Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Shower thought here. With all the NEO, and Max reengineering to add larger turbofans why did tail-mounted engines disappear?
Why did larger airliners move away from tail mounted engines?
- Thread starter Cessnaflyer
- Start date
Luigi
Well-Known Member
Because with ETOPS there isn’t a need for the 3rd engine and its associated larger fuel burn.
Beefy McGee
Well-Known Member
I think he meant side of the tail, like a DC-9 or CRJ.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Guessing the obvious engineering problem. After the 2nd or 3rd fuselage stretch, the CG is so far aft you can't do another one.
milleR
Well-Known Member
That makes sense, though the MD-90 is about as long as a 757-200 for whatever that’s worth.
Luigi
Well-Known Member
Ahhh carry on guys. Sorry in my own little world today.
ASpilot2be
Qbicle seat warmer
Maybe also from a MX perspective the lower engines are easier to maintain.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
I had the same thought.
BravoHotel
Well-Known Member
Larger engines? Why not do what the Russians did on the AN-72?
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
If you need to use unimproved runways, sure.
The engineer answer is better to put the engines on the wing. You can make a lighter structure that way - unlike fuel, the engines never get lighter in flight. That sells more airplanes, when you have the weight savings to cram in more seats.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
The original bitchjet.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
That’s “The ‘Merican Bitchjet,” son. Say it with pride!
Well, ETOPS was supposed to be the rarest of exceptions to fit odd and unusual circumstances, yet, somehow the bean counters got it so muddled that most people now think it's perfectly normal to cross a large body of water with only one spare ... Three engines, as opposed to the "old" norm of four was actually fairly controversial.
I suppose, with the superior reliability of modern engines, I shouldn't feel resentful, the gathered data should be just as correct as the data for the MAX. Nevertheless, we still travel to Europe every couple of years and I always spend the few extra $$ on ID-90 to ride LH or BA 747s...
Lawman
Well-Known Member
We (unlike the Soviet Military) don't have a tendency to take our aircraft mudding on a regular basis. Some of the design specifications common to their aircraft were requirements to extremely austere conditions maintained at a lot of their airfields. Plus that buys you nothing in regards to maintainability for servicing. You still need a very big ladder vs the hanging pod type designs common with western aircraft.
To the original post about tail mounted engines. Keep in mind that engine diameters have increased significantly as the progression to larger bypass turbofans has developed. That would mean a loss of available airflow over the tail and a wider spread of disturbed air for which to have to calculate in control design.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
I believe the term you are looking for is the "normalization of deviance."
Though I'd go sit out overwater in a 757, 767, 777, 350, or 330 all day long.
ASpilot2be
Qbicle seat warmer
I guess you won't be going to Europe much longerWell, ETOPS was supposed to be the rarest of exceptions to fit odd and unusual circumstances, yet, somehow the bean counters got it so muddled that most people now think it's perfectly normal to cross a large body of water with only one spare ... Three engines, as opposed to the "old" norm of four was actually fairly controversial.
I suppose, with the superior reliability of modern engines, I shouldn't feel resentful, the gathered data should be just as correct as the data for the MAX. Nevertheless, we still travel to Europe every couple of years and I always spend the few extra $$ on ID-90 to ride LH or BA 747s...
///AMG
Well-Known Member
I guess you won't be going to Europe much longer
Just needs to box himself up.....plenty of rides to be had on the mighty MD wide body trijet (or 747 for that matter).
