- Видео 12
- Просмотров 171 169
Peter Klanker
Добавлен 2 фев 2018
Видео
Delivering the first LEAP 1A production engines to Airbus
Просмотров 1,1 тыс.6 лет назад
First LEAP 1A production engines to Airbus
Boeing 737 Max Program LEAPs into Engine Testing
Просмотров 1876 лет назад
Boeing 737 Max Program LEAPs into Engine Testing
LEAP Engines - CFM International Jet Engines CFM International
Просмотров 3736 лет назад
LEAP Engines TEST
This engine is almost identical to GEnx 1b engines. The composite fan blades and fan case, 10 stage hpc and 2 stage hpt and the introduction of turbine center frames makes me think is this a smaller GEnx? 😅 it’s a great achievement to improve the cfm56-7b engine by this fuel efficient engine can’t wait to maintain it 😊
Is better the 737 Ng even if it is less modern and consumes a little more fuel, it is good in flight and stable and has no problems from right to left
i Just want to know why Boeing is not go with the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress engine type or style? kindly answer me if anybody know? or is it a factor of commercial or defense aircraft?
thank you so much for uploading. i referred to amm and this Video before i managed toi start up my first Leap 1B
- An engine is missing. This is due tu manufacturing process. This aircraft is perfectly serviceable. You can fly ✅
Wow
If the engine is spitting fire, the engine is completly serviceable. You can fly ✅
You can tell how enthusiastic those two pilots were. 😰
Some engines may be upside down, or not even attached to the plane. This is due to the outsourcing of maintenance to chimpanzees in the Amazonian jungle. This is completely serviceable. You can go! 👍
-7b has 24 fan blades not 36 as implied by Miss Priss
Lets be honest they are too big to fit the max and the software to hide this massive oversight caused all those crashes and deaths
Nah, the problem with the max was simple. It handled different than the NG, and the software was made so both flew the same. That way you wouldn't need any simulator training for the MAX... it has been proven and tested by EASA that the plan can safely fly and operate in all condition without any software help. Also.. a software to correct or modify a plane behavior is pretty common. As a matter of fact. The B737 (any version, including the MAX) is one of the less complicated airplanes, the only big airlines still in production that uses hydraulic controls over fly-by-wire. So the pilots control the aircraft directly. In the case of any airbus, the plane is flown by a computer, and it's behavior is heavily modified...
www.gofundme.com/f/clean-air-0-noise-amp-cheap-flights?+share-flow-1
Thank you
WRONG computer voice CFM56-7. has 24 wide chord fan blades. CFM56-5B has 36 fan blades. 48 year AMT
Cut the fuel consumption by 40% but almost doubling the selling price.
My airplane has a nose wheel.....not a noise wheel as the narrator said is fitted to the 737 max.....unless my tyre pops and then I have noisy nose wheel......and it’s easy to clean up her breaths....send the trk over...I can edit them out.
The NG The best 737 ever.
An air flow self sustained rotational engine buster and core with a debris bypass.
CFM guys: 30:24 LEAP Keep Out Zone arrowhead points to the CFM56 zone (wrong zone).
they added the bigger Engines by raising the engine up not making the nose gear bigger
Sexy female voice: The whole engine is missing, this is your imagination. You can go.
Can an aviation expert inform me how bigger engine or more powerful engine makes less fuel consumption ?? As I know in any mechanical system bigger engine means more fuel consumption ......
Lower rpm for the same amount of power as the older engine acheived through higher rpm. An engine that has power sooner and revs less will consume less.
Shadow Opp.'s RC There’s no reason RPM is a problem
Really the only thing bigger on this engine is the N1 fan. The core of the engine is actually pretty small, hence the 9:1 bypass ratio.
Lower RPM, higher pressure. = more power, less fuel
Well they didn’t “extend” the nose gear much if at all what they did was they moved the leap engines forward and up which caused the plane to pitch up. With that they installed the MCAS system. For that they needed Another AoA on the front of the plane to measure pitch. BUT the AoA systems are known to fail. That’s why the MAX’s have been crashing. 👍🏻
Has this been remedied?
@@angelamarie222 Yep, its been re-certified so "safe" as any plane out there hopefully lol
How does this differ from the latest accident reports on other engines by this manufacturer? The world has not seen such a combination of high risk transport options since they had richshaw racing in calcutter...contagien will spread to boeing suppliers unless they walk away from this failed project.
