View Single Post
      01-28-2020, 01:23 PM   #30
GtiGyver
First Lieutenant
GtiGyver's Avatar
Canada
47
Rep
374
Posts

Drives: 2008 Jerez Black E90 M3 MT
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000gsr View Post
Are the engines moved more forward on this one like the 737 max to improve efficiency?
That's not why they were moved forward. At least not what from what I understand. It's more to do with the fact that the basic 737 design (dating back to mid 1960s) has its wings far closer to the ground than, say, the A320.
Engines of the day were physically smaller and longer than today's high efficiency turbojets. This was never a problem until the MAX, when they equipped it with engines of the largest diameter ever fitted to the 737 series.
The only way to have the engines with adequate clearance without a complete redesign of the wing/structure was to move the engines forward and up in front of the wing.

This caused a dramatic change in aircraft behavior in flight. Since the goal was to have the 737MAX operate without any need for pilots to perform retraining, changing the wing design was out of the question, and the (altered) handling characteristics of the aircraft due to the different CG and engine placement was masked by the MCAS system.
Its dual purpose was to:
1. Make the aircraft fly just like the 737-800
2. Inhibit the aircraft's (new) natural tendency to lift it's nose.

Basically, the A320NEO pushed Boeing to make many compromises and rush the development of a competing aircraft.
I'm sure it won't be the last time this happens. Lets just hope it won't be due to catastrophes such as this that we discover coverups/mistakes/lies.
minn196908.50
flybigjet1112.00