Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No More Large Twin-jets?  
User currently offlineTopJet001 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 9 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3194 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.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ondrej Smrtka
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Kopczak



Andy  Smile

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBA380 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3185 times:

the title is a little confusing... I thought the A350XWB, 777 and 787 were all twin jets  Wink


cabin crew: doors to automatic and cross-check...
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3185 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
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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...



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1305 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3096 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...
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...
El Al:why No More 777s And 744s To CDG? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 15:56:51 by LY777
Why No More Tu-154 Freighter Conversions? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:54:56 by A342
Why No More Lowcost Turboprops? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 20:34:17 by Airevents
Why No More 747 Orders? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 15:28:17 by Emrecan
Why No More A380 Pics? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:53:14 by A380900
Why No More -100s? posted Tue Jul 13 2004 18:30:50 by Tony Lu
Why No More Air India In YYZ? posted Sat Apr 24 2004 17:08:46 by Flug
Why No More SAA Springbok? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 16:04:40 by RA-85154
Why No More Growth @ OneWorld? posted Thu Mar 25 2004 11:03:45 by Flying Belgian
Why No More Hawaiian 717s? posted Sun Jan 25 2004 04:12:37 by Cancidas