Why Aren’t The Boeing 737’s Main Wheels Covered In Flight?

If you look at the underside of the Boeing 737 shortly after takeoff or in flight, you will see that the main landing gear wheels sit exposed after folding into their housing. On most other aircraft, it is covered by closing doors. This has been the case since the first 737 was introduced - but why is this?
Article link: simpleflying.c...
Video source links:
737 Assembly construction factory • Flying Out the Door: H...
737 china eastern • China Eastern Airlines...
737 MAX Boeing • New Boeing 737 MAX
737 OrcaLivery • Southwest Airlines Sea...
737 Production • Flying Out the Door: H...
737 Production • Building Boeing’s Next...
737-200 Nolinor • Nolinor Aviation 737-2...
737-200 • Boeing 737-200 Landing...
737-400 Alaska • Alaska Airlines N795AS...
737-500 KlasJet • Video
737-800 Alaska • Alaska Airlines 737-80...
737-800 American • American Airlines 737-...
787-10 and 737 MAX 9 Boeing • Boeing 787-10 Dreamlin...
ARJ21 • B-602A #chengduairline...
A220-300 Airbus • A220-300 in flight
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.c...
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.c...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.c...
Check out our second KZbin channel: / @longhaulbysimpleflying
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying

[@jaylockwood5030]

Other youtubers take 25 minutes to answer this. Congrats on getting to the point!

[@SimpleFlyingNews]

Thanks for the feedback! - TB

[@dinesh74g]

*cough* Mentor Pilot

[@iamojh]

@@dinesh74g *cough* mentour pilot

[@anuclitz]

@@dinesh74g I was thinking the same

[@Think_Inc]

Yeah. They add unnecessary history and details for some reason.

[@cskvision]

How ironic the main selling feature of having the aircraft lower to the ground 60 years ago is now its biggest design hinderance to enhance engine and fuel efficiency to compete with the A320neo.

[@kevinjalfonsov]

Finally, one of the biggest questions in aviation answered!

[@rchrdsn]

not totally. i also wanted to know about the drag impact of not having rear lids to cover the wheels when retracted, since it's not perfectly flat.

[@kevinjalfonsov]

@@rchrdsn hahaha Ik, I was kinda joking with the comment, lol like we didn’t find the arch of the covenant, or did we? 🤷🏿‍♂️ Ever since this kind of questions are left in the mind unanswered and the info is not that easy to find, is so cool that this video sums up the info and gives us an explanation, clear one. At least for me was like: Finally!

[@rchrdsn]

@@kevinjalfonsov i understand and agree with you. i didn't mean to minimize the video. it was as good for me. i just wanted to express what i still wanted to know. of course, based on how they say the aircraft compares with the aribus and how it improved in economy and performance compared to the previous models, we know that the drag doesn't seem to be enough to be a disadvantage.

[@terrenceklaverweide6356]

I kinda am more curious what happened to MH370 to be honest...;)

[@kevinjalfonsov]

@@terrenceklaverweide6356 😱 Get ready we are going full FAA investigators to find the answers!

[@dynasty0019]

Because it's simpler and cheaper, also due to the 737's low ground clearance.

[@petervaughan9111]

The TL;DR answer

[@MalaysianAviator737-8]

@@petervaughan9111 define TLDR

[@turtledz]

@@MalaysianAviator737-8 too long didn't read

[@MalaysianAviator737-8]

@@turtledz thanks

[@maloxster]

Thank you 😊

[@neilpickup237]

Interestingly, the latest version of the Embraer has full doors. So perhaps the advantage/disadvantage balance is shifting. Although the ground clearance issue did confuse me as the doors usually only open while the undercarriage is being raised or lowered.

[@aarondynamics1311]

If the aircraft experiences a hydraulics leak or any problem that would prevent the landing gear from being extended normally, the pilots will use the gravity gear extension system. This allows the gear to be extended by releasing the uplocks and letting it fall into position. This also means that the landing gear doors cannot be closed and so will remain open when the aircraft touches down and so it is important that there is enough ground clearance to allow this without the doors scraping the ground

[@neilpickup237]

@@aarondynamics1311 Now that makes perfect sense.

[@terrenceklaverweide6356]

@@aarondynamics1311 holy.... Thanks.

[@trijetz3562]

Short answer: to keep it cheap, and its landing gear is very short.

[@Inkling777]

Some aircraft, specifically the C-47 and the A-10, don't fold their landing gear away. They merely retract it upward. In situations where the gear won't deploy, it is still there, extending a short distance below the fuselage and allowing the plane to make a belly landing with less damage.

[@RobBCactive]

Passenger aircraft landing gear have to be deployable unpowered with gravity alone. I can't see this "belly landing" feature helping sell flights

[@seanluo8369]

Issue with the 737 being so low: The large 737 MAX engines resulted in placements which caused imbalance and the need for MCAS.

[@Sashazur]

Yes, exactly what I was thinking! The larger Max engines are mounted further forward, it’s the only way to maintain the limited ground clearance.

[@justinhallluper8891]

The fact I've never actually ever noticed this! Good to know.

[@captainclone1367]

Wrong!! The lack of landing gear doors is NOT about ground clearance!! I worked for Boeing for 33 years, retired 2010, as a structural design engineer so ground clearance is not the reason. To put it simply it's was a weight saving initiative. There also use to be a inflatable rubber tube that inflated around the stowed MLG tire sealing the wheelwell. That was later discarded for weight and cost savings reasons. Now ground clearance is the cause of the 737 Max problem. A larger diameter engine nacelle was required but the landing gear could not be lengthened, easily. So the Max team canted the engines up to provide the clearance which caused an aerodynamic problem requiring a computer input into the flight control system. Bad idea.

[@AlexDahlseid2002]

The Boeing 737 isn’t the only aircraft to have exposed landing gear such as the CRJ series of aircraft, DC3/C47 SBD, F4F, PBY, B24 and German aircraft modified for use on the eastern front. The exposed gear design does appear in fiction with Betty’s Hyper Galactic Starcruiser in Atomic Betty series having the exposed red landing pads.

[@boffisgd]

ATR-72 and 42 have it aswell!

[@Mustafa_XJ]

And the Embraer’s

[@zeeshawtys]

wait boffis why are you here lmao

[@boffisgd]

​ @Mustafa M he mentioned Embraer in the video, but he didnt mention ATR :) @@zeeshawtys Cuz Im an airplane nerd aswell ;P

[@Major_Tom98]

To answer the question at the end of the video: the CRJ’s have the same landing gear configuration.

[@ryanhan4462]

i have been asking this for monthes before you made this vid- Great job

[@SimpleFlyingNews]

Thanks for the feedback! - TB

[@halcyongeezer]

2:08 ‘Boeing preferred wing mounting to increase fuselage width’: why would tail mounting restrict fuselage width, when there are other tail-mounted aircraft with of similar size, like the VC10, Il-62 etc? Couldn't find any fuselage width stats for those two, but they're all 6 seats abreast, then there are twin-aisle tail-mounted jetliners like the Tristar, DC-10 etc. Thanks.

[@Orca19904]

In addition to some civilian aircraft like the 737 and the others mentioned near the end of the video, having the landing gear wheels exposed when retracted is also a feature of some WW2-era military aircraft, such as the F4F Wildcat, SBD Dauntless, and variants of the PBY Catalina which were equipped with retractable landing gear. Also, the modern A-10 Thunderbolt II has the wheels of the main landing gear partially exposed when retracted as well.

[@luckyfernandasetiawan1981]

Hamster pouch design? That's cute

[@mtksbctk]

Same design that killed hundreds of ethiopians and indonesians

[@danlastname9002]

@@mtksbctk Nope

[@RobBCactive]

Nope, compromised by accountants that didn't want to redesign the model. The 737 Max is the result

[@78Dipar]

The low landing gear was short sighted, not only it limied the choice for engines, but also led to the design flaws of the 737 Max...

[@gpaull2]

That’s what most media is reporting...but it’s because they don’t take the time to actually understand what happened with the Max. The physics in the Max scenario is the same on any aircraft with underwing mounted engines. The software and associated system to make it feel/fly the same as earlier generations of 737s with smaller and less powerful engines is the real issue. This system was installed to prevent having to retrain 737 pilots on the Max and save the operators money...not because of any unusual aerodynamics issue that is only on the Max.

[@78Dipar]

@@gpaull2 What really happened with the 737 Max is that to accomodate wider engines, that had to be installed much forward, this resulting in aerodynamical unbalance, adding important forward lift when the plane is nose up like it's the case just after take-off, which could cause stalling. The MCAS was intended to compensate for this problem, but it was badly designed, relying on a single pitch detector. This is what caused the two fatal accidents. With a higher landing gear, there would have been no need to put the engines so much forward, and there would have been no need for the MCAS...

[@gpaull2]

@@78Dipar - Yes an improperly designed MCAS is the problem and cause of the crashes. The aerodynamic reasons for MCAS are not. These same aerodynamic forces are still there on ALL 737s NGs (and ALL other aircraft with similar engine locations). The forces are just larger on the Max vs other 737s making for a different feel compared to previous 737s. These aerodynamic forces are still well within safe operating ranges...otherwise the 737 would not be back in the air. Engine location would not have been an issue if Boeing didn’t install MCAS at all, and had pilots get properly trained on the aircraft...or designed MCAS with redundancy like you mentioned. Yes installing longer gear on the original 737 could have prevented the situation, but that could have prevented the success of the original 737 for all of the reasons stated in the video. It’s impossible to expect the foresight required to make design choices in the ‘60s for today’s engines. Regulations need to be update somehow that’ll prevent manufacturers from being tempted to keep making update after update on old designs, instead of coming out with new designs. Not only for safety, but for advancement that would be better for the environment.

[@ethansaviation2672]

@@78Dipar Mcas is only to make the max feel like the ng, no other reasons

[@78Dipar]

@@gpaull2 In the 737 Max engines are larger and put much more forward than in previous 737 models, which increased their lift when the plane is nose up, as it's case just after take off, this is why the MCAS was needed. A low gear may have been a commercial advantage in the past, but it's not the case anymore, the Airbus A320 is a best seller without such a low landing gear. Boeing has designed a higher landing gear for the 737 Max 10, they should have used it on the Max 8. They thought that the MCAS would cost less, it's not been the case !

[@franzfanz]

I like them. It reminds me of old WWII designs with their partially covered designs.

[@spongebubatz]

The CRJ-Family also has the same type of design with their main landing gear

[@harshg.9896]

Interestingly, the low ground clearance is the indirect reason for the 2 crashes in 2019. To install the larger, more efficient engines on the 737 MAX, they had to mount them further forward and higher to avoid touching the ground. This led to a tendency of the aircraft pitching up when climbing at full power, increasing he risk of a stall during take off. To counteract this, instead of making structural modifications, Boeing wrote the MCAS software which would make the nose point downward and the "feel" of the aircraft would remain the same, even though it wasn't. In both the Lion Air and the Ethiopian airlines crash, false sensor data made the MCAS think it was climbing at a higher angle than it really was so the computers brought the nose down. The lion Air pilots reported the plane was feeling "heavy" and not climbing well, before the MCAS dipped the nose too low, causing it to crash into the ground. Had Boeing informed the pilots about the MCAS and provided better training, they would've been ble to shut of the MCAS, which was just a flip of a switch, 350 people would've been alive

[@dynasty0019]

Um, every 737 since the -300 had their engines mounted forward of the wings and up-thrusted from a previous generation. MCAS was installed to avoid simulator training during conversion for pilots, not to correct any aerodynamic issues.

[@quillmaurer6563]

Another question comes to mind - so the 737 doesn't have gear doors because of it's low ground clearance. What about the DC-9/MD-80 series? They are similarly low to the ground but do have gear doors, which pretty clearly would hit the ground if open during landing. Why the difference? Do they just accept that risk of damage for the performance gain?

[@benwhite8157]

The ground clearance design was a factor in the 2 MAX crashes that lead to the 737 MAX groundings. To get more efficient engines (with a greater diameter) on the plane, they pushed the engines forward, out from under the wings. In their testing, this pushed the nose up during flight. This led them to implement the MCAS system, which would mimic 'regular' flight by automatically applying down-nose to offset. It was this bad software implementation and lack of pilot training that caused are the ultimate cause, but the engine placement to accommodate low clearance is definitely a root cause. Boeing was trying to ensure previous generation 37 pilots wouldn't have to recertify for the MAX series, so they added software to mimic flight characteristics of the previous generations, and chose not to disclose the new software to pilots (which would have meant more training).

[@Hk-uw8my]

No the landing gear and engines have nothing to do with the accidents, the mcas was just not designed at it should have been back then. The airplane always pitching up and mcas putting its nose down is just the typical wrong definition from medias which dont have time to explain. Mcas is not an anti stall feature and also not primarily designed to lower the nose, which is only secondary.

[@davidl5546]

Also, for other aircraft with higher ground clearance and with wheel well doors, it is very common to open the doors on the ground during maintenance. So, if the 737 had doors, they would need to be in multiple tiny pieces to avoid hitting the ground. If you look closely at the retracted wheels, you will see the Hub Caps together with the wheels form a sort of fairing, so the air flow disruption is not really an issue.

[@Landino15_]

great video, also the atr 72 also has uncovered landing gear

[@huguesldz6835]

All ATR, not just 72

[@auxiliarypowerunit]

The MRJ/Spacejet by Mitsubishi also has it landing gear exposed

[@TahBoeddha]

What I still don’t know, is how (or if) the wheels seal the fuselage when retracted. The wheels do have an aerodynamic cover, but is there a gap between the wheels and fuselage? How is this part designed?

[@alexatheraichu7310]

On the CRJ-700, which uses a similar system to the 737, there is a thick brush around the edge of the wheel wells. It looks similar to the brushes you see on the sides of escalators.

[@windanthonystream]

The DC-9 and 717 sits lower than the 737 and it has landing gear doors.

[@quillmaurer6563]

Short answer: Because the Boeing 737 is a 1960s vintage regional jet. He mentions the consequences of the short landing gear, the flat-bottom engines, but didn't mention that the biggest issue this caused was the 737 MAX problems. MCAS was to compensate for bad aerodynamics, which result from the engine positioning. Engine position is due to the short landing gear. As for other aircraft with exposed wheels, this is quite common on smaller aircraft, in many cases not due to ground clearance but just simplicity and cost. Lot of GA airplanes, even some WWII fighters and bombers, had this.

[@dynasty0019]

Actually, MCAS is not installed for bad aerodynamics. MCAS was installed the make the MAX feel like an NG at high AoA operations at or near stall speeds to keep a common type rating and to avoid the need for conversion training on the simulator. The MAX can fly without MCAS no problem.

[@quillmaurer6563]

@@dynasty0019 True, at least to some degree. Though still arguably it was used to correct undesirable handling at high AOA caused by the engine placement. In normal flight it plays no role and the MAX's aerodynamics are fine. If it were just an issue of avoiding training, I'd think Boeing and all the airline customers would rather have given all their pilots training on MAX stall recovery and delete MCAS than a year and a half of the planes being grounded. Airlines were having to cancel flights, I'd think they'd much prefer sticking their pilots in sims for a few hours over that. I'd think if that were an option they would have taken it, so I suspect the stall/high-AOA characteristics were not regarded as certifiable without MCAS even with pilot training. Maybe it is recoverable but not sufficiently "easy" for the FAA to like it. Like have to push the yoke forward to recover rather than just let go.

[@ethansaviation2672]

@@quillmaurer6563 yes but deleting it would mean pilot's would need a new type rating

[@quillmaurer6563]

@@ethansaviation2672 I'd think not an entirely new type rating but some supplemental training. The 757 and 767 share a type rating, as do the A330 and A340, despite those aircraft having some major differences. I'd at least hope there'd be some training for a person going one to the other, even if not a wholly new type rating. Same could be true for 737-NG to MAX. There's got to be some re-training needed to go from 737-200 to NG in a similar way, those are pretty different aircraft.

[@Supahemz]

I love your content! Always so informative and clear

[@farazalam3325]

Crisp presentation.. Appreciate it!

[@Calebs_Aviation]

At 3:03 A lot of small general aviation aircraft(If they even have retractable landing gear) like most Piper aircraft or Mooney aircraft just have retractable gear and no doors to cover the landing bays.

[@govindr1420]

Simply : the plane is too low to the ground

[@charlesharper2357]

Which is why the new engines are mounted in a poor position on the MAX, which required MCAS, which killed people. Boeing should have designed a new plane, with enough ground clearance to mount the engines properly...but corporate greed and profits were more important than safety.

[@dinesh74g]

@@charlesharper2357 It was also because if Boeing shelved the 737 with other 10,000 in the air it would be harder for them to maintain existing 737s from airlines still operating them. Because of its unique design, it being in production allows issues to be fixed more readily. The 737NG could've been more unsafe then the MAX otherwise

[@filledwithvariousknowledge1065]

@G R Then why did the Embraer E1 Jets have no gear cover doors too?

[@charlesharper2357]

@@dinesh74g That makes no sense whatsoever.

[@charlesharper2357]

@@filledwithvariousknowledge1065 The Embraer is a regional jet, not an airliner.

[@hehehoho3770]

the F2A, F3F, and F4F all had this kind of exposed gear (albeit at the side rather than on the bottom) because it was probably a more compact mechanism fitted to planes at a time when retractable gear was only starting to be retrofitted to older designs in the 1930s

[@RobBCactive]

The 737 Max still being low to the ground has lead to too many compromises. The Boeing accountants have gained too much power over sound engineering

[@jwc3104]

This "Low to the ground" design is the ultimate cause for the whole 737MAX fiasco.

[@alexnutcasio936]

Actually, its not. It was the placement of new engines on it that caused the issue.

[@JaydenJelly]

@@alexnutcasio936 the placement of the new engines in trying to keep the plane close to the ground, that is

[@alexnutcasio936]

@@JaydenJelly Its the engines that changed, NOT the frame itself. High bypass and very large with a tendency to lift the nose.

[@JaydenJelly]

@@alexnutcasio936 yes, that's exactly what the problem is. the fact they didn't bother changing the frame resulting in a rushed and botched solution (MCAS) and many lives being lost

[@RoyalMela]

@@JaydenJelly Yes. Engines on MAX are higher and more in front of the wing, making the thrust balance different. Hard to explain but the engines create thrust from different place than previous engines. That has the effect that the plane is out of balance when the engines want to pust the plane to different direction. The centre of thrust is off balance with the frame itself. And even with different engines, the airflow over the wing is different.

[@kthorsen253]

The orientation of the ram air exhausted helps with drag in that area too.

[@jst7714]

Didn't the DC-3 have wheels slightly exposed in case the hydraulics failed?

[@BeachsideHank]

Boeing does put some weighty engineering thought in its landing gear design. The B- 17 bomber's wheels did not fully retract into the engine housing either, but that was indeed a feature, not a flaw. It was anticipated battle damaged aircraft might not be able to lower the wheels, but with the right amount of projection, a belly landing could be had that would result in minimal airframe damage thus allowing a quick repair and refit and off again to bomb some city in Europe.

[@werner2503]

My question would be that the predecessor 727 is as low as the 737 but do has doors covering the main gear wheels. Why is that?

[@cab6273]

And the DC-9

[@arrow-flight]

The A-10 Warthog also has exposed main landing gear.

[@gpaull2]

I think I read that is so that it doesn’t take as much damage in a wheels up landing if the hydraulic system is damaged. The DC3 main wheels hang out for partly the same reason.

[@kallek5655]

The Fokker 70/100 have landing gear doors and they're also quite low to the ground.

[@Mo_Aviation]

Nice good information 👏👏👏👍👍👍

[@Genusil]

Most WW2 fighters plane had no door bay, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Spitfires, Soviet IL-6 for instance.

[@martinross5521]

Many thanks for the neat and clear explanation with great film to illustrate the setup

[@ruffynd]

How did I not know this and I worked at a airport for 20 years. I could imagine looking up thinking the doors were ripped off if I ever noticed.

