Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CDGIAD
Topic Author
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:26 pm

737's main landing gear length

Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:34 pm

The 737 having a too short landing gear keeps popping up.

The first versions (732, 733, 734 and 735) had engines that were smaller in diameter, and the short landing gear allowed integrated airstairs which were popular at the time.

But when designing the NG, with the need to fit bigger engines and airstairs being discontinued because of weight, why didn't Boeing lengthen a bit the main gear by moving it 15-20cm outboard of each wing.

How complex is this?
 
User avatar
JBo
Posts: 1834
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:23 am

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:15 pm

I'm wondering if it had to do with retaining commonality with the Classics.
 
jimatkins
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:57 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:20 pm

Pretty sure it requires a whole new center wing box.
 
Starfuryt
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:58 am

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:22 pm

Not to be an asshole, but there are a number of 737 related threads where this has been asked, discussed, and beaten to death more than once. Surely we don't need another thread on this.
 
miegapele
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:30 pm

Airstairs discontinued? But Ryanair has them on threir 737-800
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:42 pm

miegapele wrote:
Airstairs discontinued? But Ryanair has them on threir 737-800


AFAIK they are available still on request on any new builds. Airbus even has them as an option for the A319 ACJ and theoretically could be fitted to a pax frame. So gear length is not a huge deal
 
Max Q
Posts: 9051
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:53 am

Starfuryt wrote:
Not to be an asshole, but there are a number of 737 related threads where this has been asked, discussed, and beaten to death more than once. Surely we don't need another thread on this.



None of these threads are mandatory reading
 
yeelep
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:53 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:06 pm

CDGIAD wrote:
But when designing the NG, with the need to fit bigger engines and airstairs being discontinued because of weight, why didn't Boeing lengthen a bit the main gear by moving it 15-20cm outboard of each wing.

That's exactly what they did. The NG main gear is located 24.5cm outboard relative to the earlier models.
 
CDGIAD
Topic Author
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:26 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:04 pm

yeelep wrote:
CDGIAD wrote:
But when designing the NG, with the need to fit bigger engines and airstairs being discontinued because of weight, why didn't Boeing lengthen a bit the main gear by moving it 15-20cm outboard of each wing.

That's exactly what they did. The NG main gear is located 24.5cm outboard relative to the earlier models.


So the NG is higher vs the ground than the classic?
Interesting.
Still nowhere near enough to accommodate the Max engines.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:37 pm

CDGIAD wrote:
yeelep wrote:
CDGIAD wrote:
But when designing the NG, with the need to fit bigger engines and airstairs being discontinued because of weight, why didn't Boeing lengthen a bit the main gear by moving it 15-20cm outboard of each wing.

That's exactly what they did. The NG main gear is located 24.5cm outboard relative to the earlier models.


So the NG is higher vs the ground than the classic?
Interesting.
Still nowhere near enough to accommodate the Max engines.



Why would the NG need the MAX engines?

The MAX accommodates the MAX engines, so there is no issue there.
 
CDGIAD
Topic Author
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:26 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:42 am

FriscoHeavy wrote:
CDGIAD wrote:
yeelep wrote:
That's exactly what they did. The NG main gear is located 24.5cm outboard relative to the earlier models.


So the NG is higher vs the ground than the classic?
Interesting.
Still nowhere near enough to accommodate the Max engines.



Why would the NG need the MAX engines?

The MAX accommodates the MAX engines, so there is no issue there.


Of course the NG doesn't need the Max engines.
I just wondered if the landing gear modification was only implemented for the Max, as even for the NG, especially the 739 we heard it was too low already.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:13 pm

CDGIAD wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
CDGIAD wrote:

So the NG is higher vs the ground than the classic?
Interesting.
Still nowhere near enough to accommodate the Max engines.



Why would the NG need the MAX engines?

The MAX accommodates the MAX engines, so there is no issue there.


Of course the NG doesn't need the Max engines.
I just wondered if the landing gear modification was only implemented for the Max, as even for the NG, especially the 739 we heard it was too low already.


The gear being too low is very subjective. Does it need more runway than say an A321? Sure. However, to say it's too low isn't an accurate statement as most major airports can handle it without issue and the 737-900ER can fly transcontinental flights without issue.
 
CDGIAD
Topic Author
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:26 pm

Re: 737's main landing gear length

Tue Jul 06, 2021 5:33 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
CDGIAD wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:


Why would the NG need the MAX engines?

The MAX accommodates the MAX engines, so there is no issue there.


Of course the NG doesn't need the Max engines.
I just wondered if the landing gear modification was only implemented for the Max, as even for the NG, especially the 739 we heard it was too low already.


The gear being too low is very subjective. Does it need more runway than say an A321? Sure. However, to say it's too low isn't an accurate statement as most major airports can handle it without issue and the 737-900ER can fly transcontinental flights without issue.


I'm not saying the 739 is an inefficient airplane, simply that it's often mentioned it must take off at a rather shallow angle to avoid a tail strike.
Also during deboarding I've read a couple of times it's tail heavy and passengers seated at the back must deplane first.

Esthetically aircrafts too high vs the ground like the 757 or A350 don't really appeal to me ;-)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos