stall. Take the sad example of First Lieutenant Barty R. Brooks on January 10, 1956...

 

[samclem]

I just read "Higher powered aircraft can often be flown out of the stall by the addition of power. The purpose of such a stall recovery is to minimize any loss of altitude. This is a more aggressive stall recovery than the usual lower the nose technique."

That's what I had in mind. If you don't want to trust a computer to keep a safe elevation then it seems best to have it "fly out of a stall" with addition of power.

To get a little technical: Planes don't stall. The wing stalls. The wing doesn't stalll because the plane's nose is too high, or because the plane gets too slow (though we use the term "stall speed," it somewhat confuses the issue in some cases.) A wing "stalls" when it exceeds its "critical angle of attack," at that point the airflow over the wing becomes dramatically less stable and a great deal of the lift is lost. The next thing that may happen, particularly if the plane is not in coordinated flight, is that one wing may lose this lift faster than the other, causing the plane to roll rapidly and for the plane to descend in a "spin."
A wing can stall at any airspeed or nose angle relative to the horizon. It is possible in some planes to fly straight up and not stall the wing, and any plane can fly through the air at very low airspeed without stalling (just "unload" the airplane by pushing forward on the stick, which decreases the angle between the wing and the airflow--so no stall. Also, reduced lift and maybe a descent). The thing that causes the wing to stall is that it has been inclined at an angle (the Angle of Attack, or AoA) that is too steep in relation to the relative wind (the incoming airflow). As a >rough< estimate, for many normal airfoils and "clean" flap/slat configurations, this often occurs at about 12-14 degrees AoA (but it can vary a lot depending on the airfoil and configuration).

Increasing the throttle setting is something a pilot normally does to recover from an incipient or fully developed stall, but the primary control of importance is pitch--lower the angle of attack by lowering the nose (not necessarily below the horizon). It is often possible to recover from a stall with very little loss in altitude.

Stalls are exceedingly rare in airline operations. There are many procedures and warning systems in place to prevent their occurrence. Well trained pilots avoid situations that put them at risk of stalling, and they heed the signs that they are getting close to the critical angle of attack.

 

[Boho]

In addition to stock picking and piloting, in what other areas do you have such strong intuition?

I never trusted the anchorman Brian Williams. He always seemed to add slight untruths for "color" or something. Then he went too far and was called out on it and lost his job.

There was also some cooking show guy who just seemed slightly odd to me, in a bad way. Then he was arrested for something serious.

So I think I have talent scout skills.

 

[NW-Bound]

More power, even the use of an afterburner, can't always be relied on to fly out of a stall. Take the sad example of First Lieutenant Barty R. Brooks on January 10, 1956...

What a scary scene!

He needed even more power. Like the thrust of a rocket. Rockets or missiles don't stall because their thrust-to-weight-ratio can be as high as 10. Missiles do not even need stinkin' wings.

Stalling is scary, and perhaps the fear of it was what doomed the 737 Max planes when the stick shaker came on.

 

[NW-Bound]

Does anybody have an idea how much whatever safety feature is being discussed in this thread would cost?

An article said that the warning light that Boeing is going to make standard used to cost $80,000 extra.

I have not seen a number for the indicators that read out what the sensors say.

PS. When the two sensors disagree, the software will also turn off the MCAS function in addition to turning on the warning light.

 

[NW-Bound]

Here's the story behind that unfortunate F-100 crash, which happened during a landing, not a take-off as it may appear.

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/barty-ray-brooks/

 

[jldavid47]

Garuda Airlines seeking to cancel $4.9B order for 49 planes, according to reports citing loss of customer confidence in the planes.

More shoes to drop I suspect

Yeah, I have a friend who was a stockbroker and he is a screaming bull on Boeing because he says there are a huge number of orders in the pipeline. Two days ago I said to him "Unless orders get cancelled" then this happens. I'm no Nostradamus but it didn't take much insight to figure out that Boeing was going to lose business over this. Once companies lose customers it is usually hard to get them back.

 

[KenZ71]

I'll lead off with I am no pro investor.

BA, too me, is much more than just 737. They make a lot of models. Aerospace, defense also two huge lines of business.

Didn't Airbus have similar issues? They recovered

I'm sitting on the sidelines till BA hits $330 to 345 then I may nibble.

 

[BigNick]

He needed even more power. Like the thrust of a rocket. Rockets or missiles don't stall because their thrust-to-weight-ratio can be as high as 10. Missiles do not even need stinkin' wings.

People tend to think of a jet engine as being closer to a rocket than a propellor engine because they can see the [-]chemtrails[/-] exhaust gases coming out of the back, but a jet engine is closer to a propellor engine with a lot of blades inside a casing than it is to a rocket. With a jet engine, unlike a rocket, there is very little reaction effect due to mass being expelled; everything is about pulling air through with the rotation of the blades.

 

[NW-Bound]

For higher fuel efficiency, modern civilian jetliners use high-bypass turbofan engines, which are huge in diameter. Their big intake turbine blades are large, have a lot of inertia and take time to spool up. Pilots cannot easily add power to get out of trouble. It takes too long for the engines to respond.

In contrast, military jet engines are designed to be lighter, smaller, and more responsive, fuel consumption be damned.

If getting out of the "backside of the power curve" is tough with an F-100 as shown in the video above, it's impossible with a large civilian jet close to ground. I am no pilot, but can see why pilots are scared of getting the stick shaker.

