Re: Wing vs. tail-mounted engines?

Date:         31 Mar 2001 16:43:19 
From:         robinjohnson@bigfoot.com (Robin Johnson)
Organization: North Antarctica
References:   1
Followups:    1 2 3 4 5 6
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 23 Mar 2001 17:40:08 , Wolfgang Keller <w_keller@gmx.de> told us:

>What are the actual design tradeoffs today and how did the situation
>evolve over the past decades to favor wing-mounted engines that much? What
>would be the impact of, for example, drastically increased fuel prices
>and/or significantly more strict noise regulations (=> engines with bypass
>ratio >>10)?

Engines these days are very reliable.  It is not unknown for an engine
to remain in position for five years.
On the other hand, more and more ETOPS flights are being undertaken -
the majority of North Atlantic crossings for example. Despite this,
there have been very few ditchings.
Just this month a United 767 on the climb-out from Lihue and bound for
California, had a loss of power on both engines.  No harm done,
but.....
I'm a little concerned about the dynamics of a ditching with
underslung engines, though.  The Ethiopian 767 off the Comores,
although a hijack situation with armed men on the flightdeck, looked
good on the video until the last minute, when it seemed that the
engines dug in asymmetrically, causing the fuselage to break up.
Does anyone know of a successful ditching by a jet?
I would feel safer in a rear-engined model.

-Robin Johnson
(who once saw a recently-ditched Convair 240)