![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/APP-031419-737-x.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: I\u2019ve done some more look-see investigation into this whole 737 Max 8, Max 9 business, and I now think that I have a real good understanding of what happened here. And the basics are these. The competitor for Boeing and the 737 series is A20, the Airbus A20. And back in 2011 the 737 was getting long in the tooth, they needed to modernize it, make it more fuel efficient, new engines. And the debate was, \u201cOkay, do we reengine the airplane or do we reengineer the entire plane?\u201d<\/p>\n
Well, Airbus decided just to put new engines on their planes thereby not spending much at all to upgrade them. They just put new engines on them and made whatever retrofits on them to handle the increased power, but they didn\u2019t redesign a new airplane, any of that.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Boeing couldn\u2019t do that with the 737. If they\u2019re gonna add bigger engines, they had to change the design of the airplane, and they tried to do this as cost efficiently as possible. Trump was right in a way. I mean, these airplanes have gotten very complex in pursuit of economy, in pursuit of having them as cheaply as possible to use and to fly.<\/p>\n
And it\u2019s exactly what I thought. Because of the redesign of the airplane and the change in center of gravity brought about by the bigger engines — the nose gear\u2019s eight inches longer, for example — it has changed the entire angle of attack that the airplane takes in normal flight. If you\u2019ve ever paid any attention to flying, you feel like sometimes on certain airplanes you\u2019re always climbing even though you\u2019re at cruising level. That\u2019s the angle of attack, the nose and the wings as they fly through the air. This airplane\u2019s angle of attack was made much steeper because these new engines are incredible. They have their own aerodynamic lift in addition to that which they get from the wings and the tail.<\/p>\n
And because of that rapid elevation of the nose promoting stalls or making the airplane think it\u2019s in a stall, they put in a computer system that automatically trimmed some of the lift back on the tail, elevators on the tail to keep the nose lowered. And if something went wrong with that system, the nose after takeoff would be up and down and up and down and none of this was explained in the flight manual.<\/p>\n
So the pilots were not aware of what was going on. This is what they think happened in the Lion Air crash, and they\u2019re pretty sure it\u2019s what happened with Ethiopia, although it\u2019s still unknown. So you have to disconnect the autopilot and the computer programming that takes the airplane off the runway and into flight.<\/p>\n
And it really is gonna be nothing more than a simple software fix, but the whole thing happened because of competition with Airbus, at least the best anybody can tell, that Boeing had to hurry and they couldn\u2019t just add new engines to the existing 737. They had to basically design a new airplane and build a new airplane. It\u2019s obviously much more complicated than that, but that\u2019s the root of this.<\/p>\n
All this dates back to 2011. This is eight years old, this whole process. There are 5,000 of these 737 Max 8s and Max 9s on order. It is the future of Boeing, so they have to get this fixed. And they will.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 I got a bunch emails during the break that I checked asking me to explain further (and not so hurriedly) what I was saying about the Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9.\u00a0 All right.\u00a0 But, folks, it gets kind of technical here, and I have to also specify that I\u2019m not an aeronautical engineer; so I\u2019m only gonna share with you that which I have learned on my own consulting various authorities, experts and so forth.\u00a0 It all starts, apparently, back in 2011 when Airbus, the A320, decides that they\u2019re gonna modernize by simply putting new engines on the A320, which is a much cheaper upgrade than having to redesign the entire airplane.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/APP-031319-Boeing.jpg\")
If you can put more powerful engines, if you retrofit engines on an existing airplane without having to redesign it in any way, then you are way ahead of the cost competition game with your competitors.\u00a0 And Airbus is a consortium of the French and the U.K. with governments involved subsidizing the manufacture of these airplanes versus American private sector aircraft manufacturers — in this case, Boeing.\u00a0 So the 737 was a cash cow for Boeing.\u00a0 The Boeing 737 and its success is what allowed Boeing to develop the 777 and the 787 Dreamliner.<\/p>\n
