Using Spice to verify a circuit works

[Tom Gardner]

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

What could possibly go wrong with that?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Larkin wrote...

We're supposed to rework the economy of the
entire world based on climate simulations.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

What's going wrong, is that the world is
melting down, as many are nay-saying, and
we will end up with flooded cities, and
devastated farming and living areas.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:47:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/06/19 01:35, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

Er, no. Climate modelling, which is very different.
But back to the main point...

Boeing can do non-destructive and destructive tests
on their products, so simulation isn't /necessary/.
I'd argue that simulation definitely isn't /sufficient/.

Precisely what destructive and non-destructive
tests can we do with the climate?


What could possibly go wrong with that?

Wrong question. A better question is whether
modelling (not simulation) will help us understand
possibilities and consequences in situations
where tests are impossible.

What's the difference between climate modelling and climate
simulation?


Actually, we do go directly to production on electronic instruments
based on Spice simulation.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/06/19 01:35, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

Er, no. Climate modelling, which is very different.
But back to the main point...

Boeing can do non-destructive and destructive tests
on their products, so simulation isn't /necessary/.
I'd argue that simulation definitely isn't /sufficient/.

Precisely what destructive and non-destructive
tests can we do with the climate?


> What could possibly go wrong with that?

Wrong question. A better question is whether
modelling (not simulation) will help us understand
possibilities and consequences in situations
where tests are impossible.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/17/19 8:29 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

 "Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
 of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
 planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
 weekend.
 We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
 777X airliner project are intending to use computer
 simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
 validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

Boeing hasn't started a clean-sheet design in decades and they'll likely
be selling variants of the 737 through the year 2080 so it'll probably
be OK.

Simulation lets you test all kinds of edge-cases repeatedly that would
be extremely dangerous to do even once in the real world.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

That's nothing really new. When atmospheric and underground nuclear
bomb testing ended in 1992, weapons research and development switched
to using super computahs to simulate nuclear weapons. Presumably, the
bombs will work if needed, but nobody is certain.

"How Do You Know a Nuclear Weapon Works If You Can't Test It?"
<https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/gusterson-nuclear-weapons>

The bad news is that increasingly complex systems and shorter
development times are going to push manufacturers into taking short
cuts, such as simulation as a replacement for testing. Or, they can
take the Microsoft approach. Have the customers do the testing,
return the crash reports to headquarters via "telemetry", and then do
damage control on the wreckage. If an update erased a few users
files, no big deal. What matters is the greatest good for the
greatest vendor. It would interesting to see an airplane designed in
that manner. Actually, we probably have seen airplanes designed that
way. Much of the computah simulation software is already being used
by the aerospace industry. Flight testing caught many of the problems
before the passengers arrived, but with simulation replacing testing,
I suspect we're going to see more regrettable incidents.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[bitrex]

On 6/17/19 9:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:47:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/06/19 01:35, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

Er, no. Climate modelling, which is very different.
But back to the main point...

Boeing can do non-destructive and destructive tests
on their products, so simulation isn't /necessary/.
I'd argue that simulation definitely isn't /sufficient/.

Precisely what destructive and non-destructive
tests can we do with the climate?


What could possibly go wrong with that?

Wrong question. A better question is whether
modelling (not simulation) will help us understand
possibilities and consequences in situations
where tests are impossible.

What's the difference between climate modelling and climate
simulation?


Actually, we do go directly to production on electronic instruments
based on Spice simulation.

Simulation is better at catching fails early than validating success.

in my experience, if the initial assumptions are valid, if something
works in the sim then there is a very good chance it will work
consistently IRL. But there's also no guarantee that the real circuit
will perform consistently either just because it does on a breadboard,
during one test run.

but again if the initial assumptions are valid, if something is going
wrong with the sim then there is a 0% chance the real circuit will
actually work to specification. Zip. Zero. None.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/17/19 9:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:47:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/06/19 01:35, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

Er, no. Climate modelling, which is very different.
But back to the main point...

Boeing can do non-destructive and destructive tests
on their products, so simulation isn't /necessary/.
I'd argue that simulation definitely isn't /sufficient/.

Precisely what destructive and non-destructive
tests can we do with the climate?


What could possibly go wrong with that?

Wrong question. A better question is whether
modelling (not simulation) will help us understand
possibilities and consequences in situations
where tests are impossible.

