panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:11 pm

Crazy idea, not sure if I can validate it.

How about a commercial airliner with the engines in the wing.

Not hanging from the wing but being part of the wing. This will greatly reduce drag and therefore, make the plane faster and more fuel efficient.

This new concept plane is not a flying wing like the Blended-Wing-Body. Instead it is like a B737/A320 or B777/A330 with the engine inside the wing like the Vulcan for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h.../sci_nat_enl_1157113941/html/1.stm

Because of size the airplane can have 2 or 4 or 6 engines.

Any comments?
 
jgarrido
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:52 pm

you mean like the De Havilland Comet?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter De Jong

 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:16 pm

Yes, something like the Comet.

I would expect that the engines will be as further away as possible from the cabin.

Thanks for the picture.
 
113312
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:09 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:19 pm

The reason Boeing and Douglas designed their earliest turbojet planes with engines in pods were:
Get the engines away from the fuel tanks.
Isolate each engine from the other in case of fire or disintegration.
Isolate the engines from the wing structure for above reasons.
Facilitate maintenance and engine change.
Minimize the airflow disturbance on the wing.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:25 pm



Quoting Panais (Thread starter):
B737/A320 or B777/A330

I don't think even a small CFM (compared to the GE90) would be feasible, or any other HBP turbofan for that matter. The fan's diameter is just too large. And I'd presume having an engine pod/shroud conformed into the wing would be quite heavier with engines like these than the standard engine mountings used today. Not to mention engine removal for MX would be a pain, but I guess a rail(?) system like many fighters have, where the engines just slide in and out, could be feasible.

Quoting Panais (Reply 2):
Yes, something like the Comet.

Considering how tiny those turbojets are, then yeah, they could pull it off. But there are very very few planes that ever had this configuration.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2581
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:25 pm

With high-bypass turbofans, this concept isn't very feasible. You would need a *large* intake opening and "tunnel" through the wing, much larger than the Comet shown above, and that wouldn't work very well. Also, it makes the wing structure much more complex, adding weight to allow sufficient strength around the engines. Also, in the event of an engine fire, I think the last place you want the engine is buried in the wing, where the fire could more easily spread to fuel, electrical, hydraulics and other systems.

I have some friends who once worked for Grumman, and we were talking about the E-2 Hawkeye recently. There is a "hole" through the wing spar structure for the engine to pass through, and one of the struggles they had with trying to upgrade the engines was the diameter of the engine - Allison proposed a more powerful engine, but it had a larger diameter turbine, and Grumman wouldn't redesign the wing structure to accommodate the larger opening needed.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:35 pm



Quoting Panais (Reply 2):
I would expect that the engines will be as further away as possible from the cabin.

The reason engines tend to be placed as close to the centerline of the aircraft as possible is to reduce the roll/yaw moment caused by an engine out situation, and keep Vmc (the minimum control airspeed with a single engine inoperative) within reason. If the pilot allows the aircraft's speed to fall below Vmc while climbing with an engine out, the plane will roll over onto it's back  Wow!
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:40 pm

The Comet was designed by engineers still used to piston engines, and buried the engines in the wings because that was similar to the way prop engines were mounted, at least in terms of the location of thrust vectors. But as 113312 points out, Boeing and Douglas found that there were decided advantages to pod mounting (Boeing actually developed the pod design for the B-47, and found that it had almost no aerodynamic penalty, as well as the functional advantages described.) Once turbofan engines came on the scene with their larger diameters, the structural problems of burying them have made any thought of burying them in the wing a total non-starter. This has also led to the death of tri-jet, as the larger the engine the more problems encountered in trying to mount one in the tail. Remember that the more complicated a structure, the heavier it will be, and having to go around a large engine greatly complicates any structure.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:56 pm



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 6):
The reason engines tend to be placed as close to the centerline of the aircraft as possible is to reduce the roll/yaw moment caused by an engine out situation, and keep Vmc (the minimum control airspeed with a single engine inoperative) within reason. If the pilot allows the aircraft's speed to fall below Vmc while climbing with an engine out, the plane will roll over onto it's back

If you have an effective rudder system the engines can be place further outboard on the wings, providing the paying passenger with a quieter flight. A perfect example is the DC-10 and the L-1011.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:52 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
(Boeing actually developed the pod design for the B-47, and found that it had almost no aerodynamic penalty, as well as the functional advantages described.)