They\u2019re selling the Dreamliner, the 787, for more than it costs to make it. But they\u2019re still running a $23 billion manufacturing deficit on the 787.\u00a0 So the 737… Once Airbus decides to put new engines on the A320, they\u2019re gonna become cheaper to operate.\u00a0 That\u2019s the whole point of putting new engines on.\u00a0 New engine technology always includes more efficiency — more power for less operating cost — and if Airbus had found a way to put new engines on without having to rebuild the wings and without having to change the center of gravity of the existing A320, then that gave them a leg up on Boeing in selling aircraft to airlines.<\/p>\n
So Boeing needed to keep up with this, and they rejected the idea of simply putting bigger engines on the existing 737.\u00a0 It was pretty much maxed out design-wise.\u00a0 All airplane development is a series of compromises.\u00a0 When you have something that weighs as much as an airplane does, to develop the power and the aerodynamics to get it off the ground and fly at a competitive commercial speed of 450 to 550 knots loaded with passengers so that you can make money doing so, you have to make a whole series of compromises for that to happen.<\/p>\n
Because devices that weigh that much need all kinds of propulsion in order to fly.\u00a0 So the compromises that are made… And then you start requiring increasing innovation in the engines for fuel efficiency and all of that.\u00a0 And as it was described in one article, Boeing had to find a way — with the 737 Max 8 — to fit 12 gallons into a 10-gallon jug, if you can visualize this.\u00a0 The bigger engines that they designed required a different airplane.\u00a0 It really isn\u2019t a Boeing 737.\u00a0 They call it a 737; it\u2019s got the basic overall shape, but it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s got entirely new flight characteristics because of these new engines and the changed center of gravity.\u00a0 The nose gear, for example, is eight inches longer. You\u2019ve noticed 737s. They\u2019re really low to the ground, and the engines on a 737 at the bottom are flat because they\u2019re so close to the ground.\u00a0 Well, you can\u2019t put a bigger engine on that airplane.\u00a0 You have to change the design. So you need to have it higher off the ground with longer nose gear.\u00a0 Not main gear.<\/p>\n
Just the longer nose gear, which has to do with the perceived angle of attack as the airplane is taking off — which is the key to all this, if you strip it all down.\u00a0 They changed some of the aerodynamics of the tail cone.\u00a0 They added some new winglets and fly-by-wire spoilers and they put gigantic new big displays in the cockpit for Millennial-age pilots, who love screens.\u00a0 So the 737 Max ends up with a nose pointed higher in the air to begin with, and it has larger engines.\u00a0 And the design of engines is such now that they create lift on their own, of course, with their aerodynamic thrust, in addition to the lift created aerodynamically over the wings.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/APP-031419-737.jpg\")
So that makes the airplane nudge even higher. The nose nudges even higher in terms of angle of attack flying through the air.\u00a0 Now, Boeing discovered through analysis and flight testing that under certain high-speed conditions both in wind-up turns and wings-level flight, that upward nudge of the nose created a greater risk of stalling.\u00a0 Stalling is when you don\u2019t have power to maintain your level of ascent.\u00a0 So the natural way to correct for a stall is to drop the nose and ram the throttles forward full-fledged power.\u00a0 You have to have enough altitude to do that.<\/p>\n
Well, since this airplane\u2019s design naturally raised the profile of the nose and created a higher angle of attack, they had to have a computer solution to lower the nose in both takeoff and cruise flight.\u00a0 That solution was called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.\u00a0 It was a computer program that was also used and adapted to the existing 737 and the 737 Max.\u00a0 What it did was automatically trim the horizontal stabilizer to bring the nose down.\u00a0 It just barely elevated the trim tabs on the stabilizer to lower the nose to compensate for the angle of attack.<\/p>\n
The computer program was supposed to do that independent — it\u2019s part of the autopilot system — and the pilots just trust that that was happening.\u00a0 But, for it to work, the angle-of-attack data that is fed into the computer has to work in concert with the MCAS, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System that\u2019s handling the trim tabs on the horizontal stabilizer.\u00a0 If they\u2019re not in sync, then the airplane is gonna compensate by lowering the nose and raising the nose and lowering it and raising it. This apparently was happening in Lion Air and the pilots were having trouble disconnecting the MCAS system in the autopilot.<\/p>\n
