Tactile Politics

Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club political podcast for April 3, 2019, episode number 218 (!!!) it is the Tactile Politics edition of the show with your touchy-feely hosts radio guy Todd Feinburg and AI guy Mike Stopa.

This week, we return to an earlier era where we used to bring you *three* topics. Yes! This week you get a bonus topic. And, without further adieu, they are these.

  1. We bring you up to date on the Mueller/Barr collapse of the collusion narrative melodrama. Barr plans to release the Mueller report ASAP. ASAP is not fast enough for the Dems who need something to scream about.
  2. Then, Creepy Uncle Joe – what can we say? Answer: a lot!
  3. And on to Air Disasters. Whither Boeing now? We will discuss.

Shower thoughts? Of course.

And this week’s hidden gem, in honor of his 77th would be birthday, Leon Russell’s version of Good Time Charlie’s Got the Blues. Enjoy!

 

Subscribe to Harvard Lunch Club in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 4 comments.

  1. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    You’re dancing so so close to what the real problem is. …

    The real problem is the FAA flight worthiness certificate programs. When someone designs a new aircraft the FAA has to certify the design as safe for public use – which seems fair enough – but its so expensive and time consuming that manufactures sometimes kill aircraft (like the Piper PA-47 which was cancelled after the company spent $100m+ on the project – because certification issues with the jet) BUT… IF the aircraft is a modification of an existing design already certified, the aircraft is much cheaper and easier to get certified.

    IF you look back that the early 737’s built in the 1960s you’d quickly see that the engine pods under each wing is much much smaller than current engines.The smaller Turbo-Jets that where used in the 1960s gave way to Turbo-Fan engines, and Ultra-high bypass engines, that have a much larger fan diameter than the original Turbo-jets used in the 1960s. The larger engines are much more efficient than the older jets.

    In order to maintain the FAA certificate, they moved the engines forward and up tighter to the wing. However this caused the plane to become aerodynamically unstable. As this moved the center of thrust higher on aircraft. The solution to this instability is the MCAS system to assist the pilot. This system comes on automatically when the flaps are extended and the nose is raised (during take off for example).

    What Boeing really should have done, was broke the FAA certificate and produced a clean sheet design that could be aerodynamically stable with the larger engines. Unfortunately complying with FAA regulations like this, could cost Boeing billions.

    • #1
    • April 4, 2019, at 5:01 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. Todd Feinburg Contributor

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    You’re dancing so so close to what the real problem is. …

    The real problem is the FAA flight worthiness certificate programs. When someone designs a new aircraft the FAA has to certify the design as safe for public use – which seems fair enough – but its so expensive and time consuming that manufactures sometimes kill aircraft (like the Piper PA-47 which was cancelled after the company spent $100m+ on the project – because certification issues with the jet) BUT… IF the aircraft is a modification of an existing design already certified, the aircraft is much cheaper and easier to get certified.

    IF you look back that the early 737’s built in the 1960s you’d quickly see that the engine pods under each wing is much much smaller than current engines.The smaller Turbo-Jets that where used in the 1960s gave way to Turbo-Fan engines, and Ultra-high bypass engines, that have a much larger fan diameter than the original Turbo-jets used in the 1960s. The larger engines are much more efficient than the older jets.

    In order to maintain the FAA certificate, they moved the engines forward and up tighter to the wing. However this caused the plane to become aerodynamically unstable. As this moved the center of thrust higher on aircraft. The solution to this instability is the MCAS system to assist the pilot. This system comes on automatically when the flaps are extended and the nose is raised (during take off for example).

    What Boeing really should have done, was broke the FAA certificate and produced a clean sheet design that could be aerodynamically stable with the larger engines. Unfortunately complying with FAA regulations like this, could cost Boeing billions.

    That was the point I was wanting to make – thanks for the clarification. They approached the redesign of the plane to satisfy the bureaucracy not to satisfy the plane. 

    • #2
    • April 5, 2019, at 12:15 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. colleenb Member

    I’m sorry Stopa but you will never convince me that an out and out Marxist is really smart. He/she may be well-educated, intelligent in some aspects but anyone who believes the Marxist line has not thought deeply about the human condition. Neither have they looked at the history of Marxism/Communism/Socialism, etc. Good podcast otherwise.

    • #3
    • April 5, 2019, at 7:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Todd Feinburg (View Comment):
    That was the point I was wanting to make – thanks for the clarification. They approached the redesign of the plane to satisfy the bureaucracy not to satisfy the plane. 

    What a great way to say it!

    I think the FAA should disallow redesigned aircraft to fly on the same certification, if that new design is aerodynamically different from the prior designs. Pilots when they get certified on a new aircraft model only take a 2 week seminar course. So its important that the aircraft fly like prior models.

    This is the Piper PA-47:

    A single engine jet. As you can see the center of thrust is well above its center of gravity. The effect is kinda like a top spin on a ball, the engine would constantly pushing the nose down. Problematic. The design made it to prototyping stage, and was even taken to a few air shows to gauge customer reaction – The company even took some pre-production orders.

    I think it could easily be solved by vectoring the engines thrust to have a slight upward bias – to counter the top spin effect of the aircraft.

    There are other single engine jets out there like the Cirrus CF-150, but it’s center of thrust is much closer to the center of gravity…

     

    • #4
    • April 5, 2019, at 11:59 AM PDT
    • Like