Well, credit does need to be given to the Germans. I believe they were the ones to discover that mounting engines in pods was the best way to go and Boeing got their hands on some of that data after WWII ended.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:09 am



Quoting 113312 (Reply 3):
Get the engines away from the fuel tanks.
Isolate each engine from the other in case of fire or disintegration.
Isolate the engines from the wing structure for above reasons.
Facilitate maintenance and engine change.
Minimize the airflow disturbance on the wing.

AFAIK yet another reason is that engines slung forward alleviate wing twist. The wing tends to twist "back" and the weight of the engines counteracts the tendency.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:38 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 8):


If you have an effective rudder system the engines can be place further outboard on the wings, providing the paying passenger with a quieter flight. A perfect example is the DC-10 and the L-1011.

Well, the DC-10 and and L-1011 were also trijets, not twins, which meant that losing a wing engine wasn't as big of a deal as losing one engine in a twin. The tail engine is also providing thrust, so the roll tendency isn't as great as it would be in, say, a 777-200LR  Wink [where you know that, should you lose an engine on takeoff, the other engine will be instantly cranked up to an insane 115,000 lbs. of thrust!]

I did get a few opportunties to fly on DC10-10s, thanks to AA, who used to use them on intra-Texas routes  Smile I remember it being a really cool experience, but I don't remember "quiet" being part of that experience (and come to think of it, I don't think "quiet" really descibed any McDonnell Douglas product particularly well  Wink ). The first plane that I recall really being blown away by how quiet it was was the 767...

I never did get to try the DC-10's competition, the L-1011, much as I wanted to...  Sad (and a crying shame that is!  crying  )
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:44 am



Quoting Panais (Thread starter):
Not hanging from the wing but being part of the wing. This will greatly reduce drag and therefore, make the plane faster and more fuel efficient.

I think it's pretty unlikely to reduce drag. Although the wetted area will go down, the weight is almost guaranteed to go up because now you need to carry wing bending loads around the engine (check out the banjo fitting on a DC-10 to see how ugly that can get). Also, with a modern high-bypass turbofan, the engine diameter is so large relative to wing thickness (especially if you stick it far outboard) that you've basically added two more fuselages (from the aerodynamic point of view). Wing-fuselage aerodynamics is among the toughest to optimize and it causes a bunch of problems...putting the engines in the wings makes this three times as bad.

If you can truly bury the engine in the fuselage, like fighters and UAV's do, then you can ditch most of these problems. However, for obvious reasons, you can't do that on a commercial jet.

Tom.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:23 am

The Comet was what came to mind almost instantly.
Talking about the comet.how was the dry bay around the engines ensured?
regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:40 am



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 13):
Talking about the comet.how was the dry bay around the engines ensured?

I'm not positive, but I'd assume they didn't start the fuel tank until outboard of the engines.

Tom.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:48 am



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 11):

Well, the DC-10 and and L-1011 were also trijets, not twins, which meant that losing a wing engine wasn't as big of a deal as losing one engine in a twin.

Moving the engines outboard also provides structural benefits. Even in a twin, engineers will tend to move the engines outboard to maximize wing bending relief--they are just more restrained than in three and four engined jets.

If you talk to an engineer who worked on the L1011, they will point out that the wing engines are further outboard, providing a more efficient wing structure when compared to the DC-10. The -10, with its tail mounted engine, has less rudder area, and thus less rudder authority, than the L1011 with its buried engine. Some Lockheed guys are REALLY proud of this!
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:44 am



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 9):
Well, credit does need to be given to the Germans. I believe they were the ones to discover that mounting engines in pods was the best way to go and Boeing got their hands on some of that data after WWII ended.

Even better, Boeing got hold of German designers whom contributed a lot to the B707.
It seem a bit old fashion, Tu-104 and Tu-124 also had this design.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19832
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:08 am



Quoting 113312 (Reply 3):
The reason Boeing and Douglas designed their earliest turbojet planes with engines in pods were:
Get the engines away from the fuel tanks.
Isolate each engine from the other in case of fire or disintegration.
Isolate the engines from the wing structure for above reasons.
Facilitate maintenance and engine change.
Minimize the airflow disturbance on the wing.

And Area Rule. Putting engines out in front decreases the sudden cross-section change of the wing area.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:21 am

Yes, many advantages of the current design, one of the few advantages I can see is less risk for FOD with things from the ground sucked into the engine when it´s higher up.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:43 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 14):
I'm not positive, but I'd assume they didn't start the fuel tank until outboard of the engines.

If true.Structurally that would a huge load outboard.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
jambrain
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:25 pm

Some of the blended wing designs have engines at least partially in wing e.g.
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/research/groups/bwb/
To get the airflow to achieve high propulsive efficiency (it is more efficient to accelerate a large mass of air less) you would need a set of fans driven by gears otherwise the fan diameter would be too large.

see this paper for an overview of performance:-
http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...src=/Climate/ipcc/aviation/094.htm

this paper gives some idea of the improvement in propulsive efficiency that comes from ‘filling in the wake’ with an engine in the wing
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/research/groups/bwb/presentations/ATIO-Nov03.pdf
Jambrain
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:01 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 19):

If true.Structurally that would a huge load outboard.

That is actually an advantage; the more you can distribute the load over the wingspan the easier it is on the wing spars.

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 16):

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 9):
Well, credit does need to be given to the Germans. I believe they were the ones to discover that mounting engines in pods was the best way to go and Boeing got their hands on some of that data after WWII ended.

Even better, Boeing got hold of German designers whom contributed a lot to the B707.
It seem a bit old fashion, Tu-104 and Tu-124 also had this design.

What is your authority on this? I have read "The Road to the 707" by William Cook, who was one of the engineers on the project; he says nothing about any German engineers. And the Boeing design was quite different from the German design; the Germans had the engine tight against the wing (like the 732, which might have been influenced by the Germans) but the B-47 was suspended away from and in front of the wing, which was done to provide sufficient airflow between the engine and under the wing to avoid an increase in drag. This is something the Germans had not done. The idea of sweeping the wing was gotten from the Germans, as well as a lot of the jet engine technology, but I never heard that the podded engine ever was.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Scooter01
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:06 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:42 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21):
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 9):
Well, credit does need to be given to the Germans. I believe they were the ones to discover that mounting engines in pods was the best way to go and Boeing got their hands on some of that data after WWII ended.

Even better, Boeing got hold of German designers whom contributed a lot to the B707.
It seem a bit old fashion, Tu-104 and Tu-124 also had this design.

What is your authority on this? I have read "The Road to the 707" by William Cook, who was one of the engineers on the project; he says nothing about any German engineers. And the Boeing design was quite different from the German design; the Germans had the engine tight against the wing (like the 732, which might have been influenced by the Germans) but the B-47 was suspended away from and in front of the wing, which was done to provide sufficient airflow between the engine and under the wing to avoid an increase in drag. This is something the Germans had not done. The idea of sweeping the wing was gotten from the Germans, as well as a lot of the jet engine technology, but I never heard that the podded engine ever was.

I believe MD-90 is onto something there. As we know, some of the German engineers went to the Soviet Union, where Bruno Baade was in the design-team that developed the Alexeev 150 bomber:
http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/alekseev_150.php

and after that he and some other engineers returned to East Germany and came up with this design:
http://www.aviastar.org/air/ddr/veb_152.php

Not that any of these aircraft became any successes, they had other problems that plagued them, but one can clearly see where the podded engines and the bicycle type undercarriage came from.

About engines buried in the wings, I cannot help thinking about the Avro Canada Jetliner:
http://www.avroarrow.org/Jetliner/JetlinerIntro.html

How quickly we forget...

Scooter01
There is always a good reason to watch airplanes
 
bsergonomics
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:07 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:10 am

The wing-bending argument is irrelevant in the current age of material sciences. However, as Boeing found out (by accident) very early on, if you mount the engines further outboard and under the wing (the former is the important bit rather than the latter), it prevents wing flutter at higher Mach numbers.