And eventually I think what happened was the airplane — because of the way all this was designed — lowered the noses full throttle right into the ground, and the pilots were unable to get control of it.\u00a0 So the fix for this… And none of this was explained.\u00a0 Apparently, the pilots are upset \u2019cause none of this was explained in the flight manual for the 737 Max 8.\u00a0 Look, I love Boeing.\u00a0 I\u2019ve had a tour of their manufacturing plant out in Renton, Washington, where they were making 747s.\u00a0 I was blown away by it.<\/p>\n
One of the things I most wanted to see was: How do you make an airplane? What\u2019s the first thing you do if you\u2019re gonna build a gigantic airliner like this? So they let me take a tour. They guided me through it, like three hours.\u00a0 But what they attempted to do here was convince people the 737 Max 8 was a 737, so that it wasn\u2019t gonna need a bunch of new training, and it wasn\u2019t gonna need new adaptations.\u00a0 If you knew how to fly a 737, if you knew how to handle behaviors of the aircraft — the 737 — you\u2019d do the same thing with the 737 Max 8.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s apparently not the case.\u00a0 So the fix for this is gonna be a relatively simple software update.\u00a0 But then they\u2019re gonna have to flight test this to the satisfaction of the FAA.\u00a0 They\u2019ve got 5,000 of these airplanes on order.\u00a0 There aren\u2019t that many in service in the United States relative to how many have been ordered.\u00a0 Their future is wrapped up in this airplane.\u00a0 It is the best-selling plane. The 737 Max 8 and Max 9 are the best-selling airplanes Boeing has ever made in the commercial airline inventory, and I hope they get it right, \u2019cause aside from this, it is a fantastic airplane.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/APP-031319-737-Max-8.jpg\")
A number of pilots, by the way, have advocated for not grounding it, for not banning it, that it\u2019s perfectly fine.\u00a0 They don\u2019t know what all this is about.\u00a0 Other pilots have said, “Well, you need to upgrade the flight manual because there\u2019s stuff happening here that the manual does not tell us what to do with.”\u00a0 So there\u2019s conflict.\u00a0 But it\u2019s all rooted in trying to keep up with… You put increased complexity in these gigantic manufactured airplanes. You put in increased complexity all for the purposes of flying them as cheaply as possible, all for the purposes of economics — and you reach a point where the complexity may end up harming the pursuit of the most efficient manner of flying a loaded airplane at a profitable speed.<\/p>\n
Anyway, they\u2019ll get it fixed at some point.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s then gonna be a matter of convincing everybody to trust that it has been rectified.<\/p>\n
But they\u2019ll get it.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: I\u2019ll tell you how I got interested in all this. Back in 1989, 1990, I was flying on an American Airlines 767, and I was seated next to an off-duty pilot who was being ferried out to the West Coast to make a flight. His base was New York, and they were dispatching him. I had a long talk with him. And my question to him — and this is 1990, this is 30 years ago. Well, 28 years. \u201cWhy is it that with all the technological advances we\u2019re making throughout our lives, why is it we cannot fly any faster commercially than 550 or 600 miles an hour?\u201d<\/p>\n
And that\u2019s when he gave me the flight is a series of compromises speech. He said, \u201cIf you want to fly supersonic, we can do it, but nobody\u2019s gonna pay for it. Do you realize how much fuel it takes to fly supersonic?\u201d He gave me the aerodynamics. The faster you go through the air, the greater resistance the air is, the more power you need, the more power you\u2019re using.<\/p>\n
And he said, \u201cLook, we could manufacture airplanes to get you to London in three hours, we\u2019ve done it, the Concorde, but nobody can afford to fly it.\u201d And he said, \u201cWe can barely fuel the Concorde. It doesn\u2019t have any reserves. It\u2019s got to land when it has to land. It can\u2019t go into a holding pattern very long and people just aren\u2019t gonna pay for it. But we\u2019ve got the technology to do it. It\u2019s just not sensible cost-wise in a mass market situation.\u201d<\/p>\n
And that\u2019s true. So now the entire pursuit of commercial aircraft is forever cheaper to operate engines. The margins are so small and so tiny and the competition is so intense that people are only gonna pay what they\u2019re gonna pay to fly commercially. First class, business, coach, whatever, they\u2019re only gonna pay what they\u2019re gonna pay. And so everything has been pared down to make sure that people can get from point A to point B at a price they\u2019re willing to pay as efficiently as possible for the airline so they can stay in business.<\/p>\n
And if some airline comes up with a brand-new way of really having a brand-new cost efficient engine on an existing airplane without having to redesign it, they have a leg up on their competitors that you can\u2019t believe. And this is what Boeing faced.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/APP-022619-EIB-Callers.jpg\")
