Re: 737 musings

From:         rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date:         14 Oct 94 02:23:33 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.1607@ohare.Chicago.COM> "Dr. Martin Erdelen" <HRZ090@AIXRS1.HRZ.UNI-ESSEN.DE> writes:
>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.  
>
>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)?

1.  Most engine designs aren't as "tidy" as the 737-200s, where the engine is
neatly tucked under the wing.  Many airliners have the bulk of an engine in
FRONT of the leading edge, attached via a rather long pylon.  It makes sense 
to have the strongest area where it can resist the pivot moment.

2.  As Karl implies, if the engine rotated down and out, it could damage 
wing control surfaces on the way out, as well as damage the horizontal 
stabilizer.  

Strange though it may seem, "up and over" actually does work pretty well.




--              
Robert Dorsett                         Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation
rdd@netcom.com                         aero-simulation@rascal.ics.utexas.edu