[@adamsadventures9919]

Never knew or noticed that. Quite interesting. Thanks!

[@HeathrowAviator]

I think the ATR 42/72 has 737-esque gear housings

[@SwitzerlandCheeese]

The Dornier 328 has the 737 landing gear system, along with one of the cessna citations as well.

[@royalmaroc001]

2:33 737 max doesn't have hamster pouch, it has engine placed little above the og 737 placement

[@vietnamesecountryballtwo1424]

Yes not just boeing b737, airbus a220 also have its belly without fully closed landing gear doors

[@TaylorAmes]

I believe the business jets made by Cessna also don't fully cover their gear in flight. That includes the Mustang, M2, CJ1 through CJ4, Sovereign, Latitude, Longitude, X, and the rest of the Citation family with the Bravo, Encore, Ultra, ect. Correction: The Cessna Citation Longitude does have fully enclosed gear during flight.

[@joydasgupta9445]

Didn't mention anything about the effects on tyres due to open?

[@gooner72]

This is a fact that most air travellers don't even realise even though most passengers have been on one at some point in their lives.

[@kempo_95]

You don't see the underside of a plane that often.

[@Nikhil-dp3nh]

ATR72 also has uncovered main gears in flight!

[@williamwildcat]

And 42

[@DarkestVictory]

The 737 is my favorite aircraft

[@irobinhood5529]

2:22 I really like that paint job.. What is it though?

[@badhrihari1705]

Then we should do this for must medium and short haul flights

[@hridaypattandar8199]

This type of landing gear is also used in ATR 72

[@vikramsingha2312]

The low design of the 737 and the subsequent 737 Max that required the installation of bigger efficient engines caused the improper mounting and balance in the 737 Max. And the rest is history due to crashes on account of the software which was designed to balance this uneven weight distribution in the aircraft.

[@mq46312]

What about sliding doors?

[@jonesaviation1116]

Love how the thumbnail is a Janet Area 51 jet

[@ragrerodon3885]

Haha true

[@mattwilson5383]

Came here for this, left happy

[@kiimore7093]

The ATR 42 and 72 also have this design

[@gabrielcolon8900]

It’s always been the mysterious question amongst aviators... glad to see the mystery finally solved.. better than looking it up

[@captainblake2583]

Even private jets have that too, like the Cessna Citation X. 🛫

[@dougm6146]

Interesting, I had wondered too.

[@davidmarle]

The Challenger 300 and 600 series of business jets also have this type of exposed landing gear. ;-)

[@folgtmiraufinsta4701]

I didn't know that's the case at a220s

[@marleybrown4554]

Does it really take off at that steep of a angle?

[@thatfloridian5719]

I have see this on ATR-72 Aircraft

[@lloydgreenninja7484]

i still noticed it on most cirrus vision jets

[@hughvane]

Sliding doors to cover the wheels in flight?

[@kervneelnarayan7770]

ATR 72 and the ATR 42 has the open landing gears

[@toddryan6056]

I thought the 737-300's and 400's had circular engine cowlings until TACA 110 happened and they redesigned the engine cowlings to prevent the same incident from happening again

[@ormuzoryon]

I can't help asking myself what is the actual aerodynamic impact of these "open bay" landing gear designs. Logic tells me that at least there is some added drag during the flight phase, this being particularly critical for commercial aircraft but not so much so for private aviation

[@RoyalMela]

Not much actually, or none. There is a very small ridge in front of the wheel which directs air over, or this case under, the wheel, making the wheel well an air pocket. With the speed the plane flies, it only takes few millimeters of a spoiler to direct the air away from the wheel and like said here, even the rim of the wheel is flat. And when the air pressure is level in flight, the pressure inside the wheel well creates a "pillow" of air, thus becoming an aerodynamic object itself.

[@mgsaviation9292]

What made the 737 so successful?

[@dynasty0019]

Easy and cheap to operate, a very robust pilot pool, virtually unlimited sources for spare parts, and very easy to maintain.

