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.

 

Mandela Effect - All Airliner Engines Now In Front Of Wings

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Do not feed the trolls.




posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Pearj

Then you're misrembering. The only aircraft ever mounted like that are old and if any are still flying, they're flying in single digit numbers.
edit on 4/30/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
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.
edit on 4/30/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Pearj

Answer here
edit on 4/30/18 by dalepmay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
well technically they are under the wing, it doesnt help most pictures are taken from an angle that makes it look like the engine is under



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

same for flat earth



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   

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.


I think they said it helps disperse the nanoparticles better.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

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.


You're crazy...

Super advanced humans came back from the future and slightly altered the placement of the engines of airplanes and also the spelling of some English only words and logos.

Or was our universe was intertwining with a parallel one and stuff are being slightly modified...

I don't know anymore...



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Having never been in 1st class
, do the seats in that area maybe face the other way thus making the engines appear to the rear


"whats that Nelson, you came back and altered air flight mechanics.....why?"

Do our brains in todays society just take in to much information and things just get garbled up, we have a muscle for a harddrive I am sure it is doing its best, might be time for an upgrade



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Here is an explanation:

aviation.stackexchange.com...

British aircraft designers preferred to have buried engines in nacelles (Concorde, the Comet). American aircraft designers preferred pods due to reduced damage to the wings.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
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.




posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The question of the current engine style is an extremely complicated one and there's no single right answer.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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.



But they now use the wrong crazy glue.




Engine on United Airlines plane falls apart on flight to Hawaii


www.theguardian.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

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?





Of course it can. Just give it time.




posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Just no.

This Mandela effect thing has turned otherwise thinking people into people incapable of discerning reality.


Hum reality, big ???


Maybe you sir could try and once in a while think a little deeper.

PHYSICS AND CONSCIOUSNESS with FRED ALAN WOLF, Ph.D.


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?

www.intuitionnetwork.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The question of the current engine style is an extremely complicated one and there's no single right answer.
This.

The best answers for commercial air are the torsional benefits, and with high BPR engine (economy), you have a wider engine. You need more clearance. Easier to get the thrust closer to the centerline and maintain clearance than mounting directly underwing. Also, less wave drag in transonic cruise. Less chance of disturbed air for the intake in front of the wing than below or behind.

There are some pretty good purely aerodynamic reasons to mount them ahead and above the wing, but it increases other difficulties (maintenance access, etc) so no one wants to do it.
edit on 30-4-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Pearj

Sigh, here we go again. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. You are absolutely right. It was never this way before. They were always beneath the wings, never in front. It's blatantly, unmistakably wrong.



They were never designed this way...



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm sure it would have been impossible for them to function the way they are currently constructed. The way the Mandela Effect works is that reality changes. Things work differently. What before had to be a certain way scientifically, now must be the way it is, scientifically. And it's not simple mis-remembering either. All my life, all commercial planes were built a certain way, now they are suddenly functioning another way. I have countless memories of plane models, video footage of planes, pictures, video games, etc. They were all, always depicted with the engines below the wings.
edit on 1-5-2018 by LoneCloudHopper2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I've only ridden a passenger jet twice in my life.
Window seats both times.
I seem to remember it both ways.
On one flight a turbine blew out.
My memory is that was top-mounted.
There was one design with overwing engines: The VFW-614. The number was chosen because it was the 4th project to be started in 1961 by the Vereinigte Flugzeugwerke (VFW).

The engine placement had several advantages:

less risk of ingesting foreign objects
less noise during take-off and landing, at least for the people on the ground
less trim change with power changes
But the disadvantages (cabin noise and engine access) were the reason why this engine placement never took off. Also, low engines can get their fuel without pumps, just by gravity. However, pilots who flew both the 614 and the Boeing 737 told me that the 614 was more pleasant to fly since it needed no trim changes when the power setting was changed.

Placing the engine forward of the wing helps to dampen flutter, but then the main advantage of overwing placement, reduced noise footprint, is lost. Todays engines are mostly placed ahead of the wing for that reason, and below it so they are out of view for the passengers. Placing the engine directly under the wing would help with feeding it pre-compressed air, but again the forward location makes little difference.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Of course it changes, because that makes so much more sense than "I remembered it wrong". You cam remember it that way and claim it was right, but that doesn't mean you're from an alternate reality where laws of physics and aerodynamics are different.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join