Quote:
Originally Posted by astrochex
The program was a cash cow for years and a key element of Boeings military portfolio.
|
Oh, absolutely. Boeing/MD made bank on that program. Easy to do, though, on a guaranteed contract, otherwise know as a "cost plus" contract. No such thing in the commercial world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakthor
I remember reading about the c17 software as one of the great disaster stories.
After airframe was final (after 2B? spent) the plane was found to be unstable at low speed/high angle of attack which apparently how you land on a short runway. People in charge decided it was a... software problem. They designed a system to prevent plane from ever finding itself in that situation. I guess you can say its a success because they sold a lot but why was the plane unstable to begin with?
Sounds a lot like mcas except you can't blame that the airframe design was 50 years old.
Above was in a software book. I'd love to hear the real story.
|
Interesting. I had no idea that was the case. It does kind of serve to clear up the decisions made on the 737 MAX, where Boeing decided to "fix" inherent aero problems with software. Then not tell customers that is what they did, and subsequently sit back and watch three airplanes go in, all the while denying everything.
Again, highly compensated executives made the decisions that lead to all of that. "Heroes" who get all of the accolades (and money) when they "win", but never have to accept responsibility when they "lose". They should be lined up and shot...
