Originally Posted by
Smythe
Old school Boeing test pilot: "add vortex tabs"
Millennial engineers: 'add software"
Where does the part about "design wings correctly" come in?
But the wings
were correctly designed. The engines were designed too large, or undercarriage designed too short - take your pick.
They had to extend the nose gear for all Max and design and certify a magic folding link thing on the main gear for the -10, I'm not sure why they didn't just do that job properly and give -8/-9 and -10 long enough legs to put the engines same place as the NG so that it flew like the NG, with no need for crazy software bodges.
I think the root of the problem will turn out to be the modelling/simulation at the very start of the process, this was what lead them to believe that they could just mount the engines forward and up a bit, and the only resulting problem was it got a bit light on the stick in a small part of the envelope - so just tweak software to nudge the stab if anyone ever goes there, job done.
It was a brilliant plan with only one teeny tiny flaw - the modelling was b
cks. Over confidence and over promise on schedule meant that by the time they found that out they were in a corner where the only possible "fix" looked like changing that nudge on the stab to a full blown miles-out-of-trim yank, and over large areas of the envelope based on only on sensor. Cross fingers, collect bonus, and hope it doesn't break too often and that the regulator won't notice (if we don't tell)...