5 ms·

The problem is it's not quite enough of a new aircraft. If they'd fitted longer landing gear (along with all the changes that imples), they could have put the

The problem is it's not quite enough of a new aircraft. If they'd fitted longer landing gear (along with all the changes that imples), they could have put the new larger engines under the wing, where they should have been in the first place, rather than stuck out in front of it, and then they wouldn't have needed MCAS.

Tsiklon 7y ago
I could imagine for many carriers the shorter landing gear is a feature of the design; I believe some using this airframe choose to disembark passengers direct to the tarmac using the system's ladders, rather than involve a flight of stairs or an articulated gangway, lessening airport fees. Edit: not to lessen any of the other points you made - this absolutely should have gone through approval as a new model.
- chawco 7y ago
  The design predates broad availability of jetways at airports. The concept, in the 1960s, was that by being able to use stairs they'd be able to service many smaller airports. By the 1970s this was clearly the wrong choice -- smaller airports just installed jetways too. This was a design decision that didn't even last the decade, but was brought forward for the next 50 years because changes would mean a recertification. That is why the landing gear is short. There are essentially no operators who make use of the low height of the aircraft, and there hasn't been for longer than most of us have been alive.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I can't count the number of times that I've boarded 737's by stairways.
0xffff2 7y ago
>(along with all the changes that imples) You just put designing an entirely new airplane in a parenthetical. New landing gear means modifications to the wing. Modifying the wing isn't much less work than just designing a new one. By the time you've designed a brand new wing, you've 75% of the way to a new clean sheet design anyway.

5 ms·

The problem is it's not quite enough of a new aircraft. If they'd fitted longer landing gear (along with all the changes that imples), they could have put the

by mhandley 7y ago

Tsiklon 7y ago
I could imagine for many carriers the shorter landing gear is a feature of the design; I believe some using this airframe choose to disembark passengers direct to the tarmac using the system's ladders, rather than involve a flight of stairs or an articulated gangway, lessening airport fees. Edit: not to lessen any of the other points you made - this absolutely should have gone through approval as a new model.
- chawco 7y ago
  The design predates broad availability of jetways at airports. The concept, in the 1960s, was that by being able to use stairs they'd be able to service many smaller airports. By the 1970s this was clearly the wrong choice -- smaller airports just installed jetways too. This was a design decision that didn't even last the decade, but was brought forward for the next 50 years because changes would mean a recertification. That is why the landing gear is short. There are essentially no operators who make use of the low height of the aircraft, and there hasn't been for longer than most of us have been alive.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I can't count the number of times that I've boarded 737's by stairways.
0xffff2 7y ago
>(along with all the changes that imples) You just put designing an entirely new airplane in a parenthetical. New landing gear means modifications to the wing. Modifying the wing isn't much less work than just designing a new one. By the time you've designed a brand new wing, you've 75% of the way to a new clean sheet design anyway.