Re: Fate of the MD-11, MD-90, MD-95

Date:         23 Dec 96 22:48:01 
From:         Stephen La Joie <lajoie@eskimo.com>
Organization: Eskimo North For Ever
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Steve Lacker wrote:

[snip]

> On to some substance... someone commented that we are about to see
> the end of the tri-jet, and the end of the rear-mounted twin for
> good. The end of the Trijet is reasonably logical, but it seems to
> me that rear-mounted engines have many design advantages- less
> thrust asymmetry for one-out, less wing structure, less plumbing in
> the wing, cleaner wing aerodynamics, less noise (at least in most
> of the cabin) etc.

Aren't the speaker of the PA system of the DC-9/MD-80 series
tapped higher at the back of the aircraft to overcome the engine
noise? It gets pretty loud back there.

And the engines are in just the right position to suck up
FOD kicked up by the landing gear.


> What are some of the DISadvantages that made
> Boeing abandon the design, and Airbus never adopt it? I know that
> really big fans look dorky back there (MD-90), but thats a cosmetic
> effect- is there an aerodynamic penalty to having the engines back
> there?

The big UHBs that were proposed by Douglas would have required
the entire back end of the airplane be strengthened.