L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3307 times:
Try reading the entire post Cainan. As for the question at hand, I think the largest tail-engined planes were the VC10 and IL-62. Interesting question though.
Bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2411 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3269 times:
CaiananUK
You got your reply slipped in there while I was editing my original post.
Concord977 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1261 posts, RR: 29 Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3114 times:
I know of three concepts that never came to life:
Boeing 747-300 (first concept):
BAC-311 Widebody concept:
Airbus Blended Wing Body concept:
Drawings are public domain and credited to their original owner/poster.
BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
I was thinking about the same thing today. It would be nice to see a 777 with a GE90 or Trent on its tail that would be impressive. I was also wandering if Airbus cant offer a super cargo jet with 5 engines 2 under each wing and 1 mounted in a Tristar format.
Fanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2790 times:
Vickers had an interesting proposal; here's what I found in one of my old aviation magazines:
Sorry, I cannot get the picture to appear automatically. Try the following link:
FlyABR From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
one would almost think that a widebody with "only" rear fuselage attached engines would be incredibly unbalanced due to the weight of the engines a widebody would require. i would imagine that's why it's never been done ... ?
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2214 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
OK maybe its a stupid thought as I'm no engineer but.. It has been discussed here either the -30 or -40 DC10 had a rather involved throttle procedure on landing to keep number two from having a compressor stall. I never really understood what caused this but had thought it was the attitude of the aircraft and the interuption of the airflow to the engine by the fuselage at that angle of attack. IF (big if) thats part of it then think what all three/four rear mounted engines might be subject to by a wide body.
Any designers out there?
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15873 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2543 times:
Tail mounted engines on big planes create all sorts of maintenance hassles. Engines that far up require tall platforms, cranes and so on. Also, without engines hanging under the wings, you have to strengthen the wings to avoid bending moment and twisting.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Skydrolboy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
M404,
Yes the DC-10 had to worry about compressor stalling, the L-1011 and 727 have similar problems. The problem is pretty much caused by what you said, the fuselage disturbing the air into the engine. Mounting three or four engines on the tail would not nessecarily have this problem depending on where you mount the engines, if you mount them on the side like a DC-9, there will be now problem at all, but if you mount one engine in the center of the tail like a DC-10, L1011, 727, you will still have the compressor stall problem to worry about, most likely this is one of the main reasons why this design hasn't really been used in a while.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15873 posts, RR: 66 Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2325 times:
Not to mention the problem of building the central nacelle/fin structure. Talk about complicating life.
And even without being a 3-holer pilot or mechanic, I can only imagine how much fun it must be to climb all the way up there to check the engine every single time, instead of just peering in with both feet firmly on the ground, or a short ladder.
Wings bend. Need engines to decrese flutter: Solution, hang engines on wing.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2207 times:
It's primarily a weight issue. The support structure needed to keep the engines on the fuselage is less efficient (heavier) than having them hanging from the wings.
It's also cheaper to maintain them since wing mounted engines are more readily accessible. Clearly, there are other issues when you consider growth and shrink variants.
Both Boeing and Airbus went through this with the 757 and 320 programs. I suppose the same arguments hold true for widebodies.
I think the BAC 3-11 was to be the largest of the traditionally conceived rear engine widebody designs.
CainanUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
L.1011
Before you flame me, you should realise that the original post was edited. The second sentence was not there when I responded. Sure, I accept your apology.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2411 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 548 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, 
From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15873 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
