5 ms·

Jesus. Pardon my French, but seeing that photo makes me fully appreciate two things: 1. Just how incredibly low 737 sits to the ground (obviously a feature fro

by hhas01 7y ago

Jesus. Pardon my French, but seeing that photo makes me fully appreciate two things: 1. Just how incredibly low 737 sits to the ground (obviously a feature from back in the days when luggage was manually loaded), and 2. How anyone would think pushing those enormous engines forward like that could be any less disruptive of its proven design than lengthening the undercarriage to give them the clearance they so desperately need. Death of a thousand cuts. Indeed. Hope the monster never flies again.

cedivad 7y ago
2. is a great question I would like an answer to. Here is a side by side comparison with an a320: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61161/is-there-less-vertical-space-for-an-engine-under-the-wing-of-a-737-max-than-for https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61161/is-there-...
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  FWIW That's a 737 Classic. The engines were already too big (and still smaller than the A320 engines) as evidenced by the flattened nacelle. The engines grew with each successive generation (NG, MAX). I've read (but not confirmed) one of the other things keeping the 737 so low to ground is the type of emergency exit used. Extending the gear so that the whole mess sits higher off the ground would require new exits and a ton of extra things to certify.
  - hhas01 7y ago
    Yeah, there’s a lot of knock-ons with “just” extending the gear. It would definitely cost a lot more (though still far less than a complete new airframe), which is obviously why Boeing and customers wanted to dodge it. On the other hand, building a plane so aerodynamically unsound that it cratered 346 customers the moment it went out the door is the very textbook definition of “false economy”. One that Boeing itself will be paying for for years to come; even as those who made all the actual decisions gently golden-parachute to the ground.
amyjess 7y ago
> how incredibly low 737 sits to the ground (obviously a feature from back in the days when luggage was manually loaded) People, not luggage. Specifically, the 737 was designed to cover short-haul routes between regional airports that didn't have gates, where people had to get on the plane by walking up portable steps. Boeing never expected the 737 to be the low-cost plane of choice between major aviation hubs.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Not always portable steps. The 737 has (optional?) steps built into the chassis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ-6PDYRj80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ-6PDYRj80

by hhas01 7y ago

cedivad 7y ago

2. is a great question I would like an answer to. Here is a side by side comparison with an a320: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61161/is-there-less-vertical-space-for-an-engine-under-the-wing-of-a-737-max-than-for https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61161/is-there-...

inferiorhuman 7y ago
FWIW That's a 737 Classic. The engines were already too big (and still smaller than the A320 engines) as evidenced by the flattened nacelle. The engines grew with each successive generation (NG, MAX). I've read (but not confirmed) one of the other things keeping the 737 so low to ground is the type of emergency exit used. Extending the gear so that the whole mess sits higher off the ground would require new exits and a ton of extra things to certify.
- hhas01 7y ago
  Yeah, there’s a lot of knock-ons with “just” extending the gear. It would definitely cost a lot more (though still far less than a complete new airframe), which is obviously why Boeing and customers wanted to dodge it. On the other hand, building a plane so aerodynamically unsound that it cratered 346 customers the moment it went out the door is the very textbook definition of “false economy”. One that Boeing itself will be paying for for years to come; even as those who made all the actual decisions gently golden-parachute to the ground.

amyjess 7y ago

> how incredibly low 737 sits to the ground (obviously a feature from back in the days when luggage was manually loaded) People, not luggage. Specifically, the 737 was designed to cover short-haul routes between regional airports that didn't have gates, where people had to get on the plane by walking up portable steps. Boeing never expected the 737 to be the low-cost plane of choice between major aviation hubs.

alistairSH 7y ago
Not always portable steps. The 737 has (optional?) steps built into the chassis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ-6PDYRj80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ-6PDYRj80