https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
I have watched this video by Vox about the 737 max, on how they have adjusted the jet engine height higher than usual (which has affected the physics of the aircraft when taking off). It was acknowledged that the 737 is lower than the A320, and a new engine cannot fit properly. My question is, why did they adjust the jet engines upward instead of making taller landing gears? I mean wouldnt all these issues not happen if they only increased the overall height of the max to match that of the A320?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20385
- Joined:
Re: 737 MAX Height
Taller landing gear has to fit somewhere. You can see in the pic how close the wheels are on a 737 when the gear is retracted.
To fit taller landing gear, you'd have to move the attachment points. That is some major redesign, which would have cost a lot of money not only in certification, but now operators have to get new ground equipment, etc etc.
To fit taller landing gear, you'd have to move the attachment points. That is some major redesign, which would have cost a lot of money not only in certification, but now operators have to get new ground equipment, etc etc.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
Re: 737 MAX Height
Now they are spending a fortune on the damages caused. But no one really knew this would happen looking back
Re: 737 MAX Height
Starlionblue wrote:To fit taller landing gear, you'd have to move the attachment points.
Which would put the landing gear right behind the engines.
-
- GalaxyFlyer
- Posts: 6766
- Joined:
Re: 737 MAX Height
greg85 wrote:The 737 MAX 10 does have longer landing gear.
More accurately, a levered gear, it’s not longer except on rotation.
Re: 737 MAX Height
Starlionblue wrote:Taller landing gear has to fit somewhere.
To fit taller landing gear, you'd have to move the attachment points. That is some major redesign, .
I disagree. There are several engineering solutions to make the gear taller. Even the Concorde, using 1960's technology, had telescoping main landing gear that would get "taller" when extended and "shrink" when retracting. Certainly this technique is well within Boeing's capabilities 60 years later!
No, the main reason for NOT elevating the landing gear was the desire to "grandfather" (more grandfathering on this old design, go figure!) the old escape slide requirements, particularly the over-wing exits not needing slides because of the low height of the airplane.
If the airplane height on the ground was raised up they would have to install and certify expensive escape slides to the overwing exits and perhaps also the 4 main doors additionally. They didn't want to do this so came up with the Max engine nacelle to avoid having to comply with these modern safety regulations.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests