You need to take a look at where they mounted the Engines on the 787 and 777X from the side - Very MAX like. They got a nice Aero benefit out of this placement.
Nope. We discussed this one years ago and those in the know told us that putting a big honking engine nacelle up in front of the leading edge of the wing as high as that is suboptimal and is just a trade off for not wanting to spend time and money extending the gear. Your statement just seems ignorantly biased to me boiling down to “Only Boeing does it this way, but because they are doing it it must be better”. At least that’s how it sounds.
I was responding to the OP's points on why the MAX is fundamentally flawed; he started with the crammed engines and then descended (pun intended) into even more ridiculous reasons.
He claimed part of the fundamental flaw was a different BPR than before. But of course the NG had a different BPR than the previous versions of the 737, too. BPR was designed for the aircraft in the sense that this variant of the engine was specifically made with a fan diameter to accommodate the MAX design, and that affects the BPR. The engine was designed at that variant specificially for the MAX.
The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous because it was only MCAS that was poorly designed and implemented. If MCAS had been done correctly the MAX would still be flying and would have had a comparable safety record to all other recent 737s and nobody would be saying the aircraft was flawed. It's my understanding that the 767 also as MCAS-like functionality and nobody is saying that it is fundamentally flawed. The original argument for "fundamentally flawed" is nice revisionist history now that the poster can look back at what happened. But the reality is not that the A/C itself is fundamentally flawed, it is that MCAS was a disastrously bad implementation and that is what was the fundamental problem with this aircraft.
But the size of the fan (a product of seeking a higher BPR) is too big for the design as it is and poses an issue that they failed miserably in trying to fix. Had the fan been smaller it’s quite possible this wouldn’t ever have happened as the engine could be mounted in a better place, but then the aircraft is less efficient. There were two designs of the LEAP-1B that were drawn up before the MAX itself was fully designed and they opted for the larger size, then the engine mounting was designed around this after the dimensions were selected.
The problem is one of philosophy here. MCAS has shown to be fundamentally flawed. The only version of the 737 that reached certification and was signed off as airworthy had this catastrophic system. This as it stands in paperwork is the only 737 MAX that has existed so far. The 737 MAX has flown around with this fundamentally flawed system that has a catastrophic failure model. This system is powerful enough to cause a loss of hull with 100% of people involved dying. This version of the 737 MAX is
fundamentally flawed in that respect. Part of it fails and it kills people and destroys the plane. If they built a plane that was just like a 737 but didn’t have a nose gear, sure most of the plane is a totally ok design, but it is fundamentally flawed because it’s missing a nose gear. This however is a problem that won’t kill 100% of people involved most of the times it is encountered. A car with 3 wheels? Yeah fundamentally flawed. But if that’s fundamentally flawed despite the engine being good and everything but the lack of the one wheel, why is something that kills 346 people by design not fundamentally flawed. A machine is all of its components working together, if one fails the machine does not work correctly and is flawed. You might not see it this way but I do.
Also, the 767... only a specific version of it has a system like this and unlike MCAS it is implemented because of a different cause and is implemented like any other flight augmentation is (the correct way), again, unlike MCAS.
You are correct that the OP is being ridiculous and going on with fallacy. Like seriously who uses aesthetics as an reason for something being flawed?
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180
2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!