3
$\begingroup$

Why are the engine pods on the Embraer 190 thicker, related to the overall diameter of the engine, than most of the other pods on other jets? Wouldn't this design add more drag and reduce efficiency?

Pictures added for reference.

Embraer 190:

Embraer 190

Boeing 737:

Boeing 737

Airbus A330

Airbus A330

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Well. I didn't manage to find proper images but I have flown on one yesterday and it was very clear whilst boarding that the pod was really thick compared to other aircraft. $\endgroup$
    – Fabrizio Mazzoni
    Commented Dec 4, 2015 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ Relative thickness. Will modify question. $\endgroup$
    – Fabrizio Mazzoni
    Commented Dec 4, 2015 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ Perspective might fool you here. It looks much thicker from further away and photographed with a long focal length, because it tapers towards the front. It also looks thicker with a relatively small fan diameter, just because it's larger in relation. $\endgroup$
    – JulianHzg
    Commented Dec 5, 2015 at 14:11

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

The nacelle contains a lot of equipment for controlling the engine. While this will certainly scale with the size of the engine, there is also some amount of minimum space needed for the components. The volume also increases faster than the surface area, so there is more room to spread things out. You will notice that the general trend in your pictures is relatively thinner nacelles as the engine diameter goes up:

E190 - CF34 - 57 in
B737 - CFM56 - 61 in
A330 - CF6 - 105 in

The difference between the CFM56 and CF34 isn't that great, but I think your image of the 737 isn't the best for comparison. If you look at an image more comparable to the CF34 picture you have, like this one, they appear much more similar.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .