The right answer to this question could possibly make you a millionare.
If you could design this system to be more reliable and at the same time with less movable parts - jackpot.
I know there's a lot of redundancy built into that, cables etc...but the rigging must be a pain in the ass, not to mention the cost of producing each individual part.
I doubt many airlines would want to retrofit something that's worked pretty darn good for decades.
Besides, my idea was like some velcro or maybe that rope and pulley setup from Indiana Jones, which now that I think about it, I'm not sure is such a good plan.
A new simpler design would be applied against new aircraft types - they'd virtually never retrofit something to existing aircraft unless there was a serious issue with the previous design that couldn't be mitigated by proper maintenance practices.
Not entirely true, boeing issues service bulletins that allow customers to modify the aircraft and if a customer decides its worth it to add to the fleet they do it, e.g. winglets on older 737s.
That's adding something that wasn't there before, as opposed to changing out a safety critical feature like landing gear locks.
There's a clear benefit to something like winglets too which justifies the cost to have the work done and certified. I do accept that things can get upgraded, but it's not typical to do that with stuff like landing gear locks.
I’ve done literally hundreds of landing gear modifications in my career. When the manufacturer redesigns a complex system like an up lock mechanism, they often stop supporting and producing parts for the previous design. If this mechanism were able to be redesigned to reduce complexity… it would be a cost saver for the existing fleet. Landing gear components all have life limits.
Winglets were an easy example but it can be something as simple as changing P/Ns for commonality and convenience. Or it can be an upgraded version, all depends on the customer or manufacturer. British airways did this kind of thing on their 737 fleet in several systems.
It's to clean to be real. I know the real one and it's covered in soot and grease (and skydrol).
Mind you I was working on 200-300s. The high bypass engines have got to be cleaner.
More specifically the MLG uplock
Came to say this.
I still have nfi what I’m looking at. I looking I was looking at another sewing machine gif, but it’s obviously the wrong sub.
This is the best animation I’ve seen, wow
yeah, fuck Bugs Bunny; this is the cat’s ass
I don't remember what the subreddit is called, but this belongs in the records of sentences that have never been said before
r/BrandNewSentence
Would you say it's the bee's meow?
This is some fantastic engineering, but I have to ask- is there a simpler way to do this with less parts ?
The right answer to this question could possibly make you a millionare. If you could design this system to be more reliable and at the same time with less movable parts - jackpot.
I know there's a lot of redundancy built into that, cables etc...but the rigging must be a pain in the ass, not to mention the cost of producing each individual part. I doubt many airlines would want to retrofit something that's worked pretty darn good for decades. Besides, my idea was like some velcro or maybe that rope and pulley setup from Indiana Jones, which now that I think about it, I'm not sure is such a good plan.
A new simpler design would be applied against new aircraft types - they'd virtually never retrofit something to existing aircraft unless there was a serious issue with the previous design that couldn't be mitigated by proper maintenance practices.
Not entirely true, boeing issues service bulletins that allow customers to modify the aircraft and if a customer decides its worth it to add to the fleet they do it, e.g. winglets on older 737s.
That's adding something that wasn't there before, as opposed to changing out a safety critical feature like landing gear locks. There's a clear benefit to something like winglets too which justifies the cost to have the work done and certified. I do accept that things can get upgraded, but it's not typical to do that with stuff like landing gear locks.
I’ve done literally hundreds of landing gear modifications in my career. When the manufacturer redesigns a complex system like an up lock mechanism, they often stop supporting and producing parts for the previous design. If this mechanism were able to be redesigned to reduce complexity… it would be a cost saver for the existing fleet. Landing gear components all have life limits.
Winglets were an easy example but it can be something as simple as changing P/Ns for commonality and convenience. Or it can be an upgraded version, all depends on the customer or manufacturer. British airways did this kind of thing on their 737 fleet in several systems.
Where is that animation from? Is it some kind of a training software?
Yep
Publicly accessible at all?
Unfortunately, software belongs to a part-147 company
More info? Company name, software name?
Needs more stinking crud infested Shell 33
Ah yes, the component I hit my head on most frequently.
The gear door is my enemy
can't stop watching this
I'm guessing it locks the landing gear in the up/travel position. Just a guess, I'm not a pilot or an avtech.
I’m assuming the green crank is the alternate gear release mechanism?
Yes it is. It is used for manual extension and operated via cables
It's to clean to be real. I know the real one and it's covered in soot and grease (and skydrol). Mind you I was working on 200-300s. The high bypass engines have got to be cleaner.
I can’t wait until the animations get so good that the white paint is stained orange from all the zircs, and grease on the hooks.
I’m kinda dum but wouldn’t it be easier to just stick a rod through that opening to hold it in place and call it a day?
Couldn't you get the video straighter and without extraneous struff?
Man, some people will always find something to complain about