Mandela Effect - All Airliner Engines Now In Front Of Wings

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: 3n19m470


That is the whole point that ME people are pushing - timeline/dimensional shifts, CERN etc, etc. Have you not been paying attention?

Oh, you mean the Mandela Effect reference in the title which was not a part of the post itself, which was merely asking what others remembered? Yeah, sure, I know what that means. Why do you ask?

a reply to: 3n19m470


Eh? Come again?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 3n19m470

I'm terribly sorry that I forgot about a couple early designs that have been removed from service, or are only operating in remote areas anymore, and don't have every single design of every single aircraft in my memory ready to call to hand. How dare I comment without double checking every plane ever built.

But you said it was aerodynamically impossible... No need to remember every single design if you know what is and isnt aerodynamically possible.

a reply to: 3n19m470

The way he described it in the OP, the engine didn't extend beyond the edge of the wing. He said he remembered the engine being directly under the wing, which reads as the entire engine being under the wing, intake and exhaust both. That won't work, aerodynamically. In the aircraft that had the engine run under the wing, like the 737-200, the intake and exhaust stick out from under the wing. Considering that every picture he provided was a modern aircraft, if he meant older aircraft, then it's easy to see where any confusion came from. From the way the OP is worded however he's not talking about older aircraft.

The OP even made a point of bringing up the fact that he was in the Air Force, which made it seem even more likely that he was talking about modern aircraft. The C-141 had a similar engine layout to the 737-200, and the Air Force had around 20 737-200s used as trainers, but the C-141 was retired around 2004, and the last T-43 in 2010.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: 3n19m470


Eh? Come again?

The words Mandela Effect or dimensions or anything like that cannot be found anywhere in the Opening Post. All I can see is a guy asking others what they remember. I never saw any statements that said "guys this is for sure a real ME" or "back when I was in my other dimension...". So therefore I find it strange for another member to insinuate that statements like this were made, when in fact they were not.

A person stated what they remembered and confirmed that aviation personnel had said his memory was wrong, and then he asked us what we remember.

So what do you consider to be an appropriate response to that?

talking about shifting dimensions and crap? why? if the op had mentioned it then maybe I could see.... but I thought it was plain as day he used a title people would be familiar with that explained the gist of the situation. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

besides, dimensional shift is only ONE possible explanation for ME...... how lame.

a reply to: 3n19m470

The words Mandela Effect or dimensions or anything like that cannot be found anywhere in the Opening Post. All I can see is a guy asking others what they remember. I never saw any statements that said "guys this is for sure a real ME" or "back when I was in my other dimension...". So therefore I find it strange for another member to insinuate that statements like this were made, when in fact they were not.

Do you know what thread you are posting in?


Can you read the title?

Yeah, in the opening post there may not have been any mention of our good friend Mandela but if you look at the title of the thread its pretty obvious.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 3n19m470

I'm terribly sorry that I forgot about a couple early designs that have been removed from service, or are only operating in remote areas anymore, and don't have every single design of every single aircraft in my memory ready to call to hand. How dare I comment without double checking every plane ever built.

Heaven's forbid, lol. Idk, I think most of us on practice trying our best to post what we sincerely believe. The bar is alot higher here, then some of the other online communities.


The older 737's is closer to what I remember. This isn't my area of expertise.I still find op's threads productive.

I found this comment interesting:

I done some sketches and they all looked off because the engines looked too far forward and proportionally large although when compared to the actual source material the drawings looked proportional.

Something to keep in mind moving forward.I file it under the HDing of life. I look at the ME not so much as either/or but moreso an challenge of identifying the range and scope of the factors that come into play...

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

That arrangement worked, for the engine of the time, and that design. Once we saw true long range aircraft, like the 707 and DC-8 that changed and other factors came into play. With the RB211, CF6, and especially the GE90, they became too large to put in that configuration, in addition to other factors.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: projectvxn
Just no.

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

Why? Because he asked a question?

