It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SeaWorthy
Older engines were able to be mounted like that. Once we moved into the more modern age of long distance transport, starting around the 707, for various reasons, they had to move them forward, as they are now. Once it became about efficiency and range, putting them like on the 737-100/200 became a disadvantage.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SeaWorthy
Older engines were able to be mounted like that. Once we moved into the more modern age of long distance transport, starting around the 707, for various reasons, they had to move them forward, as they are now. Once it became about efficiency and range, putting them like on the 737-100/200 became a disadvantage.
originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: Pearj
I would imagine that an engine moved back on the wing would reduce lift and fuel efficiency. I like them where they are in the front....IDK.
Engine on United Airlines plane falls apart on flight to Hawaii
www.theguardian.com...
originally posted by: oldcarpy
Here we are:
Podded Engines
This Wiki entry explains why the engines are mounted ahead of the wing.
Honestly, can this Mandela Effect crap possibly get any crappier?
originally posted by: projectvxn
Just no.
This Mandela effect thing has turned otherwise thinking people into people incapable of discerning reality.
WOLF: Well, let me quote from Newton about this, even though we're talking quantum physics. Literally, I feel like a child at a seashore, when it comes to seeing where quantum physics is pointing. I feel like we're on the verge of a gigantic discovery -- maybe the nature of God, maybe the nature of the human spirit. Something of that sort is going to emerge from this, because our normal notions -- in fact the notions upon which we think science makes any sense at all, the notions of space and time and matter -- they just are breaking down, they're just falling apart, like tissue paper before our eyes. Wet tissue paper; it isn't even good tissue paper. It doesn't hold anything up anymore. So we're beginning to see that -- for example, in classical physics the idea that the past influences the presence is pretty normal. Everybody says, "Oh, of course."
MISHLOVE: One-way causality. WOLF: One-way causality. Everybody says, "Oh yeah, naturally." I mean, that's what Newton said, that's what they all say. OK, but there's another notion. What about the future influencing the present? Is such an idea just an idea that comes about through parapsychology, or through mystical insight? Quantum physics says no, it says that definitely there is a real mathematical basis for saying actions in the future can have an effect on the probability patterns that exist in the present. In other words, what takes places now, what choices are being made right now, may not be as free to you as you think they are. To you it may seem uncertain -- well, I'll do this or I'll do that. But if you realized that what you did in the future is having an effect now, then it wouldn't be as obvious. So it's hard to talk about it because the future's yet to come, right?
This.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
The question of the current engine style is an extremely complicated one and there's no single right answer.