[@mgsaviation9292]

@@dynasty0019 what about the dc-9?

[@AML2000]

@@mgsaviation9292 Even though the 737 has been updated and redesigned several times, Boeing has always called it a 737, just changing the designation after the dash. Thus, when they redesigned the first generation, the -100 and -200, they just called the new one -300 and -400, etc. However, when Mcdonnell-Douglas redesigned the DC-9 the same way, they changed the name to MD-8x, because the company wasn't Douglas-Curtiss anymore. The last DC-9 successor was to be the MD-95, but Boeing bought out the company and released the jet to commercial use as the Boeing 717.

[@Kalvinjj]

Adding to it, the airframe was easily adapted to many sizes. Just like the A320, you could have anything from a tiny-ish regional jet to a significantly spacious narrow body aircraft, hence they just kept producing it over and over, instead of just calling it a new thing. In the end, if it fills a market that is big enough and has been in production for many decades, it's bound to be successful.

[@andydporter5136]

Good video but you failed to mention the most significant consequence of the 737's low to the ground design; a consequence that resulted in the loss of 346 lives a few years back. The 737 is an outdated design and the MAX variant is Boeing's avarice and criminal negligence made manifest.

[@mrthomasfritz]

Why aren't the 737 MAX jets wheel covered during flight like all other aircraft? They kept falling off!

[@harryroberts388]

Less weight too

[@getoutmecar2940]

Also if the hydraulics fail on wheel doors then the wheels cant go out

[@dipsikhabanerjee6433]

Yes on ATR 72 and ATR 42

[@bryananthony7310]

ATR-72 & 42

[@hubalahu]

It looks gross to me that the wheels are just flat exposed under the plane. Just my opinion tho so hopefully yall won't take it against me.

[@Neptune997]

Mitsubishi Zero didn’t have a cover on the wheels

[@captainh3805]

yes

[@Evil.Totoro]

Do the tires get brittle or damaged being exposed to cold air when at altitude?

[@TMJ32]

They're exposed to cold whether there's doors over them or not.

[@mariabeneditamiguelbatista8446]

Magnífico explendido maravilhosoooo uauuu ameiiiiiiii 🤔

[@TMJ32]

How have I never noticed this

[@theinfinite42203]

my question has been answered

[@IntellectualHazard]

Even if it did have a landing gear cover, Ryanair firm landings would definitely break them apart

[@filledwithvariousknowledge1065]

It’d be more likely from the plane being violently thrown around during a loss of control. An excellent example which I recommend reading up or listening to on YT is China Airlines Flight 006 where it was more than just the gear cover doors that broke yet landed safely by luck

[@HyperSarcasticAvocado]

Dang that plane just gonna free ball

[@DavidMarfe]

Yeah the spitfire haha 737 is 70 years old now some people feel it might be time to retire and more problems are starting to show.

[@NakulDalakoti]

Mentour pilot has already made a video on this topic

[@eun5oo280]

But it took a bajillion years for him to say it in the video.

[@Archergod]

You don't need it if you're only flying for 6 minutes.

[@CanadaPlayz48]

I was wondering about this

[@patrickcesalestajodywibowo741]

Before i was think that this is an sign of the aircraft type. There are 2 wheels uncovered, so if the ppl on the ground see the aircraft, they will know that the aircraft is Boeing 737

[@brucemaloy4769]

This antique design is why Boeing is way behind the A320 and why 300+ people died in Max. Boeing is 30 years late on a new single isle design.

[@dynasty0019]

Actually this design is not antique at all. The first landing gear door design actually came first with the Comet, 707, DC-8, etc. The 737's was the first to use the simpler design and it's been adapted by other narrowbody airliners and business jets.

[@therickman1990]

3:05 The DC3 comes to mind

[@theephemeralglade1935]

What people don't really seem to appreciate is that the fan blades on the later 737s were flat on the bottom, so they could draw in virtually the same amount of air as a bigger diameter turbofan, but retain ground clearance of the earlier 737s, lol.

[@nigelssurfshop]

Next Video: Why does the DC-9 have covered main wheels and it is shorter that a 737.

[@5.43v]

Fuselage width