So they tried to combine the existing airframe of the 737, modifying it to handle the new bigger engines they were gonna put on it, and it changed the characteristics, the aerodynamics of the airplane enough that it doesn\u2019t fly like a standard, ordinary issue 737.<\/p>\n
Anyway, Doug in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Great to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Hello, Rush. I\u2019d say dittos on almost everything you ever say, and today I say double dittos. I don\u2019t know where you get your info, but you\u2019re spot on.<\/p>\n
RUSH: I appreciate hearing that, because I\u2019m not an expert in this, but I\u2019ve tried to inform myself as best I can, so I\u2019m glad to get your endorsement.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Well, you\u2019re well informed. I would say one of the problems was the design on the Max — and I\u2019ve gotta preface first. I\u2019ve never flown a 7-3. I flew the 7-2, 7-5, 7-6, and triple 7. And about 20,000 hours. And I will say that they were trying to make the common type rating because that makes it cheaper for the airline. So if an airline flies a version of a 300, a 500, a 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the 7-3, the common type rating, all you have to do is get differences training. So they do the same type rating ride by the FAA and then you take a little test for the differences between the airplanes.<\/p>\n
Now, for example, I flew the triple seven about 12 years and we had two versions of it, 200ER and LR. Different engines. Pretty much the same systems, but they handle a little bit differently. You could take off with an LR from Johannesburg to Atlanta about 750,000 pounds with a two-engine airplane. Your nose is still way on up there \u2019cause you\u2019re climbing out at about 5,000 foot per minute. Now, in the ER, the same one, you can only fly that at about 600, which is under the gross weight.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Wait, wait. Is the LR longer range than the extended range?<\/p>\n
CALLER: Yeah. It will do about 8,000 miles point A to point B with reserves.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Right.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Longest commercial aircraft there is other than, say, a Gulfstream 650ER. That will do the same mileage or greater. But, as far as commercial passenger aircraft, the triple seven LR is the longest range airplane currently flying. Now, the Airbus 350 tried to compete with it, but personally if it ain\u2019t Boeing, I ain\u2019t going.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Right, but back to your original point because time is limited. The idea of the manufacturer is to build airplanes that have similar type ratings so that if you fly one you can fly the other with just a few hours in a simulator. You don\u2019t have to relearn how to fly every new airplane that\u2019s made.<\/p>\n
CALLER: That\u2019s correct. Spot-on. Exactly. It\u2019s cost of training.<\/p>\n
RUSH: And with the 737 Max, they had to hurry things along, and it is a different experience, it does have a different rating, but they weren\u2019t quite up front enough about that. Right?<\/p>\n
CALLER: That\u2019s correct. And you also have to look at who\u2019s flying those airplanes. The latest one that went down, I feel bad for everything, but you have to also look at the training and the experience of the pilots flying.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Well, I tell you what. If these two crashes, if those two airplanes had been a Southwest Airlines or an American Airlines jet, if either one of those, that airplane would have been grounded that day. But since it was Ethiopian and Lion Air, there was a little bit of a — and that\u2019s just a difference in the perceived quality experience of various nations and their airline system. I gotta run.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 The system that I described — the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System — is designed to compensate for the increased angle of attack, the elevation of the nose as the airplane takes off and is flying through the air.\u00a0 That\u2019s the angle of the attack, and the higher the angle of attack, the greater — even though it\u2019s remote, but the greater — the risk of a stall or that the airplane\u2019s computer can think it\u2019s in a stall.<\/p>\n
You don\u2019t want that.\u00a0 You don\u2019t want to be in a stall. You don\u2019t want the aircraft\u2019s computer to think.\u00a0 So they put this system in to compensate for the higher angle of attack called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, and that is a computer program that automatically trims the horizontal stabilizer to bring the nose down.\u00a0 So you\u2019ve got two things working against each other here which should not happen.\u00a0 You shouldn\u2019t need to have something on an airplane that… A pilot would probably call this a “jury-rig.”<\/p>\n
So they set up this MCAS, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, to keep the nose down using the rear stabilizer to compensate for the higher angle of attack brought about by the redesign necessary for the new engines.\u00a0 So a pilot would probably tell you that any time you require a jury-rig like this to fly airplane, that it\u2019s a red flag.\u00a0 It shouldn\u2019t be necessary.\u00a0 It\u2019s something that you shouldn\u2019t need a computer. Now, if you\u2019re flying something like the stealth bomber which has no elevators — the B-2, which is just a flying wing — that thing can\u2019t fly without a computer flying it.<\/p>\n
A human being cannot keep the B-2 in the air because there\u2019s no vertical elevator.\u00a0 That thing is a flying wing, and the computer is making precise, infinitesimally microscopic changes in the flight control systems to keep that airplane from spiraling down and crashing, because there\u2019s no way it flies without a computer being able to do it. On a commercial aircraft, you shouldn\u2019t have to need things like that.\u00a0 That\u2019s why you have pilots.\u00a0 Pilots can be able to manually run the trim on the rear stabilizer and compensate.<\/p>\n
But the more you put this up to a computer… We all know computer glitches, and if there\u2019s a disagreement in the sensors in the cockpit that are calculating the angle of attack — if there\u2019s any kind of a disparity or disagreement between that and the MCAS system — then you should ground the airplane.\u00a0 You shouldn\u2019t take it off if there\u2019s a massive disparity in agreement between the sensors and the MCAS system.\u00a0 So I just wanted to wrap that up because most pilots would probably call this a jury-rig.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m putting words in their mouths, but it shouldn\u2019t require that.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: Okay.\u00a0 Here\u2019s Stewart, West Hartford, Connecticut.\u00a0 Somebody still lives in Connecticut.\u00a0 Great to have you on the program, sir.\u00a0 Hi.<\/p>\n
CALLER:\u00a0 Hi, Rush.\u00a0 I\u2019m an 81-year-old retired Pratt & Whitney engineer, and I just wanted to give you a little update on the difference in the engines.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to talk about the incidents.\u00a0 This is basically trying to educate the listeners and yourself.\u00a0 Most commercial engines are twin-spool engines.\u00a0 There\u2019s really no difference between a GE engine or a Pratt & Whitney engine in performance.<\/p>\n
However, many years ago Pratt & Whitney discovered a way of changing the performance of an engine by incorporating what they call a geared turbine in the engine itself.\u00a0 GE elected not to do that, and it continued on its path of engines.\u00a0 Pratt worked feverishly for 20 years developing this concept.\u00a0 It came about recently, and they sold it to Airbus.\u00a0 The benefit of that is the performance of that is phenomenal.\u00a0 The fuel burn is unbelievable.\u00a0 The other engine by GE, under CFM, is the same old kind of engine.\u00a0 They tried to sell the —<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 Now, wait a minute. \u00a0Some people… The CFM is what\u2019s on the 738 Max.\u00a0 Is that what you\u2019re saying?<\/p>\n
CALLER: Correct.\u00a0 Right.<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 Just wanted to stipulate that.\u00a0 I knew that, but I wanted to make sure everybody else knew.<\/p>\n
CALLER: (chuckling) Right.\u00a0 I\u2019m a little nervous here.<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 Well, you don\u2019t sound nervous.\u00a0 My God, you\u2019re 81.\u00a0 You\u2019ve seen everything.\u00a0 There\u2019s no way you can be nervous.<\/p>\n
CALLER: (laughing) That\u2019s true.\u00a0 But I\u2019ve been a follower of you all these years, and it\u2019s an honor to talk to you.<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 I appreciate that.\u00a0 I really do.\u00a0 So the bottom line is Airbus has a distinct advantage with that engine —<\/p>\n
CALLER:\u00a0 Correct.<\/p>\n
RUSH: — in terms of fuel efficiency and economy?<\/p>\n
CALLER:\u00a0 Absolutely, and emissions.\u00a0 There\u2019s low emissions.\u00a0 It is so quiet that you can almost be standing next to it and you don\u2019t hear it.\u00a0 I know I\u2019m exaggerating some of these things, but if people would look into it — and it\u2019s their latest and greatest engine.\u00a0 They were shocked.\u00a0 They were so shocked — I\u2019m talking about CFM — that they didn\u2019t know what to do.<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 Right, and this was Boeing\u2019s trying to keep up with this.<\/p>\n
