Re: Wing vs. tail-mounted engines?

Date:         19 Apr 2001 16:40:25 
From:         JP Caputa <jcaputa@engr.uvic.ca>
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


Mad Monks wrote:

> Daniele Procida <{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
> >As someone who is scared out of his wits by aeroplanes, I much prefer
> >MD-80s and the like, because the sight of those enormous heavy engines
> >making those delicate wings bend up and down in that terrifying fashion
> >is something I can really do without. At least on a MD-80 I don't spend
> >the entire flight checking to see if the wings are going fall off.
>
> The wing mounted engines are there because it makes for easier
> lengthening and shortening of the a/c.  The chief engineer for the 747
> pushed through the wing-mounted engine for the 737 so that the a/c
> could be better balanced and also lengthened (so we now have a/c as
> short as the 737-500 and as long as the -900).  A tail-mounted engine
> would have limited this flexiblity.

What about the DC9/MD 80-95/717 series, those came in lengths between 46.5 m
for an MD-90 to 37.2 m for an MD-95, seems pritty strechable to me!

-JP
jcaputa@engr.uvic.ca