Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wing Mounted VS. Fuselage Mounted  
User currently offlineJmacias34 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 380 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12937 times:

What are the pros and cons of having Fuselage or Wing mounted engines???

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offline48v From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12914 times:

Pros of rear mounted engines:

  • Allows a clean wing with no engines disturbing the airflow.
  • Engines have more protection from ingesting snow or foreign objects on the runway.
  • Keeps noise near the back of the plane.
  • Engines closer together give better handling in an engine-out situation.

Cons of rear mounted engines:

  • Requires more strength (= weight) in rear fuselage to carry the weight of engines - wing mounted engines are already supported by the wing, thus no extra fuselage structure is required.
  • Usually requires a T-tail or cruciform tail, which is less efficient and heavier than a conventional tail.
  • Can have truly nasty low-speed handling characteristics if engines block airflow over the tail.
  • May be more difficult to access engines for maintainence - this varies a lot by plane.

User currently offlineAV8N2 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12887 times:

48V, pretty good, but a couple of faults, and comments:

1) Actually, rear mounted engines are just as bad, if not worse for FOD ingestion. Anything that the tires run over, or a tire itself, will immediately proceed to one or both of the rear mounted engines. This has caused a number of engine failures on takeoff.

2) Along those same lines as in #1 above, in the case of the DC-9s and MD-80s, any ice on the wings WILL go through an engine. And, yes, ice does form on the fuel tanks at temps as high as 70 degrees F - I have seen it many times! Therefore, as part of every MD or 9 preflight, you must inspect for clear ice on the top of the wings above the fuel tanks with a special stick (unless the a/c has been retrofitted with heating blankets, which many are now).

3) As far as engine out controllability, the MD-80 for instance, has it's engines closer together than say a 737, but the engines on the fuselage are actually mounted aft-down and out. This really makes it a little more squirly than the 737. I would not have thought so, untill I transitioned to the Douglas.

I will agree mostly with your last statement, that maintenance is more difficult. That is the main reason, in my eyes, that Alaska's MD-80 crashed in LA. I believe that the maintenance personnel pencil whipped the book, and didn't lube the jack screw as often as need per the manual, due to the fact that it turns into quite a project with the "T" tail.

I may be FOS, but this is my opinion!

User currently offlineTrident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 12850 times:

Another disadvantage of the rear engine configuration is the requirement to make the wing stiffer to counteract the upward bending tendency of a wing in flight. This, of course, makes the wing heavier. The positioning of engines on the wing is partly done to provide a downward load to cancel out the bending moment, thus allowing the wing structure to be lighter. The technique was pioneered by Boeing on the B-47 bomber way back in 1948 and has proved a sound principle. How many "brand new" designs follow the "Rear Engine - T Tail" configuration today.

The most qouted "advantage" of rear engines was that it allowed a quieter cabin for passengers. I have my doubts about that, especially for those sitting in the rear.

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...
Under Wing Engines Vs Tail Mounted Engines posted Wed Feb 27 2002 13:41:29 by Qatar
Wing Mounted VS. Fuselage Mounted posted Fri Oct 19 2001 02:16:30 by Jmacias34
First Jet With Two Wing Mounted Engines? posted Sun Mar 20 2005 01:08:00 by ZRH
Airlines With Only Wing Mounted Engines.... posted Thu Feb 27 2003 05:25:02 by Zrs70
A380 Oversized Wing/Empinage Vs Efficiancy posted Mon Feb 27 2006 17:38:49 by SSTsomeday
Blended Wing Tips Vs Winglets posted Wed Apr 6 2005 20:14:16 by Kamboi
A320 Wing Fences Vs. B737 Blended Winglets? posted Sat Feb 1 2003 03:49:21 by N777UA
B787/Blended Wing Body Vs. Airbus posted Tue Jul 31 2001 00:53:33 by Ajax
Tail Mounted Jets And High Wing Props: Safer? posted Tue Nov 28 2000 14:59:05 by Sonic
The End Of Rear Mounted Engines? posted Wed May 17 2006 06:05:30 by United787