Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
There have been complaints for years about how much runway it takes for a 737-9 to take off and how the engines are underpowered. With the 737-10 MAX being larger and with different engines did they address this under-power issue sufficiently where the plane can take off fully loaded with less runway needed? Any chance of a -10 barreling down a runway at SNA?
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
The 737-9 mainly has issues with how little it can rotate on the runway without tail striking, but it is a little underpowered too. The 737-10 is longer and heavier, but will have a slightly redesigned main gear to help with the rotation angle, so in that respect it should be the sam ears the 737-9 or maybe worse. Then comes the engines which are the same as the 737-9/8/7, if they decide not to give it extra thrust for whatever reason, it will certainly be underpowered as it is to be significantly heavier than the 737-9. Then comes the increased wing loading which will give it climb characteristics like the A321. Overall I think it will likely perform worse than the 737-9 in this area.
-
- AirlineCritic
- Posts: 1815
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
Except that we don't really know what the gear redesign is.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
Nothing official but I heard CFM managed to get 31K for the -10 and the gear should help the 10 get a larger rotation angle.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
ikolkyo wrote:Nothing official but I heard CFM managed to get 31K for the -10 and the gear should help the 10 get a larger rotation angle.
I read something similar too, that the -10 will get a thrust bump after all...
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
SCAT15F wrote:ikolkyo wrote:Nothing official but I heard CFM managed to get 31K for the -10 and the gear should help the 10 get a larger rotation angle.
I read something similar too, that the -10 will get a thrust bump after all...
CFM-56 on 737-900ER has a thrust of 28.4k
Leap-1B on 737-9MAX has a thrust of 28.0k
So a boost of the Leap-1B for the 737-10MAX to 31k is significant. More than a 10% thrust increase. With the landing gear mod shifting the pivot point back a bit and the thrust increase, I'm really looking forward to seeing it's takeoff performance.
*edited - replaced c.o.g. with pivot point... they are not the same... i hastily typed...
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
ODwyerPW wrote:SCAT15F wrote:ikolkyo wrote:Nothing official but I heard CFM managed to get 31K for the -10 and the gear should help the 10 get a larger rotation angle.
I read something similar too, that the -10 will get a thrust bump after all...
CFM-56 on 737-900ER has a thrust of 28.4k
Leap-1B on 737-9MAX has a thrust of 28.0k
So a boost of the Leap-1B for the 737-10MAX to 31k is significant. More than a 10% thrust increase. With the landing gear mod shifting the pivot point back a bit and the thrust increase, I'm really looking forward to seeing it's takeoff performance.
*edited - replaced c.o.g. with pivot point... they are not the same... i hastily typed...
Small correction on your thrust numbers -
CFM56-7B27
Maximum take-off thrust - 27.2K
Continuous thrust output - 26K
LEAP-1B28
Maximum take-off thrust - 29.3K
Continuous thrust output - 28.7K
The LEAP seems to have a 2K advantage over the CFM56, which makes sense since the MAX is a slightly heavier frame.
My sources:
LEAP-1B - https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... EAP-1B.pdf
CFM56 - https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... 03_1.0.pdf
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
Plus, assuming the max tow is increased by 5k as some here have suggested, its wing loading is still decently lower than the A321/LR.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
The gear look to be telescopic, not semi-levered, so who knows how much better this could make the takeoff performance!
-
- Revelation
- Posts: 29623
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
Relevant to this thread, from Karel's post at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1366149&p=19635797#p19635713
And, of course, that thread had some interesting videos about the MAX10 landing gear concept.
But Attarian’s letter lists several more features that Boeing has added to the aircraft to “improve the aircraft and better address some of the operational issues we see in the 737-900/ER variants”.
...
The upgrades include an “improved flap design” that enables more approaches and landing at Flaps 40, the slowest-speed setting for the 737.
Boeing also adjusted the maximum landing weight centre of gravity grid in a way that will avoid “tail tip” events. Some airlines use special tail stands to prevent a 737-900 with a heavy rear cargo load from tipping the nose up at the gate.
Boeing also improved the body contour of the 737 Max 10 to reduce the risk of tail strikes, Attarian writes.
And, of course, that thread had some interesting videos about the MAX10 landing gear concept.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
We can speculate, but we don't have enough concrete details to say for certain.
I suspect it's performance will be very similar to the 739ER.
I suspect it's performance will be very similar to the 739ER.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
[quote="Varsity1"]We can speculate, but we don't have enough concrete details to say for certain.
I suspect it's performance will be very similar to the 739ER.[/quote
I'm expecting it to be better honestly, they are making quite a few improvements to make the -10 more attractive performance wise compared to the -900ER. They're making changes to the flaps, gear, drag improvements and etc.
I suspect it's performance will be very similar to the 739ER.[/quote
I'm expecting it to be better honestly, they are making quite a few improvements to make the -10 more attractive performance wise compared to the -900ER. They're making changes to the flaps, gear, drag improvements and etc.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
What ever happened with with better T to W ratios! So if Leap could do 35k this would be ideal!
