dommel1234

Mandela Effect

Recommended Posts

Hi guys a bit of a strange topic but did any of you noticed the change of engine of the aircrafts? They all seem now way forward not beneath the wing as before. Not only in the sim but in real life. You will tell me new technology maybe the airbus neo etc. But have a look at the A300, the 737 classic , even the 707 in all aircrafts the engine is way forward and a huge pylon attached to them. Does anyone remember this like that? I am a dedicated simmer and aviation fan for many years and suddenly i discover this new type of placement. This is not only happening with planes but with other things as well, history as we knew it has changed. Anyone who thinks the same?

Edited by dommel1234

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The multiple of aircraft, is "AIRCRAFT" there is no "s" on the end. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The multiple of aircraft, is "AIRCRAFT" there is no "s" on the end

There you go. The Mandela Effect in action :wink:

Share this post


Link to post

Actually whilst unusual (and somewhat old fashioned), "Aircrafts" is acceptable when talking about multiple types of Aircraft for example combining Helicopters and fixed wing Aircraft.

It is of course most likely that the 'OP' is not a native English speaker and wouldn't understand that the 'craft' is considered a collective term in of itself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

There is nothing “new” about mounting jet aircraft engines forward of the wings. That has been a standard design practice for over 60 years. You mentioned the 707, which entered service in 1958, and was also seen on the B-52, which was designed in 1954.

In fact, the only commercial airliner that I can think of where the engines were primarily under the wings was the original Boeing 737-200, which was in production from 1967 to 1988.

The Concorde also had under-wing engines, but that aircraft is in a class by itself.

Not sure why you think something has “changed”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Both two last posts, absolutely fascinating reads and enlightening too.✍️

One on the English colloquial grammar, the other on the technical side.👍

Share this post


Link to post

What about......

"No, Luke.........I am your father?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

There is nothing “new” about mounting jet aircraft engines forward of the wings. That has been a standard design practice for over 60 years. You mentioned the 707, which entered service in 1958, and was also seen on the B-52, which was designed in 1954.

In fact, the only commercial airliner that I can think of where the engines were primarily under the wings was the original Boeing 737-200, which was in production from 1967 to 1988.

Well, to nitpick, the early British and Canadian designers favored engines built inside the wings, like the de Havilland Comet, the first commercial jet airliner, and the prototype Avro Canada C10. Although the wing root on the Comet was extended pretty far forward, so technically the nacelles were forward of the leading edge of the wing, especially the inboard engine closest to the fuselage.

Embedded jet engines in the wing look cool, very space-age. But i assume that design was ditched in favor of easier servicing and replacement with pylon mounted engines.

Share this post


Link to post

Peoples pull their hairs when they read "aircrafts".

Share this post


Link to post

Something to do with it being best to have undisturbed airflow into the engines?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

hmmm ....I thought it had everything to do with engine disintegration not taking the wings. no?

I did like sitting over the engine in the DC10 ....that engine placement was really out there.

Share this post


Link to post

The engines have not changed, but WAIT...   I remember Mandella Affect and not Mandela Effect. Oh no, I must be in a new dimension or parallel universe. 

Share this post


Link to post

The more I think about reality, existence, and quantum theory, the more I believe that anything is possible....

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, WotanUK said:

Actually whilst unusual (and somewhat old fashioned), "Aircrafts" is acceptable when talking about multiple types of Aircraft for example combining Helicopters and fixed wing Aircraft.

Hello,

I can find nothing to back up your assertion.

As far as I was taught and can now research on the Internet, the only valid use of the word crafts is when

using the word craft to describe a skill or as a verb to describe the act of crafting.

As in "carpentry and pottery are useful crafts" or "the carpenter crafts his wood into a table".

The plural of craft, when meaning vessels, whether for use on air or sea, is craft.

A helicopter and a fixed wing aircraft when described together are still two aircraft, not two aircrafts, even

though they do not belong to the same type.

So a hot air balloon, a glider, a helicopter and a passenger airliner together are aircraft.

In much the same way,  a Badger Face Welsh Mountain and Beulah Speckled Face together are sheep,

not sheeps.

Edited by nolonger

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MikeT707 said:

I must be in a new dimension or parallel universe. 

You definitely in a contiguous verse! 😁

Share this post


Link to post

Very strange! I remember this topic being in the Prepar3D forum but its in Hanger Chat!😱

Edited by Avidean

Share this post


Link to post

As I read this topic, I find myself growing sleepy. It works better than counting sheeps.🐑

Share this post


Link to post

For me nothing has changed... So, welcome to our universe,it is comfy here and we have cookies!

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, WotanUK said:

Actually whilst unusual (and somewhat old fashioned), "Aircrafts" is acceptable when talking about multiple types of Aircraft for example combining Helicopters and fixed wing Aircraft.

Objection, your Honor!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, ErichB said:

Objection, your Honor!

Hear, HEAR!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2019 at 7:00 AM, JRBarrett said:

There is nothing “new” about mounting jet aircraft engines forward of the wings. That has been a standard design practice for over 60 years. You mentioned the 707, which entered service in 1958, and was also seen on the B-52, which was designed in 1954.

In fact, the only commercial airliner that I can think of where the engines were primarily under the wings was the original Boeing 737-200, which was in production from 1967 to 1988.

The Concorde also had under-wing engines, but that aircraft is in a class by itself.

Not sure why you think something has “changed”

The most interesting engine mount is that of the Honda-jet, not sure why they chose to mount the engines that way, but interesting to see.  On my last flight in 2017 I was on a 747-400 and pleased to see that my window seats both ways were mounted ahead of the wing, since I hate my view outward being over wing, I prefer either aft or forward.  I liked the forward view because it gave me a fine view of the engines, mounted ahead of the wing.  The pylons must be mighty strong and I believe (if not already mentioned here) that they are mounted that way because of engine failure.  In all my flights, which amount to hundreds because I was in addition to being a vacationer abroad many times, a business traveler on three continents, I only experienced one engine failure, at the gate, on startup, in a Delta 737-300 in Bozeman MT. 

The port engine, as soon as they started, gave out a loud bang and it went dead, and the cabin filled with a light haze and a stronger smell of kerosene than I ever experienced.  The pilot calmly explained the situation, and just said we needed to deplane and get another flight out of Bozeman.  Although the pax sounded startled when they heard the bang, as I silently was, there was calm and curiosity, no panic.  But the risk was there of a fan blade perforating the cabin had not the engine done what it was designed to, shutting down immediately when the flightcrew shut it down.  Although there was a bright flash on the port side, there was no fire.

Anyway I was sitting aft like I usually prefer, because I like to sit far enough aft to view the ground or nighttime scenery well (as was the case on that flight) but observe the flaps and ailerons and spoilers in action.

My fav aircraft to fly are those with aft mounted engines when I want a quiet ride, I book a forward window seat or row of seats when traveling with my daughter or ex wife or both.

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, John_Cillis said:

The most interesting engine mount is that of the Honda-jet, not sure why they chose to mount the engines that way, but interesting to see.

Just a quess, but maybe they want to reduce noise created by vibrations... It is a small jet, when you mount the engines on the fuselage it is much louder. Would be interesting if the actual wing mount is doing something to Performance 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, DaveCT2003 said:

 

Edited by ganter

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now