Re: Trijet engine mounts

From:         weiss@babbage.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss)
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
Date:         06 Feb 93 02:45:30 PST
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


In article <airliners.1993.131@ohare.Chicago.COM> reb@Ingres.COM writes:
>My  question  about   the   L-1011 is  that   since   it   sounds like
>manufacturers go to  great pains  to not  'bend' the airflow  why does
>that rear have a duct that does just that? Why doesn't the tail engine
>mount look more like the DC-10?

That one I can answer.  There was (and still is) a debate over which is better.
The DC-10s approach is aerodynamically better for the engine, but is
aerodynamically worse in terms of skin friction (drag along the sides of the
fuselage), and is harder to remove for maintenance.

The L-1011 is exactly the opposite.
-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  weiss@seas.ucla.edu   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \