Aesma wrote:Weatherwatcher1 wrote:IADFCO wrote:The only way I see for a significantly longer landing gear on the 737 is to remove it from inside the wing and move it to some sort of pod C-17-style, without otherwise changing the wing, and changing the central structure as little as possible. This would be major surgery, and not cheap. The only mitigating factor would be that it would not substantially alter the flight loads.
The trunion could be moved outward and lengthen the gear.
I think what people don’t realize is that the shorter gear is also an asset. The shorter gear alleviates the weight and complexity associated with overwinter slides. It also simplifies cargo loading and provides ground access to more panels without lifts or ladders. All of that is helpful to speed up turns.
If Boeing loses that asset but has a more modern, more efficient plane, would they lose sales ? Since no competitor has that asset anyway ?
I think I view the situation differently. How much more efficiency is to be gained by a larger fan diameter vs the efficiency lost by having the added weight of longer gear, overwing slides, powered cargo doors, etc? Engineering is about compromises. Airbus has gone for a larger fan with taller gear, powered cargo doors, overwing slides, etc, just because Airbus did it doesn’t mean it is better.
A and B do look at each other when developing new proposals. If we look in the flight deck, the two have very similar capability evolution over time (RNAV, CPDLC, HUD etc), but Airbus chose to keep the 6 small primary flight displays instead of having more modern larger displays like on the 737MAX or A220. The A321neo copied the 737-900ER exit door configuration. The 737-10 introduced a new main landing gear for increased rotation angle. The 737 has always had shorter gear and a smaller fan, but the 737NG sold awfully well despite having a smaller fan than the A320 when Boeing lengthened the main gear in the 737NG. Boeing lengthened the nose gear on the 737MAX. If a bigger fan justified itself, Boeing could have raised the main gear again on the 737MAX by moving the grunion outboard, but they chose not to.
My point is that The A320 and 737 are both evolving with time. The criteria for how both evaluate upgrades aren’t the same. Just because one is different than the other doesn’t mean that specific upgrade makes sense on the other.