From my reading of the B-737 MAX’s problems, the problems originated when the new larger diameter LEAP engine had to be placed more forward and higher than previous engines, due to the Fan’s large diameter and ground clearance issues. MCAS was a by-product of this compromise. It seems that Boeing’s version of the LEAP engine even has a smaller N1 fan than Airbus’ version, for the same reason.
Why not then hang the LEAP engines on variable position pylons, that would have a ground position, used during take off and landing, and a flight position, where the engines would be moved to an optimal position for flight ? Connect the feature to the landing gear lever.
We have variable wing aircraft like the F-111 and the B-1, folding wing aircraft like the B-777 and the Grumman E-2, so I don’t think that a variable position engine pylon would pose a great engineering challenge to Boeing engineers.
But it would need time, time for design, manufacturing, testing and certification, a luxury Boeing may not have. And the FAA would be hard presssed to continue certifying such an aircraft under the original B-737 type certificate.
Over the years, the B-737 went trough several engine upgrades, a full wing redesign and several avionics upgrades and still mangaged to retain the original type certificate with Supplementary type certificates to cover the modifications. Will a variable position engine pylon still allow it to be considered as a modification of the original 1967 model ?
My Canadian pilot’s licence say « B73C », meaning I am only rated on the NG version of the 737 (the -600 through the -900 series). It’s the same with EASA licences. But my FAA pilot’s licence just says « B737 », so I am theoretically rated on all 737 aircraft. Can Boeing continue to stretch the myth that the B737-100 is the same beast as the B737 MAX ?