Very large 747-400 model at Boeing Longacers Renton WA.

HAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Love it. Yeah...Longacres has some pretty amazing displays.
I especially liked the Wright Cyclone on a stand.....and a hundred other things on display there.

Wow, that's amazing. I wonder if it will every make it to the Museum of Flight; would be a great display!

Lots of great hiostorical photos also. Sadly I did not get any photos of them.

Yeah mate...the models and displays they have at Longacers are pretty amazing!
Love wandering around that building.

   You pretty much said what I really wanted to say, I mean no offense nor do I wish to upset anybody else. I was unaware you had information and I was only giving some insight. Can't argue with what you said though, as said " swiss cheese".

armornut

   Hi Space Ranger, I won't yry to convince you to believe differently or change your travel plans, however please allow me to say that while as tragic and scary as the MAX incidents were, there currently is probably no safer airframe to fly on.

      The events that lead up to the grounding are what is called in the industry the " swiss cheese effect" , several very minor incidents or proceedures were overlooked allowing the trouble to finally end in tragedy. It isn't one manufactures, companies, or entities fault, but a combination of all players.

      Hopefully with the scrutiny of inspections in design, better training, and better safety oversight this particular event will never happen again.

       Aviation is just over 100yrs old and is by far the safest mode of travel, however built by humans, operated by humans, and overseen by humans.....mistakes do and unfortunaly will happen.

    I'll fly a MAX.

 

The problem with the MAX, as I see it, and this is based on the professional opinion of a Boeing employee whose expertise I have absolute confidence in, is that Boeing stretched (in more ways than one) the 737 design too far instead of starting with a clean sheet of paper in order to cut corners and save money, resulting in a seriously compromised airplane, made even worse by an incomplete flight manual and training syllabus. The government didn't bring criminal fraud charges against Boeing over "very minor incidents or procedures."

   Hi Space Ranger, I won't yry to convince you to believe differently or change your travel plans, however please allow me to say that while as tragic and scary as the MAX incidents were, there currently is probably no safer airframe to fly on.

      The events that lead up to the grounding are what is called in the industry the " swiss cheese effect" , several very minor incidents or proceedures were overlooked allowing the trouble to finally end in tragedy. It isn't one manufactures, companies, or entities fault, but a combination of all players.

      Hopefully with the scrutiny of inspections in design, better training, and better safety oversight this particular event will never happen again.

       Aviation is just over 100yrs old and is by far the safest mode of travel, however built by humans, operated by humans, and overseen by humans.....mistakes do and unfortunaly will happen.

    I'll fly a MAX.

7474

Boeing in Miami has a 787 model in the lobby and a 747-8 in the break room, I was a 737 Captain and now a 747 FO, did sim training at Boeing. I enjoyed the pics. 

 

I'm glad you enjoyed them!

Space Ranger

You may like the MAX a lot, but as a passenger, I will NEVER get on one. I'll take another flight on another manufacture's aircraft, the train, a bus, or drive. Boeing has lost my trust in their products.

 

Very sorry to hear that. It's more about the pilots than the airframe, and thats all I'll post about that.

I would put my family on a MAX in a minute, as long as there were 2 well trained pilots up front, and that goes for ANY airframe.

I do respect your opinion, we will agree to disagree.

Boeing in Miami has a 787 model in the lobby and a 747-8 in the break room, I was a 737 Captain and now a 747 FO, did sim training at Boeing. I enjoyed the pics. 

You may like the MAX a lot, but as a passenger, I will NEVER get on one. I'll take another flight on another manufacture's aircraft, the train, a bus, or drive. Boeing has lost my trust in their products.

Yeah!

      I have to agree on that. Funny, that" Seat of the Pants" seems to get more folks out of trouble faster than anything else. Unless you are an Electro-Geek who has no planar muscles in the " Seat of the Pants". And, C'mon Don, It's fun watching that one with the lines in it showing " Wings Level" or not!

     The J-3 when I first flew her( Before FAA inspection) had no guages in the panel. Only Holes! She still flew fine, I don't need no darned guages!

 The last Falcon jets ( Falcon 30s)  that I flew did have those panels. I actually didn't have a problem, Just don't like them.

Seat of the pants is still valid. If it does not feel right, then it isn't. Even in swept wing jets. Particularly in pitch with a jet, even a few degrees from normal can raise my concern.

Tanker-Builder

I have to say:

 I don't care for the cockpit. Where is the redundant instruments in case of a computer failure? When the " Brain " goes away do the screens go to an electronic Instrument default? Give me Mechanical any day. I have flown both, but prefer analog!

 

Who needs instruments?  I can remember old timers saying seat of the pants flying is the only way to fly.  Early lesson instructor covered up much of panel with clipboard and asked for stall and recovery.

   Cool pix.

     The flight deck I last worked on had 4 MFD which could be configured from simple ADI to ECAS, NAV,WXR, or the minimum neccassary flight indications. Alot of fun to functional check, swap screens. Lots of redundancies intergrated into these modern birds, for one to have a complete catastophic failure is thankfully VERY rare.

Tanker-Builder

I have to say:

 I don't care for the cockpit. Where is the redundant instruments in case of a computer failure? When the " Brain " goes away do the screens go to an electronic Instrument default? Give me Mechanical any day. I have flown both, but prefer analog!

 

If you look at the last photo, the one of the cockpit, in the middle, just above the gear handle is a 3 inch blue/brown square.

That is the integrated standby instrument. It is a self contained ADI, Airspeed/Altitude indicator and card compass. All in one! We also have the whisky compass. It is all raw data, no air data computer corrections and self contained with its own battery for at least an hour opperation AFTER the ships batteries have died. It's mean time between failure is very high, as are the main instruments.

In actuality the steam guages failed at much higher rate than the screens. The Capt's and FO's screens use completly separate computers, each with a backup.

VERY reliable, but like you, I learned on round dials and still like them.

I had to fly off it yesterday, it's easier than you think. 

If you've ever tried to "fly" a Link Trainer then you would not think it was comical.  However, watching from the outside as the student spins out of a turn for the third time can be fun!

That is a big model!  And I thought my Zvezda 1/144 was big.  We have a link trainer here at the San Diego Aerospace museum.  Comical looking thing.  Thanks for sharing - cool pics.

I have to say:

 I don't care for the cockpit. Where is the redundant instruments in case of a computer failure? When the " Brain " goes away do the screens go to an electronic Instrument default? Give me Mechanical any day. I have flown both, but prefer analog!

 Oh My;

We have come a long way haven't we? The Link sure opened a lot of career pilot's doors didn't it?

Loved the Link pictures.  I have a project currently on hold of a 1:24 Link trainer, WW2 vintage.