bohica
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:49 am

I was wondering if any aircraft manufacturer has ever considered building a widebody with tail mounted engines.

I don't mean anything like the DC-10, MD-11 or the L-1011. I was thinking more like a 727 or a DC-9 likeness.

[Edited 2004-03-29 01:55:35]
 
cainanuk
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 4:05 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:54 am

I guess they never ACTUALLY produced the DC-10 or the Tristar.
Cainan Cornelius
 
L.1011
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:56 am

Try reading the entire post Cainan. As for the question at hand, I think the largest tail-engined planes were the VC10 and IL-62. Interesting question though.
 
bohica
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:00 am

CaiananUK

You got your reply slipped in there while I was editing my original post. Big grin
 
concord977
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 1:43 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:28 am


I know of three concepts that never came to life:

Boeing 747-300 (first concept):


BAC-311 Widebody concept:


Airbus Blended Wing Body concept:


Drawings are public domain and credited to their original owner/poster.




Curt / concord977
Washington, DC



No info
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:58 am

Boeing (OK MDD) also had a blended wing concept for approx 800pax that was rear engined.
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:28 pm


I was thinking about the same thing today. It would be nice to see a 777 with a GE90 or Trent on its tail that would be impressive. I was also wandering if Airbus cant offer a super cargo jet with 5 engines 2 under each wing and 1 mounted in a Tristar format.
Eagles Soar!
 
fanofjets
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 2:20 pm

Vickers had an interesting proposal; here's what I found in one of my old aviation magazines:

Sorry, I cannot get the picture to appear automatically. Try the following link:

http://community.webshots.com/user/dlberek

If that doesn't work, log onto http://community.webshots.com and search for user dlberek.

Cheers,

Daniel
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
flyabr
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 2:29 pm

one would almost think that a widebody with "only" rear fuselage attached engines would be incredibly unbalanced due to the weight of the engines a widebody would require. i would imagine that's why it's never been done ... ?
 
OD720
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:46 am

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:50 pm

The Russian IL-86 was primarily considered to have rear mounted engines.
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:03 pm

OK maybe its a stupid thought as I'm no engineer but.. It has been discussed here either the -30 or -40 DC10 had a rather involved throttle procedure on landing to keep number two from having a compressor stall. I never really understood what caused this but had thought it was the attitude of the aircraft and the interuption of the airflow to the engine by the fuselage at that angle of attack. IF (big if) thats part of it then think what all three/four rear mounted engines might be subject to by a wide body.

Any designers out there?
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17077
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:10 pm

Tail mounted engines on big planes create all sorts of maintenance hassles. Engines that far up require tall platforms, cranes and so on. Also, without engines hanging under the wings, you have to strengthen the wings to avoid bending moment and twisting.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
SkydrolBoy
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:31 am

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:49 am

M404,

Yes the DC-10 had to worry about compressor stalling, the L-1011 and 727 have similar problems. The problem is pretty much caused by what you said, the fuselage disturbing the air into the engine. Mounting three or four engines on the tail would not nessecarily have this problem depending on where you mount the engines, if you mount them on the side like a DC-9, there will be now problem at all, but if you mount one engine in the center of the tail like a DC-10, L1011, 727, you will still have the compressor stall problem to worry about, most likely this is one of the main reasons why this design hasn't really been used in a while.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17077
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:52 am

Not to mention the problem of building the central nacelle/fin structure. Talk about complicating life.

And even without being a 3-holer pilot or mechanic, I can only imagine how much fun it must be to climb all the way up there to check the engine every single time, instead of just peering in with both feet firmly on the ground, or a short ladder.

Wings bend. Need engines to decrese flutter: Solution, hang engines on wing.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:07 am

It's primarily a weight issue. The support structure needed to keep the engines on the fuselage is less efficient (heavier) than having them hanging from the wings.

It's also cheaper to maintain them since wing mounted engines are more readily accessible. Clearly, there are other issues when you consider growth and shrink variants.

Both Boeing and Airbus went through this with the 757 and 320 programs. I suppose the same arguments hold true for widebodies.

I think the BAC 3-11 was to be the largest of the traditionally conceived rear engine widebody designs.
 
cainanuk
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 4:05 pm

RE: Tail Mounted Engines On A Widebody

Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:27 pm

L.1011

Before you flame me, you should realise that the original post was edited. The second sentence was not there when I responded. Sure, I accept your apology.
Cainan Cornelius

Who is online