Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody  
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2687 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4460 times:

I was wondering if any aircraft manufacturer has ever considered building a widebody with tail mounted engines.

I don't mean anything like the DC-10, MD-11 or the L-1011. I was thinking more like a 727 or a DC-9 likeness.

[Edited 2004-03-29 01:55:35]

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCainanUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

I guess they never ACTUALLY produced the DC-10 or the Tristar.


Cainan Cornelius
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4387 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.

User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2687 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

CaiananUK

You got your reply slipped in there while I was editing my original post. Big grin


User currently offlineConcord977 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1261 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4194 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.




Curt / concord977
Washington, DC






No info
User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

Boeing (OK MDD) also had a blended wing concept for approx 800pax that was rear engined.


"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3990 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.



Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineFanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1964 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3870 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:

http://community.webshots.com/user/dlberek

If that doesn't work, log onto http://community.webshots.com and search for user dlberek.

Cheers,

Daniel



The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
User currently offlineFlyABR From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3824 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 ... ?

User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

The Russian IL-86 was primarily considered to have rear mounted engines.

User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3623 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."
User currently offlineSkydrolboy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3433 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.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3405 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."
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3287 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.


User currently offlineCainanUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3017 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.



Cainan Cornelius
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is This Aircraft With 5 Tail Mounted Engines? posted Sun Nov 20 2005 08:10:18 by ArgInMIA
Extra Tail Mounted Engine On 747? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 13:55:46 by GLAGAZ
Tail Mounted Engines Safer For Belly Landings? posted Wed Jan 7 2004 04:10:35 by BeltwayBandit
No Desire For Tail Mounted Engines? posted Thu Nov 20 2003 04:02:01 by Cancidas
Under Wing Engines Vs Tail Mounted Engines posted Wed Feb 27 2002 13:41:29 by Qatar
Where Are The Engines On This Plane? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 21:18:44 by LGWspeedbird
Engines On KQ B777 posted Wed Aug 16 2006 00:24:27 by QantasA380
PHX-Nashville On A Widebody, Can It Be Done? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 20:20:29 by 747hogg
Replacement Engines On Military 707's posted Wed Jun 28 2006 01:48:19 by StarCityFlyr
The End Of Rear Mounted Engines? posted Wed May 17 2006 06:05:30 by United787