Re: 747 with engines on the wings?

Date:         19 Feb 98 01:33:52 
From:         "Yves E. Hoebeke" <yhoebeke@sprynet.com>
Organization: Sprynet News Service
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


Lion's Pers Agentschap <RLION@worldonline.nl> wrote in article <airliners.1998.269@ohare.Chicago.COM>...
>  What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead
> of on it?

Drag! Airflow over the airfoil is higher in speed than the airflow passing
the lower surface of the airfoil. Remember, drag increase by the square of
speed.

>  Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct
> airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a
> big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can
> be reached even without improving the engines themselves!)
>  The 777 is rather silent, but could be even better with engines on
> the wing.

I'm not sure if it would make _that_ much difference, put possible.

>  Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has a strict noise contour now. The system
> is: the less noisy aircraft are, the more aircraft can visit the
> airport. So, what airlines like KLM need is: silent aircraft.
>  Why are Boeing and Airbus Industrie developing the wrong airplanes
> now: 737-600/700/800/900, 757-300, 767-400, 777-300, A340-500/600 and
> A3XX?

Well.. I didn't see Fokker make aircraft any different.

>  Building aircraft with engines on the wing is very well possible.
> Examples are: VFW-Fokker VFW-614, Antonov An-72/74 and Boeing YC-14.

An-72/74: Probably so the military version has a lower IR signature.
YC-14: To keep water spray out of the engines.
VFW-614: Need to get more of them into Schiphol, never mind the higher fuel
bill. ;-)

> Why do airlines and aircraft manufacturers wit for ICAO's chapter 4?
> Why doesn't aviation take its own responsibility?

Define aviation... manufacturers, FAA, CAA, ATC ??? Pax willing to pay more?

Just my $0.02,

Yves Hoebeke