Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not Round Engines Intake On 737 NG's?  
User currently offlineJgore From Argentina, joined Feb 2002, 550 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6457 times:

I always liked those new 737 NG engines, but never asked myself why the engine's intake is not completely round, just because I didn't pay attention.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gregg Stansbery



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Ronciere



Now that I do, I ask to myself and you guys:
This kind of intake isn't inefficient ?. What do you think this shape would be intended for ?

Thanks.

Jgore  Smile

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCovert From Ghana, joined Oct 2001, 1445 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6455 times:

Same as why it isn't round on the -300......

Do you want the bottom to scrape the ground?



thank goodness for TCAS !
User currently offlineJgore From Argentina, joined Feb 2002, 550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6443 times:

"Do you want the bottom to scrape the ground?"

Mmmmm, I'm afraid that's not the reason. According to what you say, it would happend with the GE90s also.

Just guessing, don't know though.


Jgore  Smile


User currently offlineNdege From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6435 times:

Everything I've ever heard or read says it's because of ground clearance with possible wing flexing. The 777 has a little more clearance than a 737. I've wondered why Boeing didn't extend the gear struts a little more, but I'm sure as I'm not an engineer and definitely not paid to come up with these questions and excuses for them, there's probably a very valid reason for it.

BL


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6260 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6414 times:

If you look closely you will see that the 737NG does indedd have a rounder inlet that the -300 through -600. The reason is that the gear is slightly longer.

"The 777 has a little more clearance than a 737." A little? Maybe 6 feet or so.



Is grammar no longer taught is schools? Saying "me and her" or some such implies illiteracy.
User currently offlineCdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1338 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6415 times:

The 737-300 shares a common airframe with the earlier 737s. The CFMs are obviously bigger than the Pratss, so the design of the engine with the "flat bottom" was necessary. Accessories were located to the side instead of the bottom.
There is no effect on efficiency. The powerplant itself is just as round as any other. Its the Cowling (Nose, Fan and Core - TRs) that is oval. The accessories on ths side gives the engine its overall oval shape.

P.S. - U r aware that the 2 aircraft that u have pictured are not Next Gen 737s??


User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3596 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing did not extend the 737 struts on the -300/-400/-500 and only slightly on the NG's to keep the airplane low enough to not need any ground equipment for fueling, cargo loading, engine maintenace. This and the larger size of the CFM engines compared to the P&W, meant there had to be a flattened bottom to ensure that there was enough clearance.

User currently offlineNdege From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6346 times:

"The 777 has a little more clearance than a 737." A little? Maybe 6 feet or so.

I was using some strange lingual instrument to downplay the extremity of the difference. What do you call that one again?

BL


User currently offlineSudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6292 times:

I was a little lost on this topic to begin with, cause the easiest way to differ a the older from the NG up front is the engines. The NG don't have the oval shape.

Aim for the sky.
Sudden



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3378 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 6262 times:

Reading an AW&ST article a good while ago re: stage IV noise requirements Boeing basicaly said that further extending the gear (in this case to make room for larger, higher bypass engines) would not be worth it. The amount of redesign necesary for the wing and central fues would be extensive. I guess its already packed pretty tight in there.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineGaruda From Indonesia, joined Nov 2000, 584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6232 times:

Just an addition... Extending the gear also mean adding more weight, reducing payload/range.

User currently offlineCdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1338 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6203 times:

The Next Gens are still oval. It just isn't as pronounced as it is on the Classic B7373s

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6188 times:

Some knowledgeable forum member once mentioned that the asymmetrical inlet form does indeed reduce the efficiency of the engines by a few percent. But as had been said, this loss was deemed acceptable when considering the overall cost/benefit relation.

User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6191 times:

Mmmmm, I'm afraid that's not the reason

Mmmmmm, afraid that *IS* the reason.

Read up on your 737 history at the Boeing web site...

The Boeing 737-300

The Boeing 737-300 program was launched in March 1981. The market requirements for this derivative airplane became clear during the late 1970s in an environment of airline deregulation and the fierce competition that followed.

As a result of increased competition, there were changes in the way air routes were served at that time. Airplanes flew into airports operated as hubs, then dispersed into a spoke configuration, often to short distance destinations. The 737 proved ideal for airlines operating frequent short-to-medium-range routes.

A fuselage extension of 104 inches (2.6 m) allowed the 737-300 to accommodate seats for up to 20 more passengers than its predecessor, the 737-200 model. In mixed-class service with 36/32-inch pitch (91/81 cm), the -300 seats 128 passengers; in an all-tourist arrangement at 32-inch pitch (81 cm), seating is 140. For inclusive-tour charter service (30-inch pitch, or 76 cm), a maximum of 149 passengers can be carried.

