yyzala
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:43 pm

Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:35 am

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?
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:52 am

The closest thing I could think of that has been built was the Martin XB-51. Photo of a model below.

http://www.scaleworkshop.com/workshop/images/xb51ga_3.jpg

Though the front engines were fuselage mounted, they were kinda under the wing too.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:01 am



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.

Tom.
 
yyzala
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:44 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):

Surely 2 engines of y thrust (big) in the front and 2 engines of x thrust (small) on the tail would solve this problem?
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11765
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:55 am



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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:12 am



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.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:00 am



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.  Wink
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:22 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
Mounting those on the tail would be a lot trickier than doing it with relatively slim engines like the MD-80.

It was done when the VC10 was used as the RB-211 testbed, though an RB-211 is quite small in comparison to the more recent high bypass engines.

Some interesting photos (and a hair raising story) here...

http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:05 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4):
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.

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.
 
bri2k1
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:13 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:17 pm

And, the more engines, the more chances for an engine to break. One good reason to have two big engines instead of 2+n smaller ones.
Position and hold
 
Northwest727
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:38 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:31 pm

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
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:48 pm

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.
 
User avatar
thebatman
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:15 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:58 pm

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...  Smile

http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/xxdarkknight/4engine_CRJ.jpg
Aircraft mechanics - because pilots need heroes too!
 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:23 pm



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?

Well then why not add the 2 small engines together and make a tri-jet? Oh wait, those are uneconomic too...
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
 
SNAFlyboy
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:42 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:20 pm



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...  

Can anybody say...ground clearance?
 scared 

~SNAFlyboy
 
yyzala
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:04 pm

Everyone is posting a lot of negatives, but are there any advantages with such design?
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:34 pm



Quoting YYZALA (Reply 15):
Everyone is posting a lot of negatives, but are there any advantages with such design?

The mechanics who maintain them would all be able to afford new swimming pools.
Anon
 
User avatar
aerdingus
Posts: 2635
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:58 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:51 pm



Quoting Oly720man (Reply 7):


Some interesting photos (and a hair raising story) here...

Very interesting! The size of the RB211 to the whoel VC10 itself is something else, I always thought the old VC was big, but damn, that engine....
2016: BHX GLA KIR LCY LGW MUC VIE BA EI FR LH OS A320 A321 ATR 42 ATR 72 B738 E190 E195
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:05 am



Quoting SNAFlyboy (Reply 14):

Can anybody say...ground clearance?

That's why it's not on the ground, silly!  duck 

Tail-mounted engines are good for two reasons:

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18846
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:34 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Tail-mounted engines are good for two reasons:

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
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:58 am



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.

Tom.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:03 am



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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:53 pm



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.

 checkmark  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.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Engines Under The Wing And On The Tail At Once

Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:30 am



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.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests