Re: Wing vs. tail-mounted engines?

Date:         31 Mar 2001 16:43:22 
From:         cp@panix.com
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

CptKrell@aol.com wrote:
>> 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)?

Long ago I remember reading a comparison of Boeing 707 vs DH Comet, which
claimed that the 707 design of engines slung under the wing had
aerodynamic advantages over the sleeker, engines-inside-the-wing approach
of the Comet. As I recall (from reading this years ago) the placement of
engines under the wing encourages airflow into the engines which enhances
performance; someone with greater knowledge, on this news group, could
make better sense of this.

Certainly the four-engines-at-the-tail configuration, as in the old VC10,
entailed the obvious danger that if one engine threw a turbine blade or
caught fire, its adjacent engine was almost certain to be damaged.

Plus, aircraft with engines mounted at the rear require the T-shaped
stabilizer configuration, which, as I recall, means that the stabilizer
ceases to function if the aircraft is in a nose-up position where the
stabilizer drops down into turbulence from the main wing.  Correct?