Date: 23 Dec 96 22:48:02 From: "P. Wezeman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: The University of Iowa References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
On 19 Dec 1996, Steve Lacker wrote: > 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. 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 latest business jets are as big as some airliners and they still use rear engines, although there will be a long range business version of the 737 to compete in this market. Do rear engines have an advantage in being less likely to pick up debris from the runway at the smaller and less well maintained airports that business jets fly into? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae"