Re: 737 musings

From:         "Dr. Martin Erdelen" <HRZ090@AIXRS1.HRZ.UNI-ESSEN.DE>
Date:         19 Sep 94 12:36:23 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 19 Sep 94 01:28:39 Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> said:
>
>The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak
>point in the mount at the rear of the engine.  This way, if something
>happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear.  The
>engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and
>the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of
>harm's way.  (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal
>stabilizers.)

Amazing... there seems to be no end to possible design goals.
But, speaking naively (euphem. for ignorantly): isn't this a somewhat
roundabout approach? Why not making the *front* mount give in so that
engine rotates downwards around rear mount and leaves earthwards with
nothing else in the way (instead of trying to sneak it between wing
and stabilizers)?
Just curious.

Regards,
MArtin