Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Comet Engine Location - Why No Longer Used?  
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Could anyone advise me as to why no other manufacturer chose to use the Comet style of having the engines buried in the wingroots ?.

When you look at the Comet, it looks so much more aerodynamic compared to other a/c that have their engines hanging from the wings.

I can understand that on modern By-pass engines it would not be practical to do this, due to the size but why didn't any other manufacturers at the time choose to follow DHc and bury the engines in the wingroots ??.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stefan Sjögren
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kjell nilsson




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Franz Loew
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Schulman



 Smile


"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

I don't know who followed who, but the Tu-16/104 has its engines (only two in that case) located similarly.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Who said...?  Smile


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill ARMSTRONG
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence


The most probably reasons are cabin noise and vibrations. If you put the engine on pylons, it will be easier to reduce those effects than it is with wing root-mounted engines.

Besides that, I think it might have to do with the risk of an engine "flying apart", as witnessed on the UA DC-10 that crashed at SUX. If a blade separated from the engine, it would probably do more harm to a Comet/Tu-104 than to an A340/Il-96.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

As for military aircraft, there are at least the Avro Vulcan and the Tu-16 (as LY744 said):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert Roggeman
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © B Condon


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth - VAP




Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

I think Boeing decided to put them in separate pods, in case of an engine fire. That way the fire would not spread to the other engine.

User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6294 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

BR715 is correct. The pod arrangement provides an extra safety margin. It's also a hell of lot quieter for passengers.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

-Maintenance(the engines are harder to get to in the wing roots)
-Safety(if a Comet engine suffered an uncontained engine failure/fire the fragments would have a good chance of penetrating the fuselage and/or the other engine because it is located so close to it)
-Noise(having the engine so close to the fuselage makes more vibration and noise)


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2606 times:

Do you really want an uncontained engine fire or failure that close to the wing spar?


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 2601 times:

Many reasons already mentioned are (more or less) correct,
however the primary reason for having the engines on the wings suspended from pylons is for...wing bending relief, and the related structural weight savings therefrom.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 2593 times:

And don't forget that the size factor of todays high bypass turbofans doesn't really lend itself to wingroot mounting either.
They have a larger diameter (combined with a generally thinner wing) and are often shorter (a bit) too.
The latter means a longer intake duct, which causes a less optimal airflow into the engine and thus worse performance.
The space in the wingroot is also lost for fuel storage, costing you in range.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2577 times:

Do you really want an uncontained engine fire or failure that close to the wing spar?

not to mention the center fuel tank. also, they are problematic when it comes to mx. vibration and noise in the cabin are reduced by putting them in pods. it's also a lot easier to change the engine if there's a problem when it's hanging in a pod, as opposed to being burried in the fuselage.



"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Didn’t see one of the main issues mentioned. Wing root mounted engines have to have long inlet/outlet ducts, meaning a significant loss of efficiency.

Fan sizes, fire protection, maintainability, noise, uncontained disc failuers, to a degree load path issues (though not as bad as with tail mounted engines)... I think that is about it. I wrote a paper on engine installations once, I’ll see if I can dig it up later and find more.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

Thanks for all the answers.

So if there are so many reasons not to have them there, then why did DH choose to have them in that location ?.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The early Comets had engines with Centrifugal compressors so I guess to keep the engine profile within the wing shape, to reduce the drag, that was the only place where you could put the engines.

The advantage of that location was less assymetric thrust problems in the case of an engine out, bearing in mind the engines weren't that powerful so they could do without the bootful of rudder that would have been required to keep the a/c flying straight if the engines were placed any further outboard

[Edited 2003-08-25 17:29:11]

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

I think embedding the engines in the wing root didn't cause many airflow problems, either. Those old turbojet engines were longer than most current engines are, and this means that the intakes didn't have to be excessively long. They also didn't have to be very wide because of the lack of bypass fans, as stated before.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2438 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Airplane design is a compromise of many different criteria, with many choices/decisions to consider. If all criteria were treated the same, aircraft would look basically the same.


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Having looked in a few Comet books now I can say the engine postion was chosen on the basis of minimising drag due to the low power to weight ratio of the early Ghost engines

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

The wing root mounting was first seen on German bomber projects in the early forties - with up to six engines. Those projects later progressed in Russia and became the Tu-16 Badger bomber and the Tu-104 and Tu-124 airliners. In America I think that the Northrop YB-49 bomber was the only attempt (excluding early fighter planes).

With limited engine diametres this mounting method had obvious aerodynamic and structural advantages, but also a vast number of disadvantages as already mentioned.

One further disadvantage is that the engines take up much needed space for fuel tanks and landing gear.

Tupolev solved that problem by putting the landing gear into separate pods.
DeHavilland put separate fuel tank pods on the wings of later longer range Comets.
The Avro Vulcan bomber had a very thick and wide cord wing with room for everything (except passengers of course).

