Date: 31 Mar 2001 16:43:22 From: email@example.com Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC References: 1 Followups: 1
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?