Please tell me which other aircraft have a MCAS.

Last time I looked at my flight manual for the 757/767.. I don't see it there.
Don't remember it on the E145's I flew.
Nothing as such on the C5 I flew as a Flight Engineer.

Please educate us~
Motch

inly the KC-46 has MCAS. And they used that system as a baseline, made it worse and then put it in the MAX.

The 737-10 MAX is not grounded. It is an uncertificated experimental airplane. It hasn't even had its first certification flight yet.

Did the 145 not have a stick pusher? Never flown one, but that's an augmentation system. I know this is APC so people like to fight over semantics, but if you read my post in its entirety you get the point. I suppose I could have been more clear in my opening statement. Mcas is just a more robust system because there are more problems to solve for, and to the question of the max10 having mcas.... Of course it will. It's the same 60 yr old design stretched to the max (pun intended) and with huge engines. It'll be redesigned and called something else probably.

If you want to PM me Motch, feel free, and I'll explain in further detail my background. For over year now I've been reading forum opinion after opinion about the damn thing, and I find the irony with the entire evolution and "augmentation" body of work astounding. I thought the FAA would fold by now, and for political reasons this thing would be back in service. Guess not. Nonetheless, most people don't know how we (pilots flying airplanes with augmentation systems) got to where we are with these systems and why. I didn't either until about a yr ago. I'm not a believer technology and regulation will solve every possible problem, and in this case it created an unforeseen one. All IMHO.

Boeing fails as an aircraft manufacturer IMO when they they are no longer making new planes and choose the Frankenstein methodology. Taking systems here and ideas there and fitting round pegs to square holes figuratively speaking. Engineering from ground up is easier (yes slightly more costly) for engineers than modifying an existing system while at the same time accounting for unintended second order effects. (ie failed MCAS)

Their production and systems engineering processes are failing to catch errors. The KC-46 built with 767 airframe and Dreamliner glass is YEARS late and had set backs with finding tools in the plane at AF bases not found in QC after assembly at the plant. How do you not have a basic tool inventory process? And now we’re seeing the boom operator or ARO as they call them now can’t even see properly at close range with the new boom operator station being done via television through a camera that won’t focus properly. AF has stated its too risky to train with and they will only refuel with it in time of war until Boeing fixes it.

And as for the MAX 10, MCAS or not, with its new jackknifing gear built yet again in Frankenstein fashion, after the fact to accommodate a longer plane taller nose gear, well, what could go wrong??? Granted it’s mechanical and at least the pilots should be able to do something about a malfunction should it occur.

I’m really hopefully Boeing gets their act together on the backside of this debacle but if adverse consequences aren’t there, the powers that be will do it over and over again.

To be fair, it also wasn't in the flight manual of the 737Max. Who can be sure what systems are working in the background when the engineers don't think pilots need to know about it...?

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Thanks Larry..

Motch

Guess we will agree to disagree.
Yes, all the transport category aircraft I've flown have had a stall/stick pusher. But so does the Max's. But the Max's also have MCAS, so thereby the MCAS is different that a stall/stick pusher.

Going back to the original question about the M10 and MCAS..
Yes or No.

Larry at least brought up the point that it actually isn't even certified yet so guess that removes any question about why we aren't taking deliveries.

FS, FP & FtC
Motch

You've lost me. What is it you want to argue about?

sometimes I think people read posts on forums and just feel like they have to argue....even happy to glads, just because.

No one is arguing?!

But lets be honest for a sec.
I asked a question about the MCAS on the M10.
So far, we've gotten a Yes and a No.
But, as Larry mentioned, the plane is still being certified hence why it's not actually out there in the system (per say).

However..
it was you who wrote -
Notice the 'You Guys'. You tried to educate all of 'us guys' how MCAS is on other aircraft and I asked you to name them. You then went and compared MCAS to a Stick Shaker. Love the 'cliff notes' reference! LOL

The MCAS (to my knowledge) was installed on the Max's due to a change in how the aircraft handles while going to full thrust in certain situations. It was 'put on there' so the aircraft would behave like any other 737/Guppy due to bigger engines being placed slight forward than other models.

So it's not a Stall/Stick Pusher per say.
If the MCAS was removed from the Max, would the plane still fly? I would bet it would. But it wouldn't behave like an NG and therefore may not be type certified within the entire 73/Guppy family. Just my opinion/observation.

No argument. Just a discussion.

I found the 'leak' about the BF Polaris seating interesting and was wondering about the M10's.
I realize we probably have a handful of VERY knowledgeable people on here with 73/Guppy/Max experience and that's why I asked the question.

At some point, this bier virus thing will blow over and the Max's may even fly again... thought the seating diagram was interesting and so I asked a few questions.
Never felt it was an argument.

FS, FP & FtC
Motch