The solution to that problem is a communication system. A de energized connector makes contact. Some system checks the connection and ensure that it is safe. Only then is the connection energized. Same safety system monitors the connection for any malfunctions.

By the time the aircraft is in stall condition it is going to be very hard to recover from (its too late to adjust the controls when there is no airflow over the control surfaces). So the system tries to anticipate stall and preempt it. Air speed seems relevant, but by the time you’re loosing altitude its clearly too…

Judging from stuff I read on the internet, not exactly. Stall speed depends on two variables, AoA and air speed. MCAS ignores airspeed and only takes into account AoA. Some pilots believe the system would have been more reliable otherwise.

Usually, designers don’t mind multiplying everything by 3. That’s easy. It’s designing additional systems to guard against very unlikely scenarios that is hard.

No it’s just a reminder to build more robust control systems.

As far as the system was concerned, nosing to the ground avoided a stall. Control systems can be stupid like that.

It’s not about which was the nose is pointing to the horizon, but the direction of travel. It’s ok to point up if you’re traveling up, its bad to point up if you are traveling forward.

AoA isn’t the same as pitch, so I’m not sure how IMU is going to help. They aren’t looking for the angle of the plane wing to the horizontal, they are looking for the angle of the plane wing to airflow.

The AoA isn’t the same as the pitch of the aircraft, and so can be hard to tell. Immediate response is necessary because stalls are very bad and hard to get out of. I don’t see anything wrong with having an automated safety system, it just needed much greater robustness, if the AoA sensor is at fault for these…

Curious, if they did use 2 sensors, and one was sending faulty data, how would they know which it was? Seems like you need an odd number of inputs.

This could too.

I'm tempted to dictate a reply

Combined heat will still be approximately the same. Most of it will likely be generated by the first gear clutch pair since those will do the most slipping.

In a few years will see the mechanism powered by several motors and activated by a button or voice commands.

While they could achieve rear weight bias in an all electric, and program the motor controllers to provide power delivery identical to the 911 (you can always artificially restrict low end torque, and electric motors are much easier to control), and they could even pipe fake engine noise into the cabin, no fan will…

Im sure the reliability is at least acceptable, but the maintenance costs have to be stratospheric. But this is not a mass market car, so whatever.

Huh? Musk seem to be on a one man mission to ensure long term survival of mankind primarily by alleviating the effects of climate change. However ineptly and narcissisticly he goes about it, virtually everything his companies do is in service of those goals.

They make a point of re thinking existing concepts. In so doing, they typically favor performance advantages, but at the expense of cost and cost of maintenance.

Im going to give explaining this a try. There are two, separate ideas here. First is all the clutches.

Torque is always transfered thru clutches in any transmission. Even automatics have clutch packs.