FAA warns of possible defect in Boeing 777 engines::undefined

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tell me that you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines without telling me you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, really. For civil aircraft, the prevalent nacelle/pod design these days makes it fairly easy to re-engine a plane, and to adapt to new engine technologies as time progressed. This is extremely obvious if you compare images of a 737-100 and a 737-MAX9. This is common practice for both civil and military aircraft.

            On a side note: Seriously, are you genuinely so lazy that you can’t throw a couple queries into your search engine of choice and find, like, all the sources that indicate that this is common practice? Or, like, go to a Wikipedia page about a couple civil aircraft and find the section that’s titled “engines”, read a couple paragraphs and see the images, and understand that yes, planes can support multiple engine types from different manufacturers? Maybe I’m overreacting, but this sort of “I’m going to force everyone else to bring facts to me to disprove my wildly inaccurate and baseless assumptions” bullshit is pretty fucking obnoxious.

            It was a different user. But the number of people who clearly haven’t read the article or done ANY background research - even briefly - is a bit annoying on topics like this. If you want to participate intelligently in the conversation, do so. If you’re just going to pull things out of your head on topics you have zero knowledge on and zero willingness to increase that knowledge by, you know, looking for sources and reading… lurk moar.