YYZALA From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5146 times:
I am wondering if there is any advantage in having a 4-engined airplane with an engine hanging on each main wing and two more engines in the back (MD80 style)? Obviously each design has its advantages and disadvantages but would the combination of both yield better results in terms of fuel efficiency, field performance, etc?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5143 times:
Quoting YYZALA (Thread starter): I am wondering if there is any advantage in having a 4-engined airplane with an engine hanging on each main wing and two more engines in the back (MD80 style)?
The problem I forsee is that any modern airliner that needs 4 engines is big, which means large high-bypass fans. Mounting those on the tail would be a lot trickier than doing it with relatively slim engines like the MD-80.
Vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8211 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5099 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting YYZALA (Reply 3):
Surely 2 engines of y thrust (big) in the front and 2 engines of x thrust (small) on the tail would solve this problem?
Then you have twice as many parts, at least, because you have 2 different engines. More training for people to learn both engines, more maintenance, more spare parts to stock, etc.
Also, you'd have to put the engines on the wing rather far out to avoid having the tail-mounted engines breathing in exhaust from the wing-mounted engines (which is not good). Moving the engines farther out on the wing requires more structure, and probably longer landing gear as well, to achieve acceptable bank angles on the ground without scraping an engine.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1244 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5086 times:
Quoting YYZALA (Reply 3): Surely 2 engines of y thrust (big) in the front and 2 engines of x thrust (small) on the tail would solve this problem?
The cost of maintaining two types of engines on one aircraft, in addition to the inherent inefficiencies generally associated with smaller, low-bypass engines, would make this a non-starter from an economic standpoint.
Boeing evaluated a "thrusting APU" concept for the 777, where a small tail mounted engine would supplement two larger wing-mounted engines on takeoff. Because of the weight and maintenance issues associated with putting a 30,000 pound thrust engine in the tail of a completely different design than the main engines, Boeing determined two larger wing mounted engines were the best solution. I expect any analysis of your concept would yield the same results.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5031 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 5):
The cost of maintaining two types of engines on one aircraft, in addition to the inherent inefficiencies generally associated with smaller, low-bypass engines, would make this a non-starter from an economic standpoint.
The B-36 was probably a non-starter economically in many ways, but it illustrates the problem.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5438 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4925 times:
Surely 2 engines of y thrust (big) in the front and 2 engines of x thrust (small) on the tail would solve this problem?
Then you have twice as many parts, at least, because you have 2 different engines. More training for people to learn both engines, more maintenance, more spare parts to stock, etc.
Another problem is that if you lose the two big engines, the two small ones will only get you as far as the site of the crash.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
Northwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4914 times:
Just a little trivia...the Boeing 367-80 (the 707 prototype) had a JT8D attached to the tail with a "dog-leg" pipe to route exhaust gasses over the horizontal stabilizer. This was done back in the late '50s early '60s, when the JT8D was a new engine, and needed to be tested for the 727, which it would power.
I have a book with photos of it, but can't seem to find it.
Dalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2365 posts, RR: 15 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4895 times:
Hanging a large diameter fan on the tail isn't a problem. Just look at the MD90. Those engines are about the same size as what is on the A340. The problem lies with the structure needed. By putting engines on the wing and the tail both areas need more structure.
Thebatman From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 829 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4848 times:
Here, I believe I've found a picture that basically describes what you're looking for. Of course it's totally fake! I thought it was an interesting photo...
Pilots without aircraft mechanics are just pedestrians with sunglasses and a leather jacket.
SNAFlyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 86 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4796 times:
Quoting Thebatman (Reply 12): Here, I believe I've found a picture that basically describes what you're looking for. Of course it's totally fake! I thought it was an interesting photo...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4645 times:
1) they raise the engines off the ground so that the aircraft can land on semi-prepared fields where FOD is a risk. This was more of an issue back in the days when the first tail-mounted planes were designed. The DC-9 and 727 were examples of planes that might have used a semi-prepared field when they were first introduced, but no aircraft of that size would ever use such a field today.
2) They allow the aircraft to sit closer to the ground, which simplifies loading, MX, etc.
Most modern commercial aircraft do not need either consideration, so major jet transports that have been introduced in the last decade or so have under-wing engines. Private jets may need either of the above advantages, so I expect that they will continue to have tail-mounted engines for some time.
They also significantly increase the aircraft's overall length due to the T-tail design common on most rear-engine designs. That may create some airport gate space issues. For example, the overall length of the shortest DC-9-10 is 6 feet longer than the 737-200, although the DC-9-10 has fewer rows of seats. The 727-200 is also a few inches longer than the longest 707-320.
Aircraft with wing-mounted engines make more effective use of the fuselage length to carry passengers.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4601 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18): The DC-9 and 727 were examples of planes that might have used a semi-prepared field when they were first introduced, but no aircraft of that size would ever use such a field today.
There are still some 737-200's with gravel kits frequenting semi-prepared fields in odd corners of the earth...however, it's not common and, as far as I know, nobody caters to that market with newbuilds anymore.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4550 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
They also significantly increase the aircraft's overall length due to the T-tail design common on most rear-engine designs.
I said they were good for two reasons. There are a lot more reasons why they aren't good. That's one. Worse aerodynamics are another. There's also more difficulty in accessing them for mx.
That's why even the new RJ's have wing-mounted engines.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4462 times:
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4): Also, you'd have to put the engines on the wing rather far out to avoid having the tail-mounted engines breathing in exhaust from the wing-mounted engines (which is not good). Moving the engines farther out on the wing requires more structure, and probably longer landing gear as well, to achieve acceptable bank angles on the ground without scraping an engine.
This is what I was also thinking re: the engines breathing in jetwash. Engines like to breath in cold air and are much more efficient when they do so.
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 4070 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 22): This is what I was also thinking re: the engines breathing in jetwash. Engines like to breath in cold air and are much more efficient when they do so.
And if you noticed, aircraft with tail mounted engines usually come with wings that are mounted lower on the fuselage. MD80/90, CRJs etc. Not sure if this is to provide a clean laminar flow into the engine by avoiding any turbulence coming off the trailing edge of the wing or to save structure/weight or simply you don't need the ground clearance.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 152 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2738 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8211 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6184 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 2485 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21483 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, 
This is what I was also thinking re: the engines breathing in jetwash. Engines like to breath in cold air and are much more efficient when they do so.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