So, (ignoring for the moment the arguments about risk assessments, maintenence, fuel capacity, etc.) if you want to mount an engine inside the wing, the big pay-off will be if you mount it in the middle of the wing, rather than close to the fuselage.

The Comet was a world-leader that was killed by its windows, not by the airframe, nor by the engines. However, there is a good lesson to be learned from the Comet - don't mount your engines next to each other. If one lets go, it's liable to take the other one with it.

Enjoy!
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:29 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21):
What is your authority on this? I have read "The Road to the 707" by William Cook, who was one of the engineers on the project; he says nothing about any German engineers. And the Boeing design was quite different from the German design; the Germans had the engine tight against the wing (like the 732, which might have been influenced by the Germans) but the B-47 was suspended away from and in front of the wing, which was done to provide sufficient airflow between the engine and under the wing to avoid an increase in drag. This is something the Germans had not done. The idea of sweeping the wing was gotten from the Germans, as well as a lot of the jet engine technology, but I never heard that the podded engine ever was.

This book, http://www.stenvalls.com/shop/Stenva...ages/shop/1840373113_Boeing707.jpg
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:34 am



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 23):
The Comet was a world-leader that was killed by its windows, not by the airframe, nor by the engines.

In the end though, the Comet configuration was a dead end design. What commercial airplane uses it today?

The B-47 configuration lives on in every Airbus and Boeing commercial transport in production today (except for the bicycle landing gear and the tandem flight deck).
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:39 am



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 23):
The wing-bending argument is irrelevant in the current age of material sciences.

I'm not an expert on materials, but I don't see how the basic rule that reducing loads allows a smaller, lighter structure changing. It may shift on the priority list, but placement of engines, fuel, etc. along the wings should still be important in minimizing the structural weight--no matter what the spars are made of. If I'm missing something, please explain in more detail!

Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 23):
However, there is a good lesson to be learned from the Comet - don't mount your engines next to each other. If one lets go, it's liable to take the other one with it.

Also a lesson sadly taught by the Concorde.

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 22):
About engines buried in the wings, I cannot help thinking about the Avro Canada Jetliner:

Thanks for that link... very interesting aircraft I knew nothing about other than the name. Anyone notice the specs say this old bird had a near 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio? 4x14,400 lbs with a Max Takeoff Weight of 65,000!


http://www.avroarrow.org/Jetliner/Jetliner2.html
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:56 am



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 26):
Anyone notice the specs say this old bird had a near 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio? 4x14,400 lbs with a Max Takeoff Weight of 65,000!

I believe that 14,400 lb is total thrust rather than thrust per engine.

See this reference for the Derwent V:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rolls-Royce_Derwent
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:16 am



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27):

I believe that 14,400 lb is total thrust rather than thrust per engine.

Thanks, makes much more sense! I'm used to specs listing thrust per engine... should have read a bit closer.

By the way OAG, do you have any thoughts on the wing bending relief issue? I thought it was fairly well established as an important design consideration. You tend to be on top of these things!
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:29 am



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 28):
By the way OAG, do you have any thoughts on the wing bending relief issue? I thought it was fairly well established as an important design consideration.

I don't understand the following comment.

Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 23):
The wing-bending argument is irrelevant in the current age of material sciences

Perhaps Bsergonomics will explain in more detail.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:49 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21):
That is actually an advantage; the more you can distribute the load over the wingspan the easier it is on the wing spars.

Considering the Weight of the Engines & the fuel on the outboard side,The wing root attachments would need to cater to a lot of weight.
Understandably no match for the An124 though in terms of wing root attachments load bearing capabilities  Smile
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:53 am



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 23):
The wing-bending argument is irrelevant in the current age of material sciences.

It's still a big deal. If it wasn't, both Airbus and Boeing wouldn't be spending oodles of R&D on active load alleviation as a weight saving measure.

Tom.
 
bsergonomics
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:07 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:09 pm

The comment about wing bending is being taken out of context.