CALLER:\u00a0 Correct.\u00a0 So they\u2019ve been tweaking and tweaking and tweaking — and it\u2019s very hard to tweak these engines to get more and more out of it.\u00a0 The one that\u2019s Pratt & Whitney — called the GTF, Geared Turbofan — is totally in a different class by itself.\u00a0 All I\u2019m saying is, because of that, whatever changes they had to make to the airplanes on the Max is a result of not being to have an engine like the Pratt engine which would have been a smaller engine and there probably would have been no changes to the body or anything.<\/p>\n
RUSH:\u00a0 Right.\u00a0 But since they couldn\u2019t do that, they had to make modifications in the body, meaning the design of the airplane.\u00a0 If you get right down to it, it\u2019s not a 737.\u00a0 It looks like a larger 737, but engineering-wise it\u2019s a different airplane. Look, I really don\u2019t want to come down on Boeing here.\u00a0 They may deserve it for certain things, but they\u2019re such a great company, and they\u2019re gonna rebound from this.\u00a0 But they just… The previous caller talked about it.<\/p>\n
In your whole fleet… Like, Boeing has the 7… Well, the don\u2019t have the \u201927 no longer. The \u201937, the \u201947, and all the different series, the \u201957, \u201967, the 777, 787. They try to make the flight experience for the pilots similar enough that it\u2019s not a major deal to get pilots type rated in each different upper.\u00a0 And for manufacturing purposes, you want to be able to have at least some consistency from model to model to model just for the cost of it.<\/p>\n
And they tried. They went a little bit too far in the 737 Max 8 and Max 9.\u00a0 There\u2019s a Max 9 out there flying around too.\u00a0 Anyway…\u00a0 But it was the competition with Airbus.\u00a0 Airbus, all they had to do was put these new engines on their existing airplanes.\u00a0 Boeing could not do that.\u00a0 They couldn\u2019t put new engines on an existing 737.\u00a0 They needed a bigger plane to be able to compete.\u00a0 I appreciate the call, Stewart, and I\u2019m glad you waited.\u00a0 I appreciate your patience as well.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: Hey, I got a quick airplane question for you, folks. When you\u2019re in an airliner taking off\/landing when you\u2019re flying, do you want to hear the sounds? Do you want to hear the engines rev up for takeoff? Do you want to know you\u2019re taking off by virtue of what you\u2019re hearing? Do you want to be able to hear the flaps being lowered, do you want to hear the landing gear going up and down, do you want to be able to hear when descent happens — feel its slowdown, the rush of air in descent and the nose dropping?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/APP-031419-737-Max-Southwest.jpg\")
Do you want to know all that when you\u2019re flying? (interruption) Airbus designs its airplanes to limit as much of that noise as possible. It\u2019s just a competitive thing, especially the A380, that gigantic two-story thing? You cannot… If you\u2019re inside most planes, you cannot tell when the engines are revved. The only sense that you have that you\u2019re taking off is you have a sense of a higher speed. But the sounds associated with the airplane and flight you don\u2019t hear. That\u2019s how quiet they\u2019ve made the cabin and the engines.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s kind of unnerving for some people. (interruption) Not… (interruption) Well, no, no, no. They can\u2019t change turbulence. Just you don\u2019t hear the engine. You\u2019re rolling down for takeoff, but you don\u2019t know it because you don\u2019t hear the engine. The only way you can know it is the sense of speed. Some people, this makes \u2019em nervous. They want to hear the evidence that everything\u2019s working! Other people love the quiet.<\/p>\n
When you\u2019re on a boat… Like, let\u2019s say you\u2019re on a Bill Kristol cruise. The only noise you can hear is those Never Trumper flap-gummer lecturers. You don\u2019t hear the engine on a big cruise ship, do you? You do not. For a whole host of reasons, you don\u2019t. You just have a sense you\u2019re plowing through the waves there. You can see it, but if you\u2019re in your cabin… You know, you feel the roll of the waves. You don\u2019t hear the chop.<\/p>\n
But you never hear the engine of a cruise ship. Most airplanes you can\u2019t avoid it. Now, Boeing wants customers to hear. They want customers to have the comfort that the systems are working. The reason I ask is this is a factor in the new engines that they put on the A320 that Boeing was trying to compete with the 737 Max. The competition… Capitalist competition, I have to say, folks, it is just vicious out there, and most people are not taught to respect it. They\u2019re taught to hate it so. But it\u2019s fascinating stuff to me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
RUSH: I now think that I have a real good understanding of what happened here. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":302481,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n