GregTravis

Exactly. Except it’s not flow separation that is the problem. It’s the lift that the nacelles generate combined with their mass and moment far ahead of the center of gravity

It wants to keep pitching up because the engine cowlings are now far ahead of both the center of gravity and the center of lift. And the cowlings generate significant lift themselves. Aerodynamically they act as levers that pull the nose up and the higher the angle of attack, the more they pull. That is dynamic instability and as I point out you want to have ejection seats in any dynamically unstable aircraft (ir fighter jets)

Couple of things here to keep in mind. First, when the A320 came out I wrote extensively about its fly by wire system, which was highly controversial at the time (early 1990s). It’s been nearly thirty years since then and long story short, Airbus has vastly more experience with implementing cockpit automation than Boeing. Boeing simply got in far over their expertise with deadly results

Second, Airbus’ 320 airframe does not impose the same issues with larger engines that the 737 does. For starters, the 330 airframe started life in the era of large high-bypass turbofans — its initisl engines were much larger than the 737’s initisl engines

The 757 flight simulator that I've flown was a full-motion flight simulator at UPS's Louisville training facility. I was helping conduct 6-month certification flights as co-pilot. I would say that if those simulators are good enough for UPS's 757 pilots' recurring training, they're good enough for this Cessna driver to understand that difference between his plane and a 757. Answer: Not that much.

Hello,

This is Gregory Travis, who wrote the original article on which the EE Times article is based. If any of you have a specific question regarding my conclusions or how I got them or want to discuss any statements of fact, I'm more than happy to engage.