Firstly, wing bending is important, but not paramount. The amount of wing flex on the A380 is simply astounding, but it does not adversely affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. That is due to the advaces in material science.

If you mount the engines further outboard (i.e., in the modern 'standard' configuration), you need extra strengthening on the wing spars in order to cope with not only their weight when the wings are unloaded (i.e., on the ground) but also due to the twisting moment caused by having underslung engines. If you bury them within the wing, close to the fuselage, both of these elements are eliminated, resulting in a considerably lighter wing due to the reduction in wing spar mass. It has the additional benefit that, in the event of the loss of one or more engines on one side, the yaw effect is considerably reduced.

Secondly and as stated above, one of the major benefits of mounting the engines further outboard is that it reduces wing flutter. If a 737 had 2 Comet-style engine mountings, the flutter would either limit cruising speed/VNE, or significantly increase fuel consumption (and, so, cost per passenger), or reduce the aircraft's lifespan (with inherent increases in through-life costs, particularly related to increased maintenance checks).

To cut a long story short, the current 'standard' configuration is due to accidents of history. Boeing tried the outboard configuration, and it worked. The Comet crashed due to its windows and, in the process, killed off the British civil aircraft production industry. Airbus more or less copied the Boeing configuration (I know I'm going to get shot down for that statement, but...). End result? Everyone has concentrated on refining what they are already doing. There have been no real lasting innovations in engine placement in the last 60 years (OK, the Trijet was tried but, ultimately, it died due to maintenance issues).

This isn't meant to mean that the inboard configuration is better than the outboard one, nor vice versa. It simply means that, due to accidents of history, the competition was 'called off' for reasons that had nothing to do with the argument under discussion. If the Comet had had small oval windows, we may have had an entirely different 'stndard' aircraft configuration today.
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:59 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 30):
Considering the Weight of the Engines & the fuel on the outboard side,The wing root attachments would need to cater to a lot of weight.

I don't understand your point. My point is that any weight that is carried directly by the wing is not transferred through the wing root attachments. And if that weight is distributed over the span of the wing, it does not add stress to the spars.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:18 pm



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 32):
If you mount the engines further outboard (i.e., in the modern 'standard' configuration), you need extra strengthening on the wing spars in order to cope with not only their weight when the wings are unloaded (i.e., on the ground) but also due to the twisting moment caused by having underslung engines. If you bury them within the wing, close to the fuselage, both of these elements are eliminated, resulting in a considerably lighter wing due to the reduction in wing spar mass.

I don't believe this is right. Although having the engines outboard will increase the wing root moment when you're parked on the ground, I'd be really surprised if that's the limiting load for the wing. If it is, then yes, you'd have to increase the spar strength. But all of the ultimate load wing tests I've ever seen are bending wings up (flight load), not down (ground load), which means that that critical load is the flight ultimate load. In that case, the engine weight is helping you by reducing the wing root bending moment.

In addition to that, I'm pretty convinced (primarily based on the DC-10 banjo fitting) that the total spar weight increase because the fitting you'd need to carry the spar loads around the engine for an in-wing engine would grossly overshaddow any weight savings you got in the outboard part of the spar.

I'd love to see some counterexamples (that use high-bypass fans) but something doesn't smell right about this.

Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 32):
It has the additional benefit that, in the event of the loss of one or more engines on one side, the yaw effect is considerably reduced.

This is certainly true, and I strongly suspect this is a significant driver in any trade study for exactly where to put the engines on the wing. You've got multiple competing factors, and since adverse engine-out yaw drives tail volume, this must be a consideration.

Tom.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:13 pm



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 32):
To cut a long story short, the current 'standard' configuration is due to accidents of history.

I would argue this. I know that Boeing has constantly played with all kinds of configurations, and I strongly suspect that all of the other manufacturers have as well. The fact that all new airliners follow pretty much the same configuration is because it is the one that works the best. Aerodynamic principles are not dependent on who discovers them; they function exactly the same for Airbus as they do for Boeing (or anyone else, as well.) And just because planes look alike (this also applies to the earlier discussion about the German origins of engine pods) does not mean that one is copied from another; it is perfectly possible for two different designers to independently come up with the same arrangement as the optimum.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:02 am



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 32):
If you mount the engines further outboard (i.e., in the modern 'standard' configuration), you need extra strengthening on the wing spars in order to cope with not only their weight when the wings are unloaded (i.e., on the ground) but also due to the twisting moment caused by having underslung engines.

