'Twas my first wonderment also;
IF you've altered ALL the C.G. relationships to such a degree that: you even have to glue-together an MCAS kluge ...
[shades of the "flies like a brick"==completely un-Pilotable IF the many feedback systems are cut off: in most War-planes du jour]
THEN: (the difficulties always of, 'proving a negative') until you do all the white-knuckle aerobatics tests--so highly unlikely re any gigantic Flying Auditorium--
[save for that period of Inverted-flight for n-minutes : in that Crash (not a MAX IIRC) near LAX wherein they indeed kept the sucker almost stably in-the-air until the same uncontrollability sent it augering-in to the ocean, straight down]
THEN: just HOW 'flyable' IS? this NEW-design amidst the vicissitudes of weather, engine-failure on one side [new "virtual-CG physics" re that lopsided-power thing, added to physical CG matters] ..and like that. I mean, when the static-CG MEANS that the plane will always want to fly Nose-^UP^ unless a bloody handful of sensors and software/assumed Perfect ... are always on-line? Acceptable in a Military plane? Yess, one supposes. In an aircraft with hundreds aboard? 'Course then there's Airbus, but I digress.
{Don't ask the dis-U.S. Supreme Court to make This call, eh? :-/ }
Worst case: what IF this glue-on-some bigger/heavier engines wherever we can make them fit has created a Very-expensive Franken-Liner?
(which brings us back to the FACT): that *this* 'NEW Design" was permitted by FAA et alia: to SKIP the mandatory Flight Simulator Time/per every Pilot: and go into production as a mere ".."made a few improvements", cha. cha. cha.
I smell BIG-$$$ payed-out and Boeing public spanking--and a reduced Trust of the entire U.S. plane-certifying process--at least in the minds of the semi-ept ..and maybe even the proles.
[shades of the "flies like a brick"==completely un-Pilotable IF the many feedback systems are cut off: in most War-planes du jour]
THEN: (the difficulties always of, 'proving a negative') until you do all the white-knuckle aerobatics tests--so highly unlikely re any gigantic Flying Auditorium--
[save for that period of Inverted-flight for n-minutes : in that Crash (not a MAX IIRC) near LAX wherein they indeed kept the sucker almost stably in-the-air until the same uncontrollability sent it augering-in to the ocean, straight down]
THEN: just HOW 'flyable' IS? this NEW-design amidst the vicissitudes of weather, engine-failure on one side [new "virtual-CG physics" re that lopsided-power thing, added to physical CG matters] ..and like that. I mean, when the static-CG MEANS that the plane will always want to fly Nose-^UP^ unless a bloody handful of sensors and software/assumed Perfect ... are always on-line? Acceptable in a Military plane? Yess, one supposes. In an aircraft with hundreds aboard? 'Course then there's Airbus, but I digress.
{Don't ask the dis-U.S. Supreme Court to make This call, eh? :-/ }
Worst case: what IF this glue-on-some bigger/heavier engines wherever we can make them fit has created a Very-expensive Franken-Liner?
(which brings us back to the FACT): that *this* 'NEW Design" was permitted by FAA et alia: to SKIP the mandatory Flight Simulator Time/per every Pilot: and go into production as a mere ".."made a few improvements", cha. cha. cha.
I smell BIG-$$$ payed-out and Boeing public spanking--and a reduced Trust of the entire U.S. plane-certifying process--at least in the minds of the semi-ept ..and maybe even the proles.