Most people do not complain about the design of the plane with new big engines, it is MCAS as it is suppose to be a safety feature but it turn out to be a killer, Boeing should take note that all safety features should be priced in the selling price and not treated as optional, period
Obviously the MAX family needs redesigning. What's urgently needed is a taller landing gear that would allow the Leap Engines to be placed lower and backward, pretty much like the placement of older engines so as to use the CG and thrust parameters as it was originally designed. The new Leap Engines are placed in the wrong place.
Exactly! But its like teaching a pig to sing. Not going to happen and you only annoy the pig. JMHO of course... 8)
Don't you wish you could go back in time and tell Boeing and CFM that this is the wrong engine for the 737? This engine would have been perfect on a 757.
Boeing MAX? - Maximum disappointment. Shame ding ding ding - Shame ding ding ding - what a spectacle you made of your self over the years, "Boeing" shame on you Not likely i'll be boarding any of your newer types soon, if at all ever again. Whatever flight i can book arround your newer types brand - eaven if this might mean loosing time over sea by travelling by boat. Better to choose a destination according to type of airecraft brand and savety ariving alive, than puting choise and chanses in hands of your coöparion dessisions founded on greed and haste to serves your competitive proffit urge over safety. Even buying a ticked from a coöperet profit junky proves to be deadly now a day's. Money drug kills no different. Junky habits, not being strong enough to fight this urge puting not only your own - but life of others at stake, clouding judgement over common sense. The responsiblility of choises on that scale no longer suits you nore is founded to be save in the hand of your coöperate staff nor leaders nor its software developers. You totally prooved Newer is not always better. 2.0 for the benefit of some bug$$$ compeating and staking bets over the lives your passenger while yourself traveling in cöoperative yetstream liners, you prooved you can't be trusted with your own line of policy. Your "Max" made Boeing the PANAM of the future. If your competition was aimed to "win" from Airbus. you cleary "lost" big time. Going for the Max ending up with the minimum. Rather take my chanses elsewere - what ever the route will take me wide around boeing. The romantic highlight days of the 777 are over. now they are a reminder of what coöperations like yourself wil go to arms length - smudging the fine reputation of the 777 in the hands of your leaders of today and tomorrow. No longer shall i contribute of glorefying Boeing 777, from now on ill refer tot the 777 as the A380 and a half, Hoping this will put distance between "Boeing as brand name from the branded name, to atleast respect the those that made 777 (stand corrected) the older "A380 and a half" a remarkable timeless beauty of the sky Your directors and developers that most likely fly in your private charterd liniar yets should have tested these planes them self on board of third world countries. One can not name this to be a coincedence with a streight face, of course accedents on this scale only happens to be first with 3th and second world country's like Ethiopia and Indonesia. Ofcourse your own relatives where never even close on these two modern flying softwere coffins. You surely took the romance of flying out of the sky. This of course would never happen with a Boeing Max taking off from JFK, nor close from Whashington of any air poirt close from NY. No, it always is from some far-a-way thirworld country. acompanied with your of course being sorry again and the acompanied excusses, surely fiering down instead of up keeping the wrong dssion makers safely in place. Ethiopia, let this be a wise lesson for you! You old planes where just fine. Beter spend your money on "food" and infra structure than on newer types of planes. What where you thinking? By adding newer planes to your fleet you could save a bug or to too? think again. If something new comes along, wait a view years till they workded out all the bugsss but even stil...shouldn't you have other priority's?
No delays or cancellations by just ignoring everything that should be important to check with a technician. No wonder why this plane crashes.
There is absolutely nothing "refined or uncluttered" about the 737 Max or any other 737 cockpit. I've flown a large variety of airliners (nine type ratings on my ATP) including a variety of 737s and it has by far the most cluttered, unrefined, unergonomic cockpit of any airliner I've flown. It's notable you didn't show the horrible vintage overhead panel which has absolutely nothing to recommend it from lack of logical layout, to toggle switches that rake your head when you try to get in and out of the cockpit, even when you're trying to be careful.
737 max : 2 fatal accidents in 6 months.. i prefer the old 737.its a little more spender but its one of the more safety aircraft ever made.
Next Leap 1A For A 320 Neo!
Of course, they could call it the 320 Max!
