United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2503 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3024 times:
Are airplanes with rear mounted engines on commercial jets a thing of the past? Do you think we will ever see a new plane with rear mounted engines again? All of the models above are no longer in production, or almost out of production.
Airbus has never built a plane with rear mounted engines.
Boeing only built two, the 727 which was first flown in 1963 and the 717 was inherited from McDonnell Douglas.
McDonnell Douglas is gone and their DC-9, MD-80, MD-90, DC-10, and MD-11's will eventually go. Except for NW of course.
The One-Eleven, L-1011, F28, F70, F100, Vickers VC-10, and HS-121 Trident are disappearing or gone.
The Tu-134, Tu-154, Yak-40, Yak-42, IL-62 are all ancient planes so I assume they are not being made anymore.
That leaves us with the only commercial jets being made with rear engines are the CRJ and ERJ. With the success of the new Embraer wing mounted jets, 170, 175, 190, & 195, and the slow down of the CRJ and ERJ lines. Could this be it? Will they be the last?
I have heard before that structurally, it is easier to place an engine on the wing rather than the fuselage; less structure, lower cost, less weight, less fuel, less cost. Is that true?
I have also heard that wing mounted engines are easier to maintain because they are lower to the ground and the tail mounted engines like on the 727, DC-10 and L-1011 were especially difficult to maintain because of their location. True?
I also assume there is less noise under the wing, what else?
Is there any reason why we might see tail mounted or rear mounted engines again?
Breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1860 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2839 times:
It's both little bit funny and sad that you have omitted "Caravelle" in your list.
That was the trend maker as far as rear mounted engines are concerned, the mother of them all.
Are you that young, or am I that old ?
Aifos From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2754 times:
Forgetting the Caravelle is a shame....
Excellent article last year in Airways Magazine on how Mc D Douglas started a joint venture with Sud Aviation maker of the beautiful french plane and then for "obscure reasons" stopped all contacts before launching their brand new baby the DC9 a year or two later....
Breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1860 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2657 times:
Quoting United787 (Thread starter): have heard before that structurally, it is easier to place an engine on the wing rather than the fuselage; less structure, lower cost, less weight, less fuel, less cost. Is that true?
The main advantage of rear mounted engines is that you get a clean wing, aerodynamically speaking.
Is you have small engines, as was the case in the late 50s-60s, rear is best.
On the other hand, rear mounted engines need to be fed from the wings (and sometimes of course from the fin).
Their weight lead to an unbalanced plane in terms of lengths forward and aft of the wings. If the fuselage is to be lengthened, then you need a powerful stabilizer (as on the DC-9).
Engines in under-wing pods are easy to access, but impose the wings and the fuselage to be quite high (required clearance) and are therefore not so suitable for small planes.