 

[samclem]

With a jet engine, unlike a rocket, there is very little reaction effect due to mass being expelled; everything is about pulling air through with the rotation of the blades.

All these engines work on the same physics:. F= mA. With rockets and true jets ("turbojets"), it is a relatively small mass accelerated to a high velocity. With reciprocating engines and turbofans, it is a larger mass accelerated much less.
Piston engines have some rotating mass that can be converted to thrust pronto, and they respond quickly to dumping fuel in, so they actually respond faster compared to some jets. The first jet (and it was a turbojet) I flew took over 14 seconds to go from idle to full power, which is an eternity when you need thrust "right now."

 

[Boho]

Why not increase power AND dive, simultaneously, in an emergency? Then maybe the computer could do less of a dive and the pilot would have more time to figure things out.

Could the controllers have helped? They saw what's going on. Maybe someone should have asked the controller for information while the guy was looking through the manual.

 

[redduck]

I don't know if it's a buy. I do know that I sold my remaining shares a few days after the second crash. So, I guess someone thought it was a buy.

 

[Dash man]

I don't know if it's a buy. I do know that I sold my remaining shares a few days after the second crash. So, I guess someone thought it was a buy.

I bought my Boeing shares at around $130/share. I’m going to hang on. Selling would be a certain 15% tax bill. They’ll get past this, even if it takes some time.

 

[jmp470]

BA in the low $200’s or $100’s. A psychological sell off would be great.

 

[audreyh1]

I remember practicing stalls and nose down for recovery. Pretty exciting!

 

[samclem]

I remember practicing stalls and nose down for recovery. Pretty exciting!

It is exciting! For even more excitement, just ignore the stall buffet and try keeping the nose up, kick in some rudder for good measure. Away you go! The plummet and wild ride that results will make this little dip in BA's stock price look tame.

 

[6miths]

Here's the story behind that unfortunate F-100 crash, which happened during a landing, not a take-off as it may appear.

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/barty-ray-brooks/

Thanks for posting. These are always interesting. Sitting in Bole Airport, Ethiopian's main hub as I write this. The 737 Max grounding added a couple of hours to my trip today. Better safe than sorry!

 

[SecondCor521]

It is exciting! For even more excitement, just ignore the stall buffet and try keeping the nose up, kick in some rudder for good measure. Away you go! The plummet and wild ride that results will make this little dip in BA's stock price look tame.

No way.

I did a lot of stall training in a 152 and in a 172 with my instructor and my Dad (who was also a CFI). I made darn sure that my wings were level when stalling because I was afraid of spins. My Dad obviously knew how to get out of them, and intellectually I know the answer, but I just didn't want to do one.

Stalls, at least in a forgiving airplane like a 152, are really not that big of a deal. With practice, I could stall and do a stall recovery and only lose 50 to 100 feet of altitude. Of course it's hard to get a 152 to stall in the first place.

Commercial jets are probably different, but I was also taught to stall or near-stall when landing. I got pretty good, to the point where I could land and you wouldn't even feel the landing.

My point here is that although the words "stall" and "spin" may scare the average person, I would imagine that well trained and experienced US commercial pilots would (a) almost always avoid them in the first place, (b) not be particularly concerned and know exactly what to do without thinking if one happened.

 

[samclem]

Thanks for posting. These are always interesting. Sitting in Bole Airport, Ethiopian's main hub as I write this. The 737 Max grounding added a couple of hours to my trip today. Better safe than sorry!

One cost of a grounding like this is the increased number of injuries and deaths that arise when people drive because their flights are not available (especially in less developed parts of the world with more dangerous roads).


Some back-of-the-envelope figuring:
Overall, in the US, driving in a car is 112 times as dangerous per passenger mile as flying in a commercial aircraft:

Drivers or passengers in cars or light trucks faced a fatality risk of 7.3 per billion passenger-miles: “A person who was in a motor vehicle for 30 miles every day for a year faced a fatality risk of about 1 in 12,500. Relative to mainline trains, buses and commercial aviation the risk was 17, 67, and 112 times greater, respectively.”

The 737MAX variants have not been in the field for long, so the fatal crash stats are a bit shaky due to the small denominator. To date, these aircraft types have a fatal crash rate of about about 4 fatal crashes per million flights. The average for all modern airliner types in worldwide service is approximately 0.2 fatal crashes per million flights, so the 727 MAX could be expected to have about 20 times more deaths per passenger mile than the average airliner, worldwide.


That means that flying aboard the average 737MAX airliner (anywhere in the world) is still more than 5 times safer (112/20= 5.6) than driving the same distance on US roads.

Now, if we look at places with road accident fatality rates much higher than those of the US, the safety case for flying--even on a 737MAX--is quite strong.

 

[Boho]

That means that flying aboard the average 737MAX airliner (anywhere in the world) is still more than 5 times safer (116/20= 5.8) than driving the same distance on a US highway.

If you chose one of the safest cars and obeyed the rules (no drunk driving, etc.) the stats would be different. You're more in control with cars.

 

[NW-Bound]

Thanks for posting. These are always interesting...

Have you seen horrific videos of these two well-known stalls of large military aircraft, one a C-17 and the other a B-52?

Both were flown by experienced hotshot pilots who were very familiar with the aircraft they were flying, and were known to push the planes to the limits.

They were practicing for an airshow, went too far, and killed themselves along with the rest of the flight crew.

PS. In both cases, the pilots entered a steep bank with the airspeed too slow for such a maneuver. The wing inside the bank stalled first, making the aircraft roll even more, and they could not level out.