Why Are The Bottom Of Boeing 737 Engines Flat?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2021
- The Boeing 737 is among the most popular families of commercial aircraft ever produced. On your travels or in photographs, you may or may not have noticed that this popular aircraft’s engines have a certain visual quirk to their design. Specifically, the engine casing’s bottom flattens out, rather than continuing around with a perfect circular shape. What’s the reason for this oddity?
Article Link: simpleflying.com/boeing-737-e...
Videos:
787-9 737 MAX Norwegian • Norwegian Airlines off...
787 777 737 United • United - Captain your ...
737-200 Nolinor • Nolinor Aviation 737-2...
737-800 American • American Airlines 737-... )
DXB to dwx emirates a380 • A380 flight from Dubai...
737 Unloading cargo timelapse • Video
737-400 Alaska • Alaska Airlines N795AS...
737 Alaska Airlines seattle • Video
Swissport Ground Services Promo • Video
737 Ryanair • Ryanair Boeing 737-800...
737-500 KlasJet • Video
737 Ryanair Stock Footage • Ryanair General Stock ...
737 max flydubai • A6-MAX - our first Boe...
Airbus historical first flights A300 A310 A330 A340 • Airbus historical firs...
737-200 • Boeing 737-200 Landing...
727 • AMAZING STAR-ling Avia...
737-800 American • Boeing ecoDemonstrator...
737-800- Transaero • Boeing 737-800: класс ...
737 Tianjin Air Cargo • Tianjin Air Cargo B-26...
737-900 United • United Airlines 737-90...
737-800 Qantas • Qantas Aircraft landin...
Photos:
pixabay.com/ja/photos/ボーイング-7...
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.com/podcast/
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.com/simple-flyin...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.com/daily-digest/
Check out our second RUclips channel: / @longhaulbysimpleflying
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying
![TRASH or PASS! Eminem ( Houdini ) [REACTION!!!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cB1WrZcMwMc/mqdefault.jpg)
Ground clearance
The early 737’s look so small and strangely cute
I wasn't the only one thinking it looked cute YES!
It is one of the worst-looking planes up through the 700 series. The fuselage is too thick and it is not long enough so it has a stubby appearance It is too bad there were so many made.
😑it's nothing cute like the A350
To me, it looks outdated and an old man.
@@theultraaviator665 100% true
But you didn't talk about how the engine are sitting out farther and have a tilt upward for ground clearance also
I’m not a 737 person because I’ve flown on mainly 737s but I actually think it’s kinda cool that a design 60 years old is still flying
Do you also use a 60s computer, car and phone?
@@sapede nope ive just been unlucky to have 737s pretty much all the time accept the time I flew from Richmond VA to Charolette on an A319 and Chicago to Lacrosse on a CRJ700
Thank you for this video. I've always noticed and thought it was for ground clearance but never took the time to look it up. Channels like this support my laziness.
Considering how many more of the later variants there were than the early variants it’s ironic that Boeing didn’t end up making a clean slate airplane.
Boeing needs to design a new airframe already
It has its only the old ones
That costs 10 years and 25 billion dollars. If you go give them the money I'm sure they'll make it for you. Either way, the Max is at the end of the road. This airframe can't handle anymore upgrades.
@@ejkk9513 AND the MAX has already crashed twice, killing 350+ passengers, in 1 year's time. The so called 'regulators' knowingly lied to us about it being safe.
@@princenoah21 Yes, they did. They got absolutely roasted but ever since then they've been reporting on every issue they've come across. Even Boeing has brought issues to the FAA regarding problems with their planes. They know if one more plane goes down due to a design flaw, they will lose the entire company.
@@ejkk9513 MAX is already beyond the airframe's capacity as we learned the hard way
It catched my eyes when I boarded a Ryanair 737. But this was two years before I became an aviation enthusiast.
On that variant of the CFM56 the accessory gearbox is relocated from the bottom of the engine more to the side which accommodates the ground clearance requirements and results in the odd shaped cowlings. Happy flying all
I’m surprised they didn’t mention moving the gearbox in the video.
Hence the problems with the MAX. Larger engines that needed to be pushed further forward, altering the flying characteristics which was overcome by software.
Oh the software overcome alright...
MCAS: may crash any second
Keep up the good work
I did notice the flat part of the engine on the Boeing 737 I just never knew what it meant or why it was like that
I knew already
Due to how low the 737 was the engine cowling needed to be redesigned for the new CFM 56 when the 737-300 was being designed ,so they made the cowling bottom flat
I've watched many videos on this topic and I still don't get it. The engine blades rotate in a circle, and having a flatter bottom at the front of the engine isn't going to change the diameter of rotation of the blades.
The engine contains many systems, for example hydraulics. These are normally situated in the nacelle, so around the part of the engine the air goes through! What Boeing did with the Classic and NG was to move the parts that were located below the engine to the left and right, that’s how the flattened shape was created! Hope I could help!
The CFM56 is one of my favorite engine designs!
I flew a Piedmont 733 soon after delivery. The engines did indeed look odd but worse were the louder whines and groans. To this day I still prefer the little 100s and 200s.
I certainly did. I also knew that they had to redesign the landing gear on the max
Boeing will literally do anything but redesign the 737
It’s been stretched, modified, retrofitted, and everything else.
The max 10 literally has hydraulic adjustable landing gear so that it can stretch tall enough to not tail strike but still fit in the original gear well.
Now I can tell my dad what it means when we go on our flight tommorow!
haha nice...have a safe journey!
