quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
After reading about the internet a bit, I’ve noticed people seem to be up in a knot about the safety of the folding wings. Why all the fuss? Haven’t there been folding wings on aircraft since WWII? I never, not once, recall hearing about a wing folding during flight, except from battle damage. Besides, it’s 3.5 meters of wing. You’d think the crew could trim that out if one folds. Seems like much ado about nothing, and a rather smart solution at crowded airport gates.

I think some are concerned given the Boeing history with the 737 MAX. The MAX was a case of management over promising and making commitments to their customers that were simply foolish. Addition of the larger engines on the MAX required MCAS to preclude a stall possibly becoming unrecoverable. I think Mentour Pilot did a good explanation of that. But the military has some aircraft in their fleet that use MCAS with nary a problem. But their MCAS uses redundant sensors. And (at least from what I've heard from folks like Blanco Lirio) the MAX did not, as addition of a redundant sensor would have made MCAS a "Class D" (IIRC) system which would have required simulator training for the pilots. Something Boeing management had promised would NOT happen. Heck, even the AOA Disagree warning was an (extra cost) option on the MAX. Boeing management cut a LOT of corners to meet the promised delivery date AND the promise that sim training wouldn't be mandatory. This over significant concerns from the technical community. But again, this is just what I've heard from sources. I'm not a 737 pilot. But have done my share of Safety & Reliability analysis. But the FAA should have seen this. A system that could, absent correct pilot intervention, put the aircraft into an unrecoverable condition shouldn't have made it onto an aircraft absent some level of redundancy.

So I do think Boeings track record with the MAX does give rise to concerns about the 777. The design work was largely carried out under the same management regime.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The chase plane was a Canadair CT-133 Silver Star, a licensed copy of the T-33 built in Canada.

Kudos on the specific info. It's amazing to me that they copy such and antiquated design. I suppose they've retrofitted a more efficient engine. And I'd guess that wing is easy to fly, to learn jet operation before dealing with more complex configurations. And I'd guess that with good power and a big wing, it can both slow-down and climb very well.

On the wiki page for the T33:

"Civilian use[edit]
A limited number of T-33s have been owned privately, with two used by Boeing as chase aircraft. In 2010, one T-33 owned by Boeing was used as a chase aircraft during the maiden flight of the Boeing 787.[6] The maiden flight of the Boeing 737 MAX-7 on 16 March 2018 also featured a T-33 chase plane.[7] The maiden flight of the Boeing 777-9 on January 25th 2020 also featured a T-33 chase plane, taking off from KBFI and meeting the 777-9 at KPAE, it stopped at KMWH and it took off again to chase the 777-9 on its way back to KBFI, flying around Mount Rainier before their landing."

From the same Wiki page:

"Boeing Commercial Airplanes (two Canadair CT-133 Silver Stars, N109X and N416X)"

FAA Registry for N109X showing the aircraft was manufactured by Canadair with Rolls Royce engines.

FAA Registry for N416X showing the same thing.

The Lockheed T-33 used Allison engines.

From the Wiki page for the CT-133 under currently operational CT-133s in the USA:

RCAF s/n 21298 - privately owned in Seattle, Washington
RCAF s/n 21369 - privately owned in Seattle, Washington

Those are the serial numbers for the planes linked above in the FAA Registry

And that's why Wikipedia is not a good source of specific information.

Some interesting feedback from a pilot...