From the outset, one of the main objectives of the 737-300 program was to maintain commonality with the existing fleet. The airplane would use new and larger CFM56-3 engines, an advanced-technology flight deck and a common airframe. These features afforded airlines a lower investment in spares, interchangeable flight crews, and less ground support equipment and maintenance training. New aluminum alloys and composites were used to reduce the airplane's weight and aerodynamic improvements were adapted from the 757 and 767 airplanes.

Unlike its predecessor, the 737-200, which was powered by Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines mounted against the underside of the wing in long, thin nacelles, the power plants for the 737-300 -- as well as all subsequent versions of the 737 -- are mounted forward of the wing on struts. The ground-clearance problem created by the larger engines was solved by relocating engine accessories from the bottom of the engine to the side and flattening the bottom of the inlet lip. In addition, the nose wheel unit was attached five inches lower on the fuselage.

The 737-300 also received a new flight deck that makes use of digital technology like that of the 757 and 767. These electronics systems provide concise flight information, allowing increased fuel efficiency and improving the airplane's ability to land in bad weather.

The 737-300 also borrowed the 757-200's interior appointments, which include large enclosed bins, galleys and lavatories located fore and aft; and a wider cabin that allows airlines to choose a larger aisle or more window-seat headroom.

The first 737-300 rolled out of the Boeing Renton, Wash., plant Jan. 17, 1984, and made its initial flight Feb. 24, 1984. That began a nine-month flight test program, during which a fleet of three 737-300s logged nearly 1,300 hours in the air.

Certification of the 737-300 by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration was awarded Nov. 14, 1984. First deliveries of the new aircraft occurred Nov. 28, 1984, to USAir and Nov. 30, 1984, to Southwest Airlines. Both carriers put their new aircraft into revenue service during December 1984. The British Civil Aviation Authority granted certification Jan. 29, 1985, the same day that Orion Airways of Great Britain became the first non-U.S. customer to take delivery of a 737-300.

The world's airlines ordered 1,112 737-300s over the 18 year period from 1981 through 1998. The last 737-300 is scheduled for delivery in December 1999, completing the production transition to its successor, the Next-Generation 737-700. The 737-300 holds a very special place in aviation history as the most popular model of the best-selling jetliner family.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineMandargb From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6063 times:

What I recollect from the book "Boeing Airplanes" (I dont recollect the author now)

737: called as FLUF (Fat Little Ugly Fellow) !
Its mentioned that "flattening the engines not only solved the ground clearance problem but actually slightly improved the performance"

Its not mentioned how much and what kind of performance improvement was achieved.

But primarily it was done to get the better ground clearance.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6260 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6023 times:

Sorry, I missed the fact that your tongue was firmly embedded in cheek when you wrote that the 777 is slightly taller than the 737.  Laugh out loud


Is grammar no longer taught is schools? Saying "me and her" or some such implies illiteracy.
User currently offlineNdege From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6019 times:

I suppose I'll let it slide just this once  Innocent

User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5770 times:

I'm still confused as to whether or not, as Cdfmxtech stated, you're aware that those pictures are of 737 classic and not NG aircraft...

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5614 times:

Its mentioned that "flattening the engines not only solved the ground clearance problem but actually slightly improved the performance"

----

I have seen this also, but in different sources. But this does not neccesarily contradict earlier comments from Klaus and others. My guess would be that it depends on exactly what kind of performance one is talking about.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Not Round Engines Intake On 737 NG's?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 15:38:25 by Pavlin
Why Not Use Goo Tyres On Aircraft posted Tue Feb 1 2005 10:59:27 by Allpress
Why Not Engines On Top Of The Wings? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 00:21:25 by Keta
Lettering On Wings: Why Not Done Anymore? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 03:52:03 by Airwave
Why Not Accelerate Wheels On Landing? posted Mon Sep 12 2005 15:35:41 by TaromA380
Why Not Winglets On Every Airplane? posted Thu Jun 2 2005 18:24:04 by KCMike
Fittings On 737 Engines posted Fri Feb 25 2005 09:24:11 by Scbriml
Winglets On DC10: Why Not? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 07:53:12 by Bruce
Yellow Streaks On 737-200 Engines In-flight..... posted Wed Jan 19 2005 18:42:41 by UK_Dispatcher
Why Do Engines Rumble On Reverse Thrust? posted Fri Aug 20 2004 13:51:28 by NoelG

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format