Re: Wing vs. tail-mounted engines?

Date:         16 May 2001 17:45:24 
From:         "ME Incorporated" <whyyou@boddah.me>
Organization: World Trade Network, Inc. (WT.net)
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


"Jonathan Thornburg" <jthorn@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:airliners.2001.106@ditka.Chicago.COM...

<snip>
> The industry doesn't care much about it, but safety is another big
> advantage of wing-mounted engines:  What kills people in a jet crash
> is often not the crash itself, but the ensuing fire.  Tail-mounted
> engines mean fuel pipes running from the wing (where the fuel tanks are)
> aft through the fuselage to the engines, i.e. you've got fuel right
> in the fuselage with the passengers.  In contrast, wing-mounted engines
> allow all the fuel to be kept in the wings, some distance away from the
> passengers.  (Some designs do put fuel tanks in the wing center sections
> anyway.)

That's all well and good, but ya still have center wing tanks on most
airliners.  That's potentially gonna get into the cabin as well.  While it's
not piping, true, I wonder how much of the fuel in a CWT can get into the
cabin.  Or outright just explode due to vapors...