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

Date:         23 Dec 96 22:48:02 
From:         jfmezei <nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Organization: SPC
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
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.