-
- WIederling
- Posts: 10043
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
ikolkyo wrote:I'm expecting it to be better honestly, they are making quite a few improvements to make the -10 more attractive performance wise compared to the -900ER. They're making changes to the flaps, gear,
That predominantly is stuff for getting airborne ( and back ).
But it won't change economic in flight airframe performance.
drag improvements and etc.
didn't they go over the airframe with a fine comb for the MAX already?
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
WIederling wrote:ikolkyo wrote:I'm expecting it to be better honestly, they are making quite a few improvements to make the -10 more attractive performance wise compared to the -900ER. They're making changes to the flaps, gear,
That predominantly is stuff for getting airborne ( and back ).
But it won't change economic in flight airframe performance.drag improvements and etc.
didn't they go over the airframe with a fine comb for the MAX already?
That’s exactly what I was getting at, -900ER isn’t very stellar on getting airborne quickly.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
An engine itself cannot be ‘underpowered’ that makes no sense
Aircraft can have engines installed that provide a less than desirable thrust to weight ratio then they are underpowered
On a different aircraft that same engine
could provide a far greater level of performance
It’s not the engine, it’s what it’s attached to !
Aircraft can have engines installed that provide a less than desirable thrust to weight ratio then they are underpowered
On a different aircraft that same engine
could provide a far greater level of performance
It’s not the engine, it’s what it’s attached to !
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 21730
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
Max Q wrote:An engine itself cannot be ‘underpowered’ that makes no sense
Aircraft can have engines installed that provide a less than desirable thrust to weight ratio then they are underpowered
On a different aircraft that same engine
could provide a far greater level of performance
It’s not the engine, it’s what it’s attached to !
Indeed. Well put.
I am reminded of an old SlamClick post:
Wings don't fall off airplanes. Airplanes fall off their wings. It is, after all, the wing that does the flying.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
I think there were some big decisions behind the dash 10 even if it sounds like a simple 'upgrade'.As stated above it's not.Its actually very complicated with a raft of changes required to wring every last drop of performance out of the a/c.
I wonder in fact whether Airbus would have even factored a dask 10 (with these performance peramiters) as even possible.
But it's a major long term investment by Boeing meaning the MAX fa,only is with us for the long term and the abandonment of the three aircraft strategy.Thus the MOM could be described as a direct result of that decision.Probably a good decision too.
I wonder in fact whether Airbus would have even factored a dask 10 (with these performance peramiters) as even possible.
But it's a major long term investment by Boeing meaning the MAX fa,only is with us for the long term and the abandonment of the three aircraft strategy.Thus the MOM could be described as a direct result of that decision.Probably a good decision too.
-
- WIederling
- Posts: 10043
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
parapente wrote:I wonder in fact whether Airbus would have even factored a dask 10 (with these performance perameters) as even possible.
My guess would be they have some good inkling on scope and associated cost involved.
-
-
lightsaber
Moderator
- Posts: 24641
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
I hear noise about a -10MAX thrust bump, but not a dramatic increase. I haven't even heard 31k, except here on a.net. But every bit helps.
There are always more areas of laminar flow that could be improved. Every time it is a cost/time/benefit calculation. Airbus knows the wing root of the A320 could be improved, but it didn't make NEO EIS. Eh... Later. Same with the MAX. Then the new engine disturbs wing flow, so new corrections will be done around the engine.
WIederling wrote:didn't they go over the airframe with a fine comb for the MAX already?
There are always more areas of laminar flow that could be improved. Every time it is a cost/time/benefit calculation. Airbus knows the wing root of the A320 could be improved, but it didn't make NEO EIS. Eh... Later. Same with the MAX. Then the new engine disturbs wing flow, so new corrections will be done around the engine.
-
- WIederling
- Posts: 10043
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
lightsaber wrote:Then the new engine disturbs wing flow, so new corrections will be done around the engine.
Wasn't the MAX engine integration declared perfect and Boeing excelling over itself here?
apropos: would there be any gains from closing the thrust gate in the high lift arrangement ?
-
-
lightsaber
Moderator
- Posts: 24641
- Joined:
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
WIederling wrote:lightsaber wrote:Then the new engine disturbs wing flow, so new corrections will be done around the engine.
Wasn't the MAX engine integration declared perfect and Boeing excelling over itself here?
apropos: would there be any gains from closing the thrust gate in the high lift arrangement ?
There is no perfect. There is always separation that can be improved.
Today's wings are 6% short of what could be designed as the industry is so conservative.
Re: 737-9 vs. 737-10 MAX Engine Power
WIederling wrote:lightsaber wrote:Then the new engine disturbs wing flow, so new corrections will be done around the engine.
Wasn't the MAX engine integration declared perfect and Boeing excelling over itself here?
"perfect" meaning the best they could do without designing taller landing gear. They basically just crammed the engine into the wing.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: aballack50, kevinm03 and 31 guests