I agree with Tdscanuck in challenging this. The wing tends to bend over backwards and wing twist is actually counteracted by slinging the engines forward.

Putting the engines outboard enables a lighter spar.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:07 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 33):
it does not add stress to the spars.

The load on the wing root would be much more for a longer span wing & fitted with Engines too,add the outboard distribution of fuel load.
true there are stringers/spars in the wing to distribute the load,but the wing root would be taking a higher load that normal in such cases.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:08 am



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 32):
Airbus more or less copied the Boeing configuration (I know I'm going to get shot down for that statement, but...). End result? Everyone has concentrated on refining what they are already doing. There have been no real lasting innovations in engine placement in the last 60 years (OK, the Trijet was tried but, ultimately, it died due to maintenance issues).

This isn't meant to mean that the inboard configuration is better than the outboard one, nor vice versa. It simply means that, due to accidents of history, the competition was 'called off' for reasons that had nothing to do with the argument under discussion. If the Comet had had small oval windows, we may have had an entirely different 'stndard' aircraft configuration today.

No they didn´t, the engine pod designs for the A300 was bought from McDonnell-Douglas.
Sure the Il-62 and Vic-10 later had 4 engines stacked in the back, Comet didn´t kill the British civilian airspace, the independence of colonies did.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:58 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 37):

The load on the wing root would be much more for a longer span wing & fitted with Engines too,add the outboard distribution of fuel load.

Wrong. The wing distributes lift over its span; any weight that gets distributed over the span is lifted directly, almost like a balloon. That weight does not figure into the wing-fuselage interface; it is borne entirely by the wing.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
moriarty
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:05 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:09 pm

Just a note:

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 24):
The Comet was a world-leader that was killed by its windows, not by the airframe, nor by the engines. However, there is a good lesson to be learned from the Comet - don't mount your engines next to each other. If one lets go, it's liable to take the other one with it.

Concorde... among others. The Concorde crash was a result of a chain of events, one of them was the fact that the engines are/was close to each other.

I assume there are similar risks with the Bone, T-160 and so on. However, not sure how many incidents/accidents that are related to one engine being too close to another on those models.

just a side note.
Proud to part of www.novelair.com.
 
vc10
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:58 pm



Quoting Moriarty (Reply 40):
assume there are similar risks with the Bone, T-160 and so on. However, not sure how many incidents/accidents that are related to one engine being too close to another on those models.

You can possibly enlighten me on accidents were both engines have failed due to being along side each other, but I cannot think of any at the moment, however that does not mean there were not any. Whilst accepting that close engines can cause common problems from ingestion, again I cannot think of a serious incident and I was on aircraft [ for thirty years] that all had engine along side each other.

The Concordes problems was their proximity to the landing gear wheels rather than to each other

Also pylon engines have not got a blameless record here as I seem to remember that on two 747s a single engine coming detached took it's adjacent engine with it [ El Al, & China Airlines ]

Now getting back to the Comet then some possible reasons for buried engines are:-

1] The original jet engines thrust was so small that every thing had to be done to reduce weight

2] Putting engines in the wing allowed the designers to have a shorter Landing gear so saving weight, as with pylons the gear has to long enough to allow the engines to clear the ground. I can assure the Comet was low on the ground requiring you to duck if you walked under the wings.

3] With inboard engines the yaw on an engine out case was a lot less so requiring less rudder , which caused less drag in the engine out case which was quite important if you did not have much engine power to start with. If I remember correctly the original B707 was considered to be lacking in directional control with an engine out and so had extra fin area and boosted rudder from the 400 series on.