Where u goin
@@aviationgaming1564 poland
@@ujjwlmishr thanks
@@Kipetio from America?
i always thought the flat boottom was such so as to limit ingress of water when operating on a wet runway
Thank you..
Yes, I knew he aircraft engine shape change and appearance by me having to be a former airline employee. But thanks for sharing.
They should simply design a totally new airframe or they're gonna keep getting ground clearance headaches in future
that's the trouble, a new airframe would cost more money, hence why we got the MAX
@@joecrammond6221 but still it would be worth building one wouldn't it?
The 737 MAX crashes were caused exactly by this, they had to move the engines further and higher on the wing to make room for them.
They did, and then they abandoned the new airframe in just 23 years. It was called 757.
The 737 max needs to be scrapped
Nice
Is it just me or does the MAX nacelles seem closer to a perfect circle than those on the NG?
Yep, the engines are bigger and so needed to be moved upwards to fit without having to redesign the fuselage. Also why the 2 MAX crashes happened, because they had to create software to counteract the 'rising of the nose' when climbing. But then that failed...
You are right. But beyond the silver part, the bottom part of the nacelle is also flattened ( and slightly canted ) Similarily to the CFM 56, accessories of the LEAP 1B are also moved upwards, giving the nacelle a hamster's jowl touch
I understand Boeing needed Classic (-300/400/500) to be as similar to the Original (-100/200) as possible so they kept the ground clearance unchanged while fitting engines with larger intake fans. However, Boeing should have started fixing the ground clearance problem with Next Generation (which was introduced later than "long legs" 757). They didn't do so with NG, not even with MAX, and engine intakes kept becoming larger and larger. And then they made the worst decision: abandon 757 and enlarge MAX while moving engines more forward and upward. We all know what happens next.
The main reasons they didn’t do that is A, the need of a severely updated gear and B, type commonality and a missed type rating!
Looking back it would’ve been the right thing to do
Is this a repeat?
Old news.
0:41 what was that beside the Ryanair plane?!
etihad
3:23 a flying mirror
Because the height of day one 737 is inadequate for larger capacity engine.
I always thought its for safe nogear landing lol
Ground clearance. simple. The low to ground profile, while understandable at the time is now one of it's achilles heels.
Yep
This also ultimately resulted in the MAX problems
no I have never noticed that flat bottom.
Isn't this a re-upload??
A220 & E2 have even bigger engine diameter🛫🤓
Yeah, but they also have more ground clearance.
Yes I already knew it
Did they think of extending the landing gear 🤷♂️
737 was design to be low to the ground because of they want the 737 fly like regional plane.. low height plane capable to fly to small airport who doesn't have the boarding stairs or jet bridge.. Like regional plane, some 737 was equipped with onboard airstairs which can be retract into fuselage under the 737 doors.. (correct me if im wrong and sorry for my bad grammar)
The 737 main landing gear must’ve been moved away from the fuselage to still fit into the gear holds, which isn’t easy to do. Also commonality with other 737 variants wouldn’t have been given since you need a roughly identical look out of the cockpit! The from gear on the MAX was extended by the way!
@@izzathaikal54 the a320 was made to compete against the 737 yet the a320 has a higher ground clearance than the 737 so extending the landing gear was an option. So if the a320 can fit into those airports that the 737 can accommodate then what was the reason they could not extend the landing gear
@@obeythecaptain6854 Wheel bay space. To be specific, the space needed to fit the gear when retracted. That would require new airframe rating.
To clarify 737's purpose, they are designed in the era of more limited ground facilities. Lower height means conveyers and lifts are not needed to load bags and cargo; just pick it up from the ground, and load it in. A320 was designed in an era where airports are well-equipped.
Reaching for content, eh... A little thin, eh...
Cause they gots itty bitty short legs and like the oh no bird they would hit the ground when they land
mentour also did a vid about this but it was pretty boring. I noticed it and watched that video but thanks for making a more simplified and easier to understand one!
No way. B737
Ryanair:HARDLANDING
Max?
Boeing should retire this B737 airframe, and build new airframe with larger engine, and more height for ground clearance. Look at B767 and 757, or Airbus airframe that have high ground clearance.
You mean they should build A320s? :-)
Why? You could just buy an A320 or A220.
not for the original version(-100, -200)
yes american airlines does a lot
I think that only exist in 737 max
On the Classic and NG, the MAX has a fairly round nacelle!
I heard people were talking about Boeing copying from the a320neo with round engines and later they created the 737max adding the engines almost above the wings and later 2 planes would crash.
The 737 exterior looks modern but the cockpit looks so ancient
Your pfp is literally a modern 737 cockpit (ik it’s the 787 but the 737 max cockpit looks very similar)
@@EvanAviator except for the maxes, I’m talking about 737 classics and ngs
Although it's already pretty obvious, I will save you over 4 minutes of your life. It's for ground clearance
Yeah, it triggered me as hell
737-100 to 700 might be the ugliest planes. The fuselage is too thick and it is not long enough so it has a stubby appearance.
Not the 737MAX! the Maxs engines are bigger and round
Beyond the silver part, the bottom part of the nacelle is also flattened ( and slightly canted ) Similarily to the CFM 56, accessories of the LEAP 1B are also moved upwards, giving the nacelle a hamster's jowl touch
Honestly the flat bottom makes 737 look more pretty
Never cared for the B737, simply unattractive exterior.
Boeing airplanes are so ugly...
747 is an exception, though.
Ground clearance