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!