I’m not sure to what extent the forward position of the new engines made the plane “deliberately unsafe” but it did result in a tendency to nose up, which was corrected with a software system designed to adjust the trim - so far so good in modern flight systems.
However there were a number of errors.
Biggest was lack of redundancy - taking input from just one angle of attack sensor was clearly a mistake and, given the aero industry’s genuine (most of the time) emphasis on safety through redundancy I am not clear how this got through - cost cutting, perhaps, as you say.
Second was the fact that the pilots could not override or disable the system - that was a clear mistake but I’m not sure it was due to cost cutting
Third was a possible lack of training - I think that was cost cutting, no so much the training but the attempt to “sneak” a new type past regulators by (misguidedly, it turned out) trying to make it fly in the same way as a type already certified.
As I understand it, there was a warning signal that was an optional extra costing many thousands of dollars, that would tell the pilots when the system was in fault mode. Lack of manual over-ride was breath taking though.
I called it ‘deliberately’ unsafe because the change and its effect was known about and a decision made to make software compensate, rather than build an aeroplane that had neutral handling characteristics. I know the intention wasn’t to make an unsafe plane, but that WAS the result.
Not a mistake at all. It was a very carefully calculated cost reduction, by the bean counters
But they could override the system. The problem was that they didn’t know that MCAS existed, and had no way of knowing how to override it, even though it was possible.
Not possible, certainly. The upgrade was sold to airlines on the premise that no extra training would be involved, saving the airlines money. This was bullshit, and Boeing knew it. Because of the lack of training on MCAS, pilots didn’t appreciate what it was, or what it could do. Disaster ensued.
It was all to do with cost cutting. From beginning to end.
This is something that modern combat aircraft have done for decades. All modern combat aircraft are designed to operate at the edge of an ‘unsafe’ envelope. This makes them extremely manoeverable, but also inherently unstable. Software controlling the aircraft keeps it within a safe operating region at all times. Unfortunately, we’re talking about a commercial airliner here, so the normal rules didn’t apply.
Yes, combat aircraft have pushed the edge beyond inherent stability.
Commercial planes are still supposed to glide though.
Not, I think, that complete loss of power and control surfaces would be survivable - but you’d be surprised how much damage a plane can take and still “land” (albeit with the fortuitous coming together of several factors both in the plane and on the ground).
From an owner I know personally - the current one is OK, the earlier version was the worst built car he’d ever driven (and his other car was a Vauxhall/Opel).
His was a year old in 2018, so yes. IIRC his had bits fall off occasionally, and stuff was corroding. He bought this at the same time a colleague bought a Leaf, and the leaf has turned out to be a much better car.
Maybe his was a ‘Friday afternoon’ special. If you’ve had recent Renault’s before and liked them then it may be fine, but it’s a car I’d personally choose to avoid.
We had a Megane estate a few years back. It liked to randomly cut out, usually just when you needed engine power.
Renault spent forever trying to track the problem down, without complete success - thankfully this was at their expense.
I also had a Scenic “mini MPV” - I needed to take my option of a company car at short notice & that was the only vehicle available in the pool - unfortunately cost cutting meant that I was never able to order anything to my own spec so I was stuck with it. Dreadful vehicle.
I used to be a Peugeot and Citroen fan, but TBH quality went down the crapper 10 years ago, and I don’t trust them any more. I’d look for a Skoda/Seat or Mini, possibly Hyundi/Kia in the UK, but no idea what prices are like in Fr.
Before buying my Skoda Karoq I’d looked at the Renault equivalent, but longer term reports were poor for both the Renault and Nissan equivalents.
In the end if it’s cheap to run and doesn’t cost a fortune in repairs then it’s probably ok. My Pug 307 was a bit like that, with horrible bendy brake discs, failed engine management, but did 70mpg on a long run. Fantastic economy, nasty engineering.
I think, when it is cooler, I’ll pop to Renault Bergerac, they seem to have a couple in my price range. That way I can try it, see if it suits for my daily commute! Currently looking at €80/ fortnightly and we calculated that would be about 16€ for electricity, big savings over a year! Even better if we can charge from our solar panels in the days when I’m home.
Dreadful to work on but with the clever seat system inc removal of rear seat turning it on occasion into a van like transporter made it incredibly versatile.
I think we are looking at 16/17/18 would that be the earlier model years?