Date: 23 Dec 96 22:48:02 From: jfmezei <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: SPC References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
Steve Lacker wrote: > of the cabin) etc. 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? I think that rear mounted engines will remain where they are necessary: small jets such as the CRJ where the wings are too low to have engines mounted under them. I am not sure about this, but would the advent of wider higher-bypass engines have anything to do with the more prominent use of wing mounted engines ? The DC-9, with its narrow engines was "OK", but I wonder if 777-class engines would be feasable as rear-mounted engines, but in structural strenght (and added weight) and BALANCE of plane on ground.