I don’t get why they don’t just make it a bit bigger on the inside so that when pressurized, the pressure itself seals it. Seems like a fail safe solution instead of this shadiness.

[–] MigratingApe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

But mah profits!

737 Max is still a developing example of what happens when you leave corporate to self-regulate themselves.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago

It's a well documented that when Boeing merged with McDonald Douglas, they turned from an engineering led company to an executive led one & have been shit since

https://archive.is/vy5p7

[–] AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

I think it's to save space. See: DC-10 Cargo Door fiasco

[–] Starfighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It is, kind of. The plug is secured by 6 stops (or tabs) along each side. The positive pressure differential pushes the plug outwards into those stops.

To remove the plug you uninstall 4 bolts which allow the plug to go up and over the stops, after which it can hinge outwards on a hinge found at the bottom of the plug.

Source: https://youtu.be/WhfK9jlZK1o?si=dbUV1i2nNFcNixQh

[–] EeeDawg101@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Just seems like a better design would be if no bolts existed (like from them loosening over time and falling off), it would still be sealed perfectly fine. The obvious failure point is the bolts and seems they could do better.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It does. It is still a plug-type door. It pushes against 12 stop pads. This design has been used for many years, including on the 737-900 that predated the Max9. You can see the exit plug in this photo form 2007, before the Max was even a thing. Also, cargo doors have worked the same way for many more years than that.

They do it so that the door does not have to swing the whole way inside to fit out.