From a maintenance point of view working on a buried engine can be a pain, but what I do remember was that when working on the engines your arms would ache like mad as your arms were always above your head. However engines could be changed with a lifting gantry that sat on the top of the wing so no crane required

Talking now about the Comet 4 [even an codger like me was not old enough to work on the Comet 1 ] Fuel was carried in integeral tanks in the wings, which leaked like a sieve, and in addition to that there was a bladder tank in the fuselage centre section

littlevc10
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:22 am



Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 32):
Firstly, wing bending is important, but not paramount.

Remember, "wing bending relief" is not the same thing as wing flex. Its all about balancing the loads in an optimum fashion, regardless of how the wing flexes.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:39 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 37):
> The load on the wing root would be much more for a longer span wing & fitted with
> Engines too,add the outboard distribution of fuel load.

Wrong. The wing distributes lift over its span; any weight that gets distributed over the span is lifted directly, almost like a balloon. That weight does not figure into the wing-fuselage interface; it is borne entirely by the wing.

This isn't exactly true. Although SEPilot is right that the wing is holding itself up, so the wing weight isn't transferred through the wing/fuselage joint, the moment on the wing root does go up as you make the wing longer because the center of lift is moving outboard. The force is the same but it's got a longer moment arm, so the fuselage sees more moment. You can counteract this with wing twist to keep the center of pressure at the same lateral station, but then you're changing more than just wing length.

Tom.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19065
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:23 am



Quoting VC10 (Reply 41):
Quoting Moriarty (Reply 40):
assume there are similar risks with the Bone, T-160 and so on. However, not sure how many incidents/accidents that are related to one engine being too close to another on those models.

You can possibly enlighten me on accidents were both engines have failed due to being along side each other, but I cannot think of any at the moment, however that does not mean there were not any.

It didn't involve an accident, but an LX Avro RJ100 had an uncontained failure on an AMS-ZRH flight in 2004 which resulted in some damage to the adjacent engine when the engine cowling separated from the failed engine. The second engine was shut down and the flight diverted to FRA on the remaining 2 engines on the other side.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20040809-0
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:48 am



Quoting Moriarty (Reply 40):
oting Alessandro (Reply 24):
The Comet was a world-leader that was killed by its windows, not by the airframe, nor by the engines. However, there is a good lesson to be learned from the Comet - don't mount your engines next to each other. If one lets go, it's liable to take the other one with it.

Concorde... among others. The Concorde crash was a result of a chain of events, one of them was the fact that the engines are/was close to each other.

I assume there are similar risks with the Bone, T-160 and so on. However, not sure how many incidents/accidents that are related to one engine being too close to another on those models.

just a side note.

I didn´t say that!
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
vc10
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:27 pm



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 44):
It didn't involve an accident, but an LX Avro RJ100 had an uncontained failure on an AMS-ZRH flight in 2004 which resulted in some damage to the adjacent engine when the engine cowling separated from the failed engine. The second engine was shut down and the flight diverted to FRA on the remaining 2 engines on the other side.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...809-0

Thanks for the information, which is another example to show that engines on pylons are not free from inter engine failure, however I would agree that on close coupled engines the failure of one is more likely to affect it's partner

littlevc10
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:19 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
This isn't exactly true. Although SEPilot is right that the wing is holding itself up, so the wing weight isn't transferred through the wing/fuselage joint, the moment on the wing root does go up as you make the wing longer because the center of lift is moving outboard.

You're right, I oversimplified. But weight added on the outer parts of the wing span reduces the moment on the wing root, especially if it would otherwise be on or near the fuselage. This has been discussed in terms of one of the advantages of a quad is having the two engines fairly far outboard reducing stress on the wing spars.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:22 pm



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 47):
weight added on the outer parts of the wing span reduces the moment on the wing root, especially if it would otherwise be on or near the fuselage. This has been discussed in terms of one of the advantages of a quad is having the two engines fairly far outboard reducing stress on the wing spars.

Absolutely agreed. This is also why airliners burn center fuel first, to keep fuel weight outboard in the wings as long as possible.

Tom.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How About An Engine In The Wing For Airplanes?

Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:32 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
Wrong. The wing distributes lift over its span; any weight that gets distributed over the span is lifted directly, almost like a balloon. That weight does not figure into the wing-fuselage interface; it is borne entirely by the wing.

any notes available?
regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests