TopJet001 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 9 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
Why are manufacturers moving away from the DC9, MD80/90 and B717 design. As we all know Boeing ended production of the 717 in May, and as far as I can tell the only manufacturer to continue production is Embraer with their ERJ family.
It seems that manufacturers (including Embraer with their newer 170/175/190/195 models) want to stay with the traditional - engine-under-wing design. Why is this? More efficient, better aerodynamics...?
I'm sorry if a similar topic has been posted before - I'm fairly new to Airliners Net.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 32 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1831 times:
Quoting TopJet001 (Thread starter): seems that manufacturers (including Embraer with their newer 170/175/190/195 models) want to stay with the traditional - engine-under-wing design. Why is this?
The weight of the engines offsets lift-induced stress on the wing.
Rear-mounted engines generally necessitate a T-tail, which brings its own problems of structural integrity, masking of the tail surfaces with risk of deep stall at high angles of attack - in turn necessitating the installation of a stick-pusher, etc.
Large-diameter fan engines do not make for easy rear-fuselage mounting.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2079 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1780 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 2): Large-diameter fan engines do not make for easy rear-fuselage mounting.
The MD90 had to be extended 1,5 meters ahead of the wing to avoid the aircraft tipping on its butt due to the new and heavy IAE V2500 engines.
Quoting Viv (Reply 2): Rear-mounted engines generally necessitate a T-tail, which brings its own problems of structural integrity, masking of the tail surfaces with risk of deep stall at high angles of attack - in turn necessitating the installation of a stick-pusher, etc.
Could this be one of the reasons why the stretched CRJ900X is still not launched? The engines will be the same (with same weight?) as on the CRJ900, though...
Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1742 times:
Fuse mounting saves on the landing gear. The 737 is an intermediate solution: engines with flat-bottom nacelles. The 757 shares the 737 fuselage but due to the bigger engines it needed a higher landing gear.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 9 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2079 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