There is such a thing as a stupid question.

a reply to: LungFuMoShi







Well you got me pretty good.. I put a lot of time into that reply.

a reply to: 3n19m470

I've told 'em many times I don't know the cause - they're the ones insisting it's "shifting timelines".

They try to make the thread about the cause of the ME, and not the ME itself (the subject of the OP).

I think this is why:

I figure that's why they fixate on "alternate realities". It's the least likely, most dramatic principle, and therefore easiest to wish away using Occam's razor - however physics provides plausibility that leaves their favorite 'heel' lacking. Occam's razor is no substitute for lab work - or experience.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: 3n19m470


Eh? Come again?

The words Mandela Effect or dimensions or anything like that cannot be found anywhere in the Opening Post. All I can see is a guy asking others what they remember. I never saw any statements that said "guys this is for sure a real ME" or "back when I was in my other dimension...". So therefore I find it strange for another member to insinuate that statements like this were made, when in fact they were not.

A person stated what they remembered and confirmed that aviation personnel had said his memory was wrong, and then he asked us what we remember.

So what do you consider to be an appropriate response to that?

talking about shifting dimensions and crap? why? if the op had mentioned it then maybe I could see.... but I thought it was plain as day he used a title people would be familiar with that explained the gist of the situation. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

besides, dimensional shift is only ONE possible explanation for ME...... how lame.

Ahem. The words "Mandela Effect" are the first two words in the title to this post.

a reply to: Pearj


How about you responding to the people on here (including me) who have posted photos that you have flat out claimed do not exist?

a reply to: oldcarpy

If they're the pics in this thread, the answer is... They don't look like I remember - I assumed you could infer that by me saying none of them look like I (and others) remember. If they are links to pics - then I didn't click 'em - If you have a great example, post the image.


I don't respond to you because I think I've seen you say things like:
"designs change over the years - don't you even know that?"

You come into these threads pre-triggered about something you don't understand, all the while hanging on the support of the herd. You are here to collect stars from the herd and nothing more.


In short: Your too rude to respond to.

ENOUGH

Stop the bickering about each other and stick to the actual thread topic.

Posting about other members is ALWAYS off topic.

Those that continue to post that way will have their posting rights removed.

Return to the actual thread topic.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: Pearj


The answer to why modern airline engines are now more forward of the wing than in days gone by was posted by another poster - here is the explanation - you may have missed it:

Why Are the Engines in Modern Airliners So Much Further Forward

The article in this link explains exactly why modern higher bypass engines with their correspondingly larger fan diameters have moved further forward over the years. Wing design has changed dramatically too, which is another factor.

a reply to: Pearj

Are you referring to this post?

Logos are not set in stone, they get changed and updated from time to time.

Perhaps my posts are different in your timeline/reality.

I posted a link earlier to an article (not just pics) that is very much on topic as it explains precisely why and how modern airline jet engines have moved forwards in front of the wing and the 737 photos which I and others have posted seem to show that older aircraft had longer engines under their wings.

If that is not what you recall, perhaps you could explain exactly how you remember them?

a reply to: oldcarpy


Tumbleweeds. Oh well.....

a reply to: oldcarpy

Egads. I've answered your question many times.

If that is not what you recall, perhaps you could explain exactly how you remember them?

Read the OP. It explains how I know they were, in addition to several follow up posts stating the same thing. I can say I'm not going to explain it again - if you're truly curious, you have to read the thread.

here is the explanation - you may have missed it:

Nope - in fact I read that before I made this thread. Obviously I felt the same way, and made the thread.


The answers you seek are right here - but you have to read them - you don't have to like them - but you do have to accept they are my answers.. ..because you know.. it's the adult thing to do.


In fact - I think I was responding to you, wanting to give you the Cliff Notes (not in to typing the same things over and over) - when I remembered there are no more Cliff Notes - and hence a new thread was born.


(no bold text, I know how you hate the bold)