Das kotten picken sparken fuzen max 8 engine. Es machen broken shrieken blasten zound. Funken flamen spitten exploden dann das fly maschine krashen to den ground. Wunderbar.
Forgot to mention compromised aerodynamics, increase possibility of a stall, and the addition of the MCAS system for the MAX
Nobody knew about it lol
okay how do you top up the oil ?
neil beeline John deer alq75
Very interesting, what a pity the engine is three feet too far forward which makes the 737 Max unflyable.
Maybe flawed design but also over reliance on automation to make up for the experince older pilots have day of miracle on the hudson pilots is setting.
Hm.... no news about geared turbofan from prat n whitney??
PLEASE do not use computer generated narrations.
They are pretty damn good.
The computer generated voice is making me horny.
One More Explanation Need Abouth Boeing 737 Max 8, Is Abouth Electronik Safety System Have ThisThe Electronik System Safe From Interparent From Others Transmiter , Hope All Electronik 737 Max Seald With Anti Others Frequency Fluence By All Transmiter On Air, ..... God Bless All, ..... Bravo.
This Great great Explanation Have Much Meaning To Find What And Where Happening Problem Come Of Boeing 737 Max Get Crash On Take Of Position, .... God Bless Sir, ...... Bravo.
Sounds like the 737 MAX is too over-engined which leads to high AoA due to engine placement over the 737 NG...which required Boeing to install the MCAS...which lead to disaster.
Somebody at Boeing has an incorrect theory of operation of MCAS which to me suggests insufficient testing or substituting digital modelling for testing.
@@michaelmagyar5734 yupp. It was to rush into market and collect the millions. Cold comfort for the people that lost their lives.
The 737 airframe or fuselage 52 years old did not have a new engine option. The A320 did being higher off the ground. The Max was a dud right from the word go, Leap turbo fans too big and too heavy, consequently the aerodynamics of the plane were knocked out, but wait, lets install MCAS said Boeing. And so it flew, well sort of. With faulty data from one AOA sensor it flew..........nose down. The solution. Re engine and dump MCAS.
MCAS in 737 MAX only uses 1 sensor which is not very proper development. They should've put 2 instead of 1
"If it arent Boeing, I'm not going" ... er, hang on, heck ... let's take the car
A plane that falls out of the sky marketed to developing countries and unsuspecting airlines. Let’s get rid of the AirBus a380, a spacious very safe aircraft and force people into smaller planes built by Boeing that have a built in feature that kills scores of people. Boeing is very proud of it’s accomplishments in forcing out competition and the murder of people then forced to fly on its planes.
For the record - Airbus had THREE A330 planes with similar attitude-correction systems have "incidents", one had 119 people injured. In those instances, the computer was receiving unusual data and was indicating stall and overspeed simultaneously. Yes, those flights landed safely, but Airbus is NOT immune to similar happenings. The difference seems to be that Airbus had limited the trim authority to 10° (actually TWO protections kicked in, the total trim command from the two was 10°), it seems no such limit was in place by Boeing (though the software fix due in April may include such limits). It also sounds like the FAA may hold some responsibility, allowing Boeing to "self-regulate" and just rubber-stamped whatever Boeing put in front of them due to staffing shortages, rather than reviewing and verifying what was presented.
They couldn't have made the E.A.I Engine Anti ice automatic? Still i suppose the MAX is better than the NG.
From all the write up you will summarise that the cause is the new software installed and Boeing just sell their product and not educate pilots what the software can do to a aircraft
Great video, please post more if you can..thanks
The public has lost trust in Being since two of their latest Boeing 737 Max crushed in less then 6 month. I certainly wouldn't fly on Boeing! Coz they put profit before safety!
Every thing in the USA is like that, Its called Capitalism and its very EVIL
@@RussellD11 And how does socialism avoid this? There's plenty of evil to go around.
It's a lot more complex than that. But it is Boeing's fault, as well as the U.S. government/FAA, for a lack of Federal [Engineering] oversight in ensuring/ enforcing the safety of the airframe type certification, and allowing Boeing to keep the same certification under 737 series, despite major changes to the airframe/ powertrain.
@@michaelmagyar5734 Mr Hungarian man! : )
when someone says "perfectly xxxx" you know they are hiding sth!
Can't you afford a real person to read this? I will go elsewhere for this omportant information.
Good luck with that, this video was done by the manufacturer.