Another disadvantage is that as jet engines evolved into much more efficient turbofans, then they also became more sensitive to disturbed airflow into the intake, or you would risk a compressor stall. A side slip (e.g. caused by turbulence) at high altitude and high Mach number on a Comet or Tu-104 style plane would not be healthy if equipped with most modern and highly efficient engines.

You see a little of the same principle on trijets like B-727, HS Trident and L-1011. They all had slight performance loss on their #2 engines and higher probability of compressor stalls. The DC-10 and MD-11 went to quite some structural disadvantage to eliminate that slight problem.

It will be interesting to see how the BAe Nimrod Mk4 will perform with new BR715 engines, when they are ready for flight in a couple of years. But then, as the military planes they are, they won't scare the hell out of 200 pax if one day they should suffer a compressor stall.

Kinnd regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Thanks again for all the informative answers.

I knew I could count on this forum to answer my questions.

Cheers guys  Big thumbs up

( hey I can now bore my colleauges with my newfound wealth of info - we sometimes quiz each other in the office about aviation trivia such as how many fan blades in an RB-211 - I now have some new material to challenge them with Big grin )

Once again big big thanks to all who took the time to reply. it is very much appreciated.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Sorry - got into this discussion a touch on the late side.

The use of engine pairs near to the wingroot gives less asymmetric thrust in the event of losing an engine - see next point.

For the safety hazard analyses for the NIMROD, it is assumed that, if one engine fails, then its pair will also fail. In other words, the analyses assumed that the aircraft effectively had two pairs of engines, rather than four separate ones. As you can imagine, this has a significant impact on the probability of loss of aircraft. However, since the NIMROD is designed to fly on two engines during normal service operations, this is not too much of a problem.

On a side note, the use of pylon-mounted engines helped significantly in fixing a major problem - wing flutter. It was found (by Boeing, I believe), that by mounting a weight (the engine) in the middle of the wing, flutter was drastically reduced.



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2160 times:

The engine pylons are designed to burn away in the event of an uncontained engine fire. There is a good picture in Air Disaster Vol 1 of a BOAC 707 with the number 2 engine on fire. After a few mins the pylon burned through and the engine seperated from the wing and fell to the ground. I don't know if the 747 is designed to do this too, or was it only a feature of the 707??

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2160 times:

Putting them out on pylons also makes it a hell of a lot easier for maintaince to get to the engines.


But knowing the way that designers work, there is no way that they where planning for that when they went to the design.

The guys that fix the things are always left out  Sad



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

I think the reason why Boeing went to putting each engine on a separate pylon comes down to this:

1. Safety margins in case of fan blade failure--less likely chance of serious wing damage.

2. Easier to access the entire engine for maintainance purposes.

3. Easier to upgrade to newer engine designs when available. That's why the 707 design went from the original J57 engines to JT3D, JT4D, R-R Conway to the CFM56 installation on military versions and now even the JT8D-219 engine!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Comet Engine Location - Why No Longer Used?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No 1 Engine Jets? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 18:45:47 by Pelican
Starting The No 2 Engine First - Why? posted Fri May 21 2004 23:32:02 by A3204eva
Why No Single Engine Jet? posted Wed Jul 31 2002 14:54:36 by Rabenschlag
Why No Further A330 Stretch? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 03:50:51 by MarkC
A340-600 Why No Body Gear Steering? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:16:18 by BALandorLivery
Why No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 20:54:17 by QFA380
Why No Papi On W/B Rwys At LAX? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 06:58:06 by Adipasqu
De Havilland Comet 4 Engine Placement posted Mon Sep 25 2006 03:22:19 by NZ8800
Why No Douglas Competitor To The Boeing 727? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 21:51:50 by 747400sp
Why No Short Haul Versions? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 14:34:18 by Tobi3334
Why No Overwing Exit On E170? posted Fri Aug 10 2012 11:12:04 by bpat777
Which NAAs No Longer Restrict Twin-engine EDTOs? posted Tue Jun 16 2009 02:28:41 by VirginFlyer
Why No 1 Engine Jets? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 18:45:47 by Pelican
Starting The No 2 Engine First - Why? posted Fri May 21 2004 23:32:02 by A3204eva
Why No NG Boeing 737's Flying HI Inter-island? posted Tue Jul 17 2012 14:06:12 by Valorien
Why No Single Engine Jet? posted Wed Jul 31 2002 14:54:36 by Rabenschlag
Why No Rear-Engined Widebodies? posted Mon Sep 17 2012 17:41:54 by RussianJet
Flaps: Why No Automatic Deployment/Retraction? posted Wed Apr 18 2012 04:59:55 by faro
Why No Overwing Exit On E170? posted Fri Aug 10 2012 11:12:04 by bpat777
Why No NG Boeing 737's Flying HI Inter-island? posted Tue Jul 17 2012 14:06:12 by Valorien
Flaps: Why No Automatic Deployment/Retraction? posted Wed Apr 18 2012 04:59:55 by faro
Why No Curved Windshields On The A380? posted Tue Mar 6 2012 17:12:16 by 747400sp
Why No Curved Windshields On The A380? posted Tue Mar 6 2012 17:12:16 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format