Re: Wing vs. tail-mounted engines?

Date:         31 Mar 2001 16:43:10 
From:         "Nate Meier" <nmeier@chat.carleton.ca>
Organization: Sympatico
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

"Daniele Procida" <{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:airliners.2001.66@ditka.Chicago.COM...

> 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.

Having the engines mounted under the wings actually reduces some of the load
on the wing (lift force on wing - engine weight on wing).

> Instead I worry about an uncontained blade failure ripping into the
> fuselage or destroying the tailplane.

Uncontained blade failures are fairly rare and engines (and casings) must be
designed to contain any blade failures.  Uncontained rotor bursts, on the
other hand, are much more common than uncontained blade failures.  I'd be
more worried about rotor bursts since they release wayyyy more energy and a
lot more flying bits.

Nathan Meier