What's the difference between climate modelling and climate
simulation?


Actually, we do go directly to production on electronic instruments
based on Spice simulation.

Boeing's business model is mostly doing slow evolution of proven
products at this point and rarely does clean-sheet designs, it's
wasteful to do a flight test of an improved 777 every time you make a
mild improvement. We know the sumbitch flies OK already. The world is
chaotic but not THAT chaotic.

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/17/19 11:06 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/17/19 9:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:47:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/06/19 01:35, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

Er, no. Climate modelling, which is very different.
But back to the main point...

Boeing can do non-destructive and destructive tests
on their products, so simulation isn't /necessary/.
I'd argue that simulation definitely isn't /sufficient/.

Precisely what destructive and non-destructive
tests can we do with the climate?


What could possibly go wrong with that?

Wrong question. A better question is whether
modelling (not simulation) will help us understand
possibilities and consequences in situations
where tests are impossible.

What's the difference between climate modelling and climate
simulation?


Actually, we do go directly to production on electronic instruments
based on Spice simulation.




Boeing's business model is mostly doing slow evolution of proven
products at this point and rarely does clean-sheet designs, it's
wasteful to do a flight test of an improved 777 every time you make a
mild improvement. We know the sumbitch flies OK already. The world is
chaotic but not THAT chaotic.

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

Are you suggesting that Boeing didn't flight test the MAX?

of course they flight tested it part of the reason the mcas system was
installed was feedback from the test pilots, they didn't like it.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:41:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/17/19 8:29 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

 "Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
 of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
 planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
 weekend.
 We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
 777X airliner project are intending to use computer
 simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
 validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3


Boeing hasn't started a clean-sheet design in decades and they'll likely
be selling variants of the 737 through the year 2080 so it'll probably
be OK.

They will start on the NMA, the New Midrange Aircraft, in the next few
years. The CEO just said so in an interview with Aviation Week.

Simulation lets you test all kinds of edge-cases repeatedly that would
be extremely dangerous to do even once in the real world.

Aerodynamics is sufficiently hard to simulate that wind tunnels are
still important. Electronics is trivial by comparison.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On 17 Jun 2019 18:21:49 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote...

We're supposed to rework the economy of the
entire world based on climate simulations.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

What's going wrong, is that the world is
melting down, as many are nay-saying, and
we will end up with flooded cities, and
devastated farming and living areas.

That's what the simulations have been predicting for decades. We
should all be dead by now. We aren't.

Actually, nothing much is happening, except that crop yields and life
spans keep getting better.

Sea level has been creeping up a couple of mm per year since the LIA
ended around 1850.

This is a Golden Age for humanity, and will be until we get the next
ice age.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/17/19 9:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:47:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/06/19 01:35, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:29:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would sign-off a complex circuit
solely on the basis of a spice simulation. But Boeing is
planning on doing the equivalent for their 777X!

"Specifically, Boeing is “reducing the scope and duration
of certain costly physical tests used to certify the
planemaker’s new aircraft,” Reuters reported over the
weekend.
We're thus told that engineers working on Boeing's new
777X airliner project are intending to use computer
simulations instead of real-world flight tests to
validate their engineering decisions."

What could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/17/boeing_certification_simulation_tests/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

We're supposed to rework the economy of the entire world based on
climate simulations.

Er, no. Climate modelling, which is very different.
But back to the main point...

Boeing can do non-destructive and destructive tests
on their products, so simulation isn't /necessary/.
I'd argue that simulation definitely isn't /sufficient/.

Precisely what destructive and non-destructive
tests can we do with the climate?


What could possibly go wrong with that?

Wrong question. A better question is whether
modelling (not simulation) will help us understand
possibilities and consequences in situations
where tests are impossible.

What's the difference between climate modelling and climate
simulation?


Actually, we do go directly to production on electronic instruments
based on Spice simulation.




Boeing's business model is mostly doing slow evolution of proven
products at this point and rarely does clean-sheet designs, it's
wasteful to do a flight test of an improved 777 every time you make a
mild improvement. We know the sumbitch flies OK already. The world is
chaotic but not THAT chaotic.

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

Are you suggesting that Boeing didn't flight test the MAX?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[bitrex]

On 6/18/19 12:19 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <yqXNE.41731$IQ6.21299@fx09.iad>:

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

No, that plane is unstable by nature due to the position of the engines if I understand it right.
They wanted to fix that with some software.
That worked, then they 'simplified' the software, removed a G sensor, and that did not work.
The basic plane designs sucks.
A good plane flight strait without correction.

If you make a paper airplane, and it is bad, it will do strange things,
you could than add all sorts of systems to make it fly right
but it would still be a POS.

Just like the F35.

I don't believe it was dynamically unstable inherently like some (most?)
modern military combat aircraft are.

Toss it like a glider with no electronic flight controls, trimmed for
level flight, and it will probably enter a phugoid like most (all?)
large passenger aircraft do.

 

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:47:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Boeing can do non-destructive and destructive tests
on their products, so simulation isn't /necessary/.
I'd argue that simulation definitely isn't /sufficient/.

They outsourced the destructive testing to Indonesia and Ethiopia (737
MAX) :-(

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (17 Jun 2019 18:21:49 -0700) it happened Winfield Hill
<winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote in <qe9ebd01n9e@drn.newsguy.com>:

John Larkin wrote...

We're supposed to rework the economy of the
entire world based on climate simulations.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

What's going wrong, is that the world is
melting down, as many are nay-saying, and
we will end up with flooded cities, and
devastated farming and living areas.

Sure, basics, again:
http://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm

Climate WILL change, it is in no way caused by use humming-beans.

Better bring all power sources we have online, diversify.

That is much better than shutting down nuke plants out of radiation fear,
and replacing those with windmills.


Human population will _have_ to decrease during glacial periods,
or all will have live underground with nuclear heating?
Mass migration to livable areas.., no trump walls will stop it.
Fights for that land, wars.
breakdown of civilization as we know it,
maybe some SpaceX colony on mars looking through a telescope at a frozen earth..

No trannies, no factories, no commie-nukation, fight for survival.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <yqXNE.41731$IQ6.21299@fx09.iad>:

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

No, that plane is unstable by nature due to the position of the engines if I understand it right.
They wanted to fix that with some software.
That worked, then they 'simplified' the software, removed a G sensor, and that did not work.
The basic plane designs sucks.
A good plane flight strait without correction.

If you make a paper airplane, and it is bad, it will do strange things,
you could than add all sorts of systems to make it fly right
but it would still be a POS.

Just like the F35.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/18/19 12:19 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <yqXNE.41731$IQ6.21299@fx09.iad>:

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

No, that plane is unstable by nature due to the position of the engines if I understand it right.
They wanted to fix that with some software.
That worked, then they 'simplified' the software, removed a G sensor, and that did not work.
The basic plane designs sucks.
A good plane flight strait without correction.

If you make a paper airplane, and it is bad, it will do strange things,
you could than add all sorts of systems to make it fly right
but it would still be a POS.

Just like the F35.

The Space Shuttle was a total brick without electronic flight controls
it is pretty much impossible to fly, much less land the orbiter without
them.

In the (unlikely, never happened) case of a total electrical or computer
failure on final approach the only option the crew would have had would
be to bail out, a safe landing is impossible. It was a "glider" in name
only.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:21:50 -0400) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <Px_NE.73919$wB4.41212@fx23.iad>:

On 6/18/19 1:01 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:37:50 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <zUZNE.59350$935.48043@fx46.iad>:

On 6/18/19 12:19 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <yqXNE.41731$IQ6.21299@fx09.iad>:

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

No, that plane is unstable by nature due to the position of the engines if I understand it right.
They wanted to fix that with some software.
That worked, then they 'simplified' the software, removed a G sensor, and that did not work.
The basic plane designs sucks.
A good plane flight strait without correction.

If you make a paper airplane, and it is bad, it will do strange things,
you could than add all sorts of systems to make it fly right
but it would still be a POS.

Just like the F35.


I don't believe it was dynamically unstable inherently like some (most?)
modern military combat aircraft are.

Toss it like a glider with no electronic flight controls, trimmed for
level flight, and it will probably enter a phugoid like most (all?)
large passenger aircraft do.

From what I have read, increasing engine power with the new engine positions
gave it a tendency to stall.
They moved the engine position to get better fuel efficiency?

The paper plane analogy holds.

As to the mil dynamically corrected fighter planes,
Russian S400 and S500 will just blow all of that out of the air.
Israel already has a F35 that was hit.. maybe even by a simpler missile,
F35 'stealth' is an illusion, a 35 $ camera can see the F35 IR signature hundreds miles away.
F35 a US snake oil sales product.

It's mostly overpriced over-engineered junk designed to fight a conflict
in the skies of Europe, against an enormously overblown Soviet "threat",
that never happened I don't disagree. Missiles are cheap and pretty
effective.

Even Iraq back in '91 a county so poor they hardly had a pot to piss in
by First World standards managed to throw enough cheap crap in the air
to make life really unpleasant for American pilots in the best modern
hardware money could buy. and the US has only dirt-pounded poorer
countries since.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA

Air power alone has accomplished little of lasting value in over 70
years other than pounding dirt and a lot of dead civilians. But boy
howdy people love to throw (other people's) money at that stuff.

Look at the paranoia now Turkey (not the animal) is buying those Russian systems
'but they will figure out how to detect the F35' (quoted from the news).

We will see, trump just announced sending thousands of troops to the middle east.
If that fire ignites there will be no more Israel, and possibly no more US government,
Mr Xi and Mr Putin will divide the US up in a Chinese and Russian part in a Washington conference.

All 'merricans will have to learn a new language, either Mandarin or Russian.

In the EU, when / if? UK leaves it, English will be no longer be an accepted language
it will likely mostly be German and French.
I am so glad, here they started teaching French in kindergarten, been there several times
no problem with that language,,, learning things as a small kid helps really.



You been drinking again?

Have no even had breakfast yet, now that you mention it...

 

[bitrex]

On 6/18/19 1:01 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:37:50 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <zUZNE.59350$935.48043@fx46.iad>:

On 6/18/19 12:19 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:49:17 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <yqXNE.41731$IQ6.21299@fx09.iad>:

The 737 Max handled very much like a 737 there were not huge engineering
surprises there. It was just different enough that they wanted to avoid
a different type rating. It was more of a bean-counting problem than an
engineering problem.

No, that plane is unstable by nature due to the position of the engines if I understand it right.
They wanted to fix that with some software.
That worked, then they 'simplified' the software, removed a G sensor, and that did not work.
The basic plane designs sucks.
A good plane flight strait without correction.

If you make a paper airplane, and it is bad, it will do strange things,
you could than add all sorts of systems to make it fly right
but it would still be a POS.

Just like the F35.


I don't believe it was dynamically unstable inherently like some (most?)
modern military combat aircraft are.

Toss it like a glider with no electronic flight controls, trimmed for
level flight, and it will probably enter a phugoid like most (all?)
large passenger aircraft do.

From what I have read, increasing engine power with the new engine positions
gave it a tendency to stall.
They moved the engine position to get better fuel efficiency?

The paper plane analogy holds.

As to the mil dynamically corrected fighter planes,
Russian S400 and S500 will just blow all of that out of the air.
Israel already has a F35 that was hit.. maybe even by a simpler missile,
F35 'stealth' is an illusion, a 35 $ camera can see the F35 IR signature hundreds miles away.
F35 a US snake oil sales product.

It's mostly overpriced over-engineered junk designed to fight a conflict
in the skies of Europe, against an enormously overblown Soviet "threat",
that never happened I don't disagree. Missiles are cheap and pretty
effective.

Even Iraq back in '91 a county so poor they hardly had a pot to piss in
by First World standards managed to throw enough cheap crap in the air
to make life really unpleasant for American pilots in the best modern
hardware money could buy. and the US has only dirt-pounded poorer
countries since.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA>

Air power alone has accomplished little of lasting value in over 70
years other than pounding dirt and a lot of dead civilians. But boy
howdy people love to throw (other people's) money at that stuff.

Look at the paranoia now Turkey (not the animal) is buying those Russian systems
'but they will figure out how to detect the F35' (quoted from the news).

We will see, trump just announced sending thousands of troops to the middle east.
If that fire ignites there will be no more Israel, and possibly no more US government,
Mr Xi and Mr Putin will divide the US up in a Chinese and Russian part in a Washington conference.

All 'merricans will have to learn a new language, either Mandarin or Russian.

In the EU, when / if? UK leaves it, English will be no longer be an accepted language
it will likely mostly be German and French.
I am so glad, here they started teaching French in kindergarten, been there several times
no problem with that language,,, learning things as a small kid helps really.

You been drinking again?