"It is a 1970 fuselage which is heavy and was abandoned for the A350 family. The wing was built in the 1980s while the Boeing 787 engine is not optimised for the A330neo."Well, maybe he should have had a chat with his own folks at Boeing - what is the B737MAX?
In Tinseth's words I would say:
A 1960s fuselage with a 1990s wing with an 2010s engine compromised by a 1960s engine fan diameter.
In other news, Airbus COO John Leahy told the audience that we will (weather permitting) see the first flight of the A320neo with PW1100G-JM engines on Thursday - a 1980s fuselage and wing (with 2010s "sharklets") and a 2010s engine by the way...
What would be the best fan size for an B737 - A320 type airplanes? I mean I read a lot that the bigger the fan the better, but isn't get to a point that it might be counter productive? Is it a good idea to put a 100 inches fan on a narrow body plane? I say that might look pretty weird and awesome at the same time. Imagine having an engine on an airplane which fan area opening is almost as big as the diameter of the plane itself.
ReplyDeleteThe best fan diameter depends on the whole thermodynamic cycle of the engine and on the aircraft geometry, wing size etc. For the A320neo Airbus and PW found that it was good to make the fan as large as possible. Also CFM enlarged their fan diameter to the largest possible. CFM is a bit more restrained as they have to fit the bypass stream between the wing and their larger LPT.
ReplyDeleteI have wondered why Boeing has not investigated telescoping landing gear for the 737. The P-47 would "extend" struts upon extension. Perhaps there is a weight limitation.
DeleteJetcal1
I would say that telescoping landing gear present a maintenance issue as well as bit more risk when landing. If one of the landing struts telescoping tube does not go down, then you have some serious issue landing the plane safely. Remember, all three landing struts would have to go down to about the same distance so that the plane will keep its balance after touching down.
Delete