Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737 Engines  
User currently offlineCaplanet84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1198 times:

How come the engines on many 737s are not perfectly round? They look sort of like an oval and not round like many other jet engines.


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Chris Barrow



14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKing air From United States of America, joined May 1999, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1130 times:

They were flattened on the bottom for ground clearance. This shape was found to actully increase air flow into the engine. If you were to stand next to one on a ramp you would see just how close they come to the ground. If the cowling was round it would scrape the ground on taxi way bumps and some landings.

User currently offlinePilotallen From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 656 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

I just have one question are the planes still in a circular shape? are they moved back further? cause like the bottom being flat and all, hard to ask this question dont know how to word it


Thats not flying, thats falling with style -Woody
User currently offlinePilotallen From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 656 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1104 times:

I just have one question are the planes still in a circular shape? are they moved back further? cause like the bottom being flat and all, hard to ask this question dont know how to word it


Thats not flying, thats falling with style -Woody
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1085 times:

To increase ground clearance, the engine gearbox is mounted on the left side of the engine rather than the bottom of the engine. With the gearbox on the side of the engine they were able to produce an oval nacelle. The engine itself is round.


You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineSouthern From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

it took me a while to find out too but when i was down on the tarmac the engines were very close to the ground, if they were round it would scrape against the ground when you land or are taxing as the wing would bounce

User currently offlineAmericanmd80 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 491 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1037 times:

It gives it a unique look!

 

~americanmd80~



do what you like . like what you do . life is good
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

Also, another thing done to the 737-300/400/500 to increase engine clearance was to install a taller nose wheel/tire than the 737-100/200.


You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1018 times:

However, you might want to note that the engine nacelle on the 733/734/735 are unique to that plane because of the gear design, which was almost identical to 731/732's. This was so it could accommodate the much wider fan blade of the CFM56 engine without causing ground clearance problems.

The 736/737NG/738/739 models lack this nacelle design, since the new wing and landing gear design on the Next-Generation 737 no longer requires the flattened bottom on the nacelle itself.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1014 times:

Wouldn't it be more of a FOD issue?

User currently offlineBrouser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1013 times:

Yeah, FOD is all part of the mix. Greater ground clearance equals less damage from both ground scrapes AND sucking in debris.

User currently offlineSpaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1011 times:

I think Boeing made a desigh flaw of making the 737 so short. It is litterally half as tall as other airplanes. To make it worst they have to make engines which are not round at the bottom so it won't scrape the ground. It makes look awkward and weird too.

User currently offlineRunway From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 991 times:

The Boeing 737 has been one of the most sucessful commercial aircraft ever built. The first series were built with a low bypass engine that are by todays standards a little too noisy and less fuel efficient than newer ones.
The best way to solve this (problem), without designing a whole new a/c is to equip them with new engines, like CFM56, or V2500. These are high bypass engines that require a large fan for thrust, which in its self would fit under the wing, however some acc had to be repositioned inside the cowl, and the cowl cut to give it reasonable ground clearance.  


User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 981 times:

Spaceman:

There is no 'design flaw' in the 737 being so short. If you would've looked at the history of the 737 before making such a remark you would see that it's short for a reason.

When the 737 was designed it was built with rural airports in mind. Airports that wouldn't have alot of support equipment around. The 737 is short so that most everything is within easy reach of ground operators. I could go on and on, maybe a ramp rat can elaborate further?


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 970 times:

You would think FOD would be more prevalent in an engine so close to the ground as opposed to one higher up. But it has been my experience that the 737-300 had relatively few incidents of FOD ingestion as opposed to the MD80 which suffered frequently from fan damage. The MD80 is legendary for the main tires kicking FOD into the engine intakes. The 737 with its engines in front of the main gear isn't as susceptable.


You're only as good as your last departure.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Sucker" Doors On 737 Engines posted Sat Oct 28 2000 05:52:27 by DesertJets
737 Engines posted Tue Aug 29 2000 02:32:44 by Tupolev154B2
737 Engines posted Fri Jul 28 2000 20:17:35 by Caplanet84
Question About The 737 Engines posted Thu Apr 1 1999 02:30:16 by FirstClass
Shock Announcement - 737 With CFM Engines posted Tue Jun 20 2006 22:58:07 by Kiwiandrew
Fourth Generation 737 To Offer IAE And CFM Engines posted Sun Jun 12 2005 15:09:37 by Jet-lagged
KLM 737 With 3 Engines posted Thu Sep 12 2002 23:52:41 by Lindy
737 With 4 Engines posted Thu Aug 29 2002 17:08:12 by Fsuwxman
New 737 With Special Engines posted Mon Feb 11 2002 23:21:28 by Racko
737-200 New Engines posted Fri Apr 27 